Heathers-1989

Heathers-1989

Director Michael Lehman

Starring Winona Ryder, Christian Slater

Scott’s Review #207

580335

Reviewed December 25, 2014

Grade: B

My gut tells me that Heathers was quite controversial and influential upon release in 1989 and has sustained a cult following that continues to this day- 2014.

Having seen the film for only the first time, in 2014, the film is good, but now suffers from a slightly dated look and feel. Still, it is a brave and unique expression of creativity.

It is a film that sends the message that the popular kids are bad and that the meek shall inherit the earth. The uncool kids will rise.

To summarize the plot, Heathers is told from the perspective of high school student Veronica Sawyer, played by a young Winona Ryder. She is a second-tier popular girl- she is lieutenant to the generals if you will.

The school is run by three popular girls named Heather. As popular as they are, they are also despised and feared by the other students but carry great influence. They enjoy playing cruel jokes on other students and ridiculing anyone beneath them.

A rebellious male student, J.D., played by Christian Slater, befriends Veronica and they hatch a plan to destroy the popular clique, including another pair of popular jocks.

Shannon Doherty plays second in command Heather.

The tone of Heather’s is surreal and dream-like. For example, in the opening scene all three Heathers- along with Veronica- are on a perfectly manicured lawn in the suburbs playing croquet.

The hierarchy is established as Veronica seems to be buried up to her neck and is the target of the croquet balls making her, without question, the lowest of the four girls. Whether or not this is a dream or real is unclear.

The film is well-written and edgy. It reminds me at times of The Ice Storm and American Beauty, which Heathers preceded, and are superior in my opinion.

Heathers is a teen angst film and quite dark at times- the various deaths are committed viciously (drain cleaner poisoning, concocting a setup for the jocks to appear to be having a love affair with each other and then passionately shooting each other), but with sly wit and humor.

Veronica is, at heart, a good girl, albeit misguided and heavily influenced by J.D., but her intentions of having a fair, just school society are noble. The character is likable.

All the parents are hilariously portrayed as buffoons and have no idea of the darkness that exists in their kid’s lives- Veronica’s parents in particular.

Fearing that Veronica has committed or soon will attempt suicide, they fret that it is their fault stemming from childhood negligence, however, their concern has more to do with themselves than with Veronica’s well-being.

Small gripes about the film are the 1980s style outfits and hairstyles, which, since made in the 1980s is not a particular fault of the films- though it does contain a slightly dated feel to it while watching in present times.

Also, Christian Slater mimicking Jack Nicholson’s voice is odd- was this a decision by the film or by the actor himself? Either way, the imitation is both distracting and confusing. What is the point?

The ending of the film is a happy and satisfying conclusion- however, different from the dark tone of the rest of the movie- rumor has it the studio had some influence in toning down the original ending.

1989 was not a stellar year for film so Heathers deserves major props for thinking outside the box and doing something dark and creative.

Brave, inventive, and unique, Heathers is a cult classic worth a look.

Independent Spirit Award Nominees: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Winona Ryder, Best Screenplay, Best First Feature (won)

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

Director Cecil B. DeMille

Starring Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, James Stewart

Scott’s Review #204

60034703

Reviewed December 14, 2014

Grade: B+

Considered by some critics to be one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time, The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) is quite an impressive Hollywood spectacle and tells the story of the world’s largest railroad circus as they launch a tour and travel throughout the United States, with plenty of drama to experience throughout the film.

The film stars Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, and James Stewart as the general manager, acrobat, and clown of the show, respectively.

The film used over 1,400 real Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey employees and hundreds of animals in its production, giving it an authentic circus feel.

Unfortunately, the film also has a schmaltzy quality and lacks the best acting, which surprisingly does not bother me and, strangely enough, works in a way.

Various characters have affairs with each other or fall in and out of love rather quickly- it makes for good drama, anyway.

Of course, the main appeal is the extravagant show. While the drama sometimes takes center stage, the lavish production and actual circus events shine through.

My favorite character, and arguably the only interesting character with any depth, in The Greatest Show on Earth is Buttons the Clown, played by James Stewart.

Buttons wears his clown costume, complete with full makeup, at all times. He is kind and mysterious. We learn that he “mercy killed” his dying wife and has joined the circus for protection from the police.

A wonderful human being, he was once a Doctor and tends to anyone in the circus troupe who needs assistance. Later in the film, he plays a vital role after a tragic accident.

His heartbreaking, tender conversation with his elderly mother, whom he only sees secretly once a year for seconds as she tearfully and discreetly visits him in the audience, is painfully sad to watch and is such a sweet scene.

The Greatest Show on Earth’s best scene by far still impresses today is the massive train wreck close to the conclusion.

Made in 1952, the special effects and direction of Cecil B. DeMille are brilliant. The train derails one night in a perfect way—it crashes into an approaching train and derails, highly effective in its enormity.

The scene does not look silly.

The way that all of the drama comes together in this scene—Harry, the crooked midway concessionaire and vicious elephant trainer, Klaus, who is responsible for the accident, Button’s true identity being revealed, and a significant character in peril—makes this scene top-notch and a satisfying conclusion to the film.

The stories involving Brad, Holly, Sebastian, and Angel are soapy and melodramatic and are the film’s weakest point. As a viewer, I couldn’t care less which character lusted after which or who wound up in bed together, but the movie itself is a spectacle, which is my main enjoyment.

The brightness, the revelry, and the circus performances are all wonderful.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Motion Picture (won), Best Director-Cecil B. DeMille, Best Story (won), Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing

The Theory of Everything-2014

The Theory of Everything-2014

Director James Marsh

Starring Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones

Scott’s Review #199

80000644

Reviewed December 2, 2014

Grade: A-

The Theory of Everything (2014) tells the uplifting true story of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (played by Eddie Redmayne) and his lifelong battle with a debilitating illness- motor neuron disease, which he was diagnosed with in college.

He and his future wife, literature student Jane Wilde (played by Felicity Jones), meet in 1963 at the prestigious Cambridge University in England and fall madly in love.

From this point, the film focuses on their life-long love affair and Stephen’s subsequent health battles.

Redmayne is wonderful in the lead role.

Portraying a character with both speech and mobility deterioration is not an easy task, especially as the problems become worse and worse over time forcing the actor to express varying levels of disability.

Redmayne rises to the occasion with both believability and conviction making his portrayal as real as possible.

The performance fondly reminded me of another great physical performance, Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot from 1989.

Redmayne is a rising star in Hollywood.

Felicity Jones is also good, though I feel many actresses could have handled the role and there is not as much meat in her part as Redmayne’s.

The remainder of the cast is British actors making the film an authentic feeling. Emily Watson, who plays Jane’s mother, shamefully receives only one scene. Was this talented actress’s role cut?

I get the sense that the filmmakers had Oscar on their minds as the film is geared towards mainstream audiences with a wholesome slant.

The film skims past the complex theories and mathematical aspects and focuses more on the inspirational tale of a person overcoming an immense challenge.

Furthermore, the subsequent quadrangle between Hawking, Jane, Jane’s choir leader (Jonathan), and Hawking’s nurse (Elaine) are toned down and safe from what transpired. Hawking’s family accused his nurse of abusing him which is never mentioned in the film.

The film presents their relationship as wonderful, so clearly, some facts have been softened or omitted altogether, an example of how the film goes for a moral feel.

The situation involving the four real-life characters is messy, but the film makes it seem sweet. Presumably, this is because all the characters are still alive.

This is an interesting aspect of the film and is not necessarily a criticism as much as a perception. Many films embellish reality for entertainment value.

The pairing of Jane and Jonathan seemed inevitable from the moment they met. They had much in common (religion), whereas Stephen and Jane were complete opposites- she was catholic, he was atheist.

The sexual chemistry between Stephen and Elaine was evident when they met. Elaine’s energetic sexiness perfectly contrasts with Jane’s at that point in the film- haggardness and weariness.

The film is not designed to be a downer as it could have been. The focus might have been more sadder than it was. Rather, it is sentimental and empowering.

The Theory of Everything (2014) is a heartwarming, conventional, human story about a man rising above adversity, and at the center of the film is one dynamic performance by Eddie Redmayne.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne (won), Best Actress-Felicity Jones, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score

The Normal Heart-2014

The Normal Heart-2014

Director Ryan Murphy

Starring Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer

Scott’s Review #198

70302186

Reviewed December 1, 2014

Grade: B+

The Normal Heart is a 2014 HBO television movie based on the true story of Ned Weeks, an openly gay AIDS activist/writer, played by Mark Ruffalo.

The film is set during the period when the epidemic first surfaced, from 1981-1984, and the challenges and frustrations faced, mostly within the gay community, to bring exposure and assistance to the disease.

Weeks was famous for establishing a group of passionate members who banded together to attempt to hurdle these struggles.

The film was produced by Brad Pitt.

This is wonderful to know as films with this content (AIDS) are often tough to produce. It’s wonderful that Pitt’s wealth and influence were used effectively.

At a vastly different time in the country to be gay, the government did very little to assist with financing funding for treatment or researching a cure for it, which is the main point of the story.

The talented cast makes this film what it is.

Matt Bomer plays Ned’s closeted gay lover, Felix Turner, one of the many casualties of the deadly disease. Bomer lost forty pounds in preparation for the role.

Julia Roberts plays polio-stricken doctor, Emma Brookner, who was instrumental in helping the sick when few others within the medical community wanted to.

Other actors providing support are Alfred Molina, who plays Ned’s supportive, powerful, attorney and brother, and Joe Mantello, who has a terrific meltdown scene as his anger and anguish over the disease not being taken seriously by the government finally bubble to the surface.

Finally, Mark Ruffalo plays Ned competently, but why the slight feminization of the character? The real Ned Weeks was masculine. A needless stereotype the film (or Ruffalo) chose to pursue.

The film shows the discrimination faced by AIDS victims, from an airline pilot refusing to fly a plane carrying a sick patient, to an electrician refusing to enter a patient’s hospital room to fix a television set.

This is sad when one realizes how ridiculous these unfounded fears proved to be.

According to the film’s statistics, a major point of the film is how the United States Government, specifically President Reagan, did very little in the way of funding or even wanting to discuss the issue for years following the initial outbreak, resulting in thousands of lost lives.

And why exactly is Reagan considered a great President?

It makes one ponder. It was only due to beloved Hollywood star Rock Hudson acquiring and dying from the disease and Elizabeth Taylor using her star power to get people involved that finally led to the topic being discussed and action taken on a federal level.

My slight criticism of the film is that it looks and feels like a television movie similar in texture to Behind the Candelabra (2013), another HBO film.

The colors are bright and vivid and look television-like. could have used darker lighting and perhaps a gloomier more dower feel, especially given the subject matter involved in the story.

Otherwise, thumbs up and respect for bringing this story to millions of viewers and hopefully educating those who were not there.