Chained-2012

Chained-2012

Director Jennifer Lynch

Starring Vincent D’Onofrio

Scott’s Review #627

Reviewed March 24, 2017

Grade: B-

Chained is a 2012 independent horror film directed by Jennifer Lynch, who is the daughter of the brilliant film and television director, David Lynch.

His influence is readily felt throughout.

The film is an exercise in cerebral, psychological horror, and is quite mesmerizing for most of the experience. The ending, however, is the pits and takes away from the enjoyment of the rest of the film in its asinine, quickly wrapped-up, conclusion.

The film is set in an unknown area- all the audience knows is a  decrepit, isolated, cabin in the middle of nowhere and that the shack exists in somewhat proximity to a college town.

Since the film is shot in Canada that is a good enough locale for me to accept.

One day a seemingly happy husband drops off his wife and nine-year-old son at the movies but implores them to take a taxi home as the bus is too dangerous. When they heed his advice, they are accosted by a deranged serial killer, Bob (D’Onofrio), who drives a cab and whisks them away to his remote home.

After he kills the mother, he makes the son, whom he re-names Rabbit, his slave, reducing him to household chores and a somewhat accomplice to the subsequent victims he brings home.

As the years pass and Bob continues to kill, he is determined to have, a now mature, Rabbit, follow in his footsteps.

A large chunk of Chained (and the film is aptly named because Bob commonly keeps Rabbit chained) takes place in Bob’s lonely home and Bob and Rabbit are all each other have for support. Bob presumably earns a living by stealing the cash his victims carry.

Many scenes of a binding nature, albeit perverse, are featured as the two dole away the time between Bob’s kills, almost like a father and son.

Jennifer Lynch wisely moves the film at a slow pace for appropriate build-up.

Bob’s psychologically troubled childhood is told through flashbacks as he is victimized by his abusive father and forced to have sex with his mother, who blames him rather than her husband.

As a result, Bob hates women, and lures victim after victim into his cab and then slices and dices them back at his home.

Bob is sympathetic, like a wounded bird, and whether he rapes the victims before killing them is unclear, as much happens off-screen.

The cabin is purposely suffocating and when Bob teaches Rabbit intellectual facts and encourages him to read and study to become smart, it is a bonding experience.

Slowly, Bob trusts Rabbit more and more.

When Bob makes Rabbit pick out a young girl in a school yearbook to kill, the film kicks into high gear. Suddenly, it becomes vague whether Rabbit is loyal to Bob or still determined to escape. Will he help his intended victim instead of killing her?

David Lynch’s imprint is blatant in both the pacing of the film and more specifically in the low hum musical score, common in his films.

Daughter Jennifer knows her father’s techniques as they continually come into play. A nice homage to Mulholland Drive (1992) appears when a sweet older couple rides in the back of Bob’s cab, reminiscent of the older couple featured in Mulholland Drive.

The gloomy ambiance is highly effective in Chained and the relationship between Bob and Rabbit, not sexual or overly violent, becomes rather sweet in some moments.

The rushed conclusion of the film is disastrous and Lynch’s attempt at a twist goes haywire in the “makes sense” department.

After a compelling fight scene with Bob, Rabbit finally kills him, escapes his clutches, and returns to his father’s open arms (now newly re-married with another son) only to reveal to his father that he knows he orchestrated Rabbit and his mom’s abduction years ago and that Bob is Rabbit’s uncle!

To matters even more confusing, after a dramatic event, Rabbit is sent away yet again and returns to the cabin as his only safe place.

This final act is a real dog, makes little sense, and is tough to digest.

I will give some liberties to 2012’s Chained since the director is spawned from the great David Lynch and the mood and several characteristics mirror his work, but still with her unique vision an obvious characteristic.

Most of the film is a solid effort, but due to the ending of the film being such a letdown, the body of work seems incomplete.

BearCity-2010

BearCity-2010

Director Douglas Langway

Starring Joe Conti, Stephen Guarino

Scott’s Review #626

Reviewed March 19, 2017

Grade: B

BearCity is a small, independent, LGBT, coming-of-age film that tells of a young man living in New York City, and his exploration of a sub-culture within the LGBT community and the subsequent romance that follows.

The film is a comedy and has a “Sex in the City” or “Queer as Folk” approach to its storytelling- a group of close-knit friends and raunchy and gratuitous to be sure.

The budget is very small and some aspects are rather amateurish, but the film is enjoyable, especially for those exposed to the LGBT lifestyle.

The film is not heavy nor are any of the characters dealing with “coming out” issues, but rather it is a fun sex comedy romp.

Our central character, Tyler (Joe Conti), is a young man in his twenties, an aspiring actor, who moves to New York City to pursue his career, with a mind for casual dating.

His roommates encourage him to date Abercrombie and Fitch types, but Tyler comes to realize he prefers “bear” types- mature, hairy men.

On the sly, he begins to pursue this subculture and makes many friends. The apple of his eye, handsome Roger (Gerald McCullough) is a popular mature man, distinguished in the bear circle, and risks his reputation with “the bears” by falling in love with Tyler.

The two men spend the greater part of the film conquering their respective fears and finding their way into each other’s arms in a predictable ending.

BearCity is a fun farce and nothing very heavy and the feature of a strong circle of friends is a nice, positive portrayal- all of the friends connect well and stick by each other through thick and thin.

Comical sub-plots abound such as one couple (Brent and Fred) awkward parlay into the world of threesomes with unsuccessful results.

Another bear who is unemployed, and grossly obese, decides to undergo weight loss surgery much to the chagrin of his hunky boyfriend.

The main story though belongs to Tyler and Roger and their inevitable reunion can be seen miles away. The film throws various hurdles in their ways, such as a third-person briefly dating Roger, or Roger’s commitment issues, but the climax of the film will be no surprise to anyone.

Tyler and Roger make a nice couple as a whole, but perplexing is how the film makes Roger the undisputed leader of the bear group when he is a lean, muscular man- not a “bear” at all!

This is odd to me, but BearCity is so light-hearted that I suppose I can let this detail slide in favor of a good romance.

Critically, the film is nice but quite amateurish, and super low-budget. The acting, especially by some of the supporting characters (the pre-surgery guy’s boyfriend is the most glaring example), is not great.

I half-expected him to accidentally look at the camera.

Additionally, the film has a low-budget look and feel, which on one level is fine, but combined with the not-so-stellar acting, enhances the inexperience of the cast and crew. The film is tough to take too seriously- if this is even the intention of the filmmakers.

The film is a logistical treat for anyone privy to popular gay hangouts in New York City- specifically The Eagle and The Ramrod, both locales are featured prominently, and the use of many real-life people who hang out at those establishments are used throughout the production.

BearCity (2010) is not a bad experience and a film that is light and comical within the LGBT community seems rather fresh compared to the myriad of dramatic and heavy films that exist.

At the same time, the film teeters towards goofy too much with more than one silly, sex-crazed, stereotypical gay man, that it almost gives a bad impression, so the film has mixed results for me.

Sully-2016

Sully-2016

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart

Scott’s Review #623

Reviewed March 10, 2017

Grade: B

I think most film critics would agree that each modern film directed by Clint Eastwood would accurately be described as a compelling film yet safe film, and the 2016 Eastwood offering, Sully, fits into both of these categories snugly- just as Sully feels like a snug film.

Everything seems to fit into a nice package when the credits roll.

While the film is sympathetic and has leanings of a character study, it is also shrouded in a wholesomeness that is incredibly safe and “Hollywood.”

This is not a knock or a detriment to the film, as it is very good, well-made, and has a high budget. However, edginess is not its forte, and it might have been better off with a bit more grit.

The actual film recounts the lively, perilous recent United Airways flight 1549, on which the now-famous Captain Sully successfully landed in New York’s frigid Hudson River one January morning.

Tom Hanks is the subdued and unassuming hero to perfection as his calm demeanor and grounded persona make him a likable chap, to say nothing of saving 155 lives aboard the would-be doomed flight that day.

Instead of going in a purely linear direction, building up the events (gravitating passengers, takeoff) in sequential order until the inevitable crash, Eastwood wisely decides to begin directly after the crash.

Captain Sully, clearly jarred by the events, is startled awake by nightmares. He dreams of crashing into midtown Manhattan instead of safely landing the jet.

The hero is beginning to suffer from symptoms of PTSD.

He is kept in New York City for days on both a press tour, interview after interview, as well as being questioned by The National Transportation Safety Board, who wonder why Captain Sully did not return to a nearby airport for an emergency landing as simulated computer recreations show that he could have.

This leads to both Sully and First Officer Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart) being put under a microscope and questioned.

I was a bit caught off guard and got slightly bored, as the film takes about thirty minutes to focus on the actual crash or show an airplane scene rather than building up the events by concentrating on Sully and Skiles’s mental health. However, in retrospect, Eastwood made a wise decision.

The entire film is barely over ninety minutes total, so the action comes fast and furious mid-stream.

Still, the film is not quite all that it could have been. Despite the potentially horrific consequences faced by an airplane blowing both engines due to the flocks of birds, I never got many extremely perilous moments during the film.

While technically well done, the danger scenes as Sully navigates the plane into the river lack much in the way of the punch.

Sure, there are a few quick shots of passengers praying or appearing frightened, but we never get to know any of the passengers very well.

A “don’t blink or you might miss it” scene of an elderly mother and her daughter shopping for a snow globe at the airport or three men rushing to catch the plane to catch a golf game in Charlotte is not enough for the audience to become too enveloped in their characters.

They almost seem thrown at the last minute as a way of personalizing the passengers.

As I mentioned above, the film’s point surrounds Sully (and arguably it should; there is nothing wrong with that) and, to a lesser degree, Skiles. The supporting characters contain no character development, and even Skiles’s personal life is not explored well.

Scully’s wife is only seen through phone conversations (played by Laura Linney), and he is happily married with two daughters. There is a brief talk about money trouble, but the wife is underdeveloped.

Additionally, the NTSB agents are portrayed as quite antagonistic towards Sully and Skiles (rumors abound that this was embellished for movie making), which makes sense.

I enjoyed the ending of the film- in tandem with the credits rolling- of seeing not only the real-life Sully but his wife and the passengers and crew of the actual United Airlines Flight 1549 through interviews and photographs.

This offering in true-life biography films is now a standard feature to look forward to as it brings a humanistic conclusion to the story just watched.

The film’s focus centers on Captain Sully, which is fine by me- the man is a hero- but as a film, and more than a biography, it might have added depth to have richer supporting characters and a more substantial background of the man that is Sully.

A few rushed childhood aviator and battle plane scenes seemed somewhat out of place.

Still, the film is pleasant and immensely watchable. It will not set the world on fire or be remembered as much more than a decent film based on a true story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Editing

American Honey-2016

American Honey-2016

Director Andrea Arnold

Starring Sasha Lane, Shia LaBeouf

Scott’s Review #622

Reviewed March 6, 2017

Grade: A-

American Honey (2016) is an unconventional coming-of-age drama that deserves kudos for being shot on a shoestring budget and having something of substance to tell.

The film is mainly shot outdoors in heat-drenched Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas during the summer. It follows a group of rebellious, lonely teenagers who attempt to sell magazines as part of a shady con organization.

Their female leader uses cult-like rallying techniques to achieve loyalty.

The film is shot mainly with hand-held cameras and uses only natural light, which is an admirable feat in filmmaking.

The film’s central character is an eighteen-year-old girl named Star, played by novice actress Sasha Lane.

Saddled with a deadbeat boyfriend with two young kids that she is forced to care for, she takes food from dumpsters to survive.

One day, she is approached by a charismatic, handsome bad boy, Jake (Shia LaBeouf). Jake and a group of teenagers offer her a job in Kansas.

Hesitant but realizing her dead-end existence, she accepts the mysterious job and travels with other unsavory characters across the states, where they prey on wealthy, religious types willing to lend a hand under the guise of selling them magazines.

The central story envelopes Star, her romantic feelings for Jake, and the quandaries she faces on the road. She drinks, smokes, curses, and is sexually active, yet also savvy and wise beyond her years.

The audience wonders if she will continue this lifestyle and worries when she meets older men—all rather well-mannered and affluent.

Will they pay her for her magazines or some other form of entertainment? How will Star handle propositions and scrapes in and out of precarious situations? Throughout the film, Star grows up and becomes kind and confident.

American Honey is extremely lengthy at two hours and forty-three minutes long, especially given that the film is an independent feature and does not seem to contain many concrete plot points or much of a conclusion.

It seems to go on and on and on.

Despite this, the film never bored me. I was pretty enraptured by the antics of the story’s characters, and I found myself quite fond of the surprising love story shrouded in the hip-hop and rap soundtrack.

Star and Jake (thanks mainly to the talents of Lane and LaBeouf) have genuine chemistry and likability as a couple.

The mystery surrounding Star is we know nothing about her parents or family or how she came to this existence at such a young age. At one point, she does mention her mother dying of a meth overdose, but it is unclear whether she makes this story up for the benefit of a magazine sale or if it is the truth.

Star is rebellious but brilliant and capable, all the while exhibiting kindness to strange children and her “colleagues.”

Two key aspects of American Honey are interesting to note: the film uses almost all non-actors. Director Andrea Arnold scouted and offered roles to most of the kids at local malls or various hangouts, so the film has a powerful rawness and energy, given that it is largely improvised.

Also, the film is almost entirely shot using a hand-held camera or cellphone, which creates a shaky, documentary-style feel. However, these characteristics do not give American Honey an amateurish feel; instead, they give the film an authentic quality.

The left-of-the-center approach of featuring male frontal nudity and same-sex relations gives the film much credo as an alternative film- the teens also swear and use drugs quite a bit, which could turn some off.

Receiving a heap of 2016 Independent Film award nominations (but winning none), my reason for watching American Honey (2016) breathes some fresh air into the world of independent cinema, where sometimes too many big-name stars appear in the indies to garner some credibility.

Watching a film of novices or individuals with no acting aspirations creates a good story that is worth something. And kudos to Arnold for spinning such a fresh tale.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Andrea Arnold, Best Female Lead-Sasha Lane, Best Supporting Male-Shia LaBeouf, Best Supporting Female-Riley Keough, Best Cinematography

The Children’s Hour-1961

The Children’s Hour-1961

Director William Wyler

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner

Scott’s Review #620

Reviewed March 3, 2017

Grade: B+

The Children’s Hour (1961) is one of the earliest films to center around an LGBTQ+ theme and the subsequent scandals the subject would provoke in the innocent year of 1961-pre Civil Rights and pre-Sexual Revolution.

However, since the film was made in the year that it was, homosexuality was presented as something dark and evil rather than something to be accepted or even embraced.

Still, the film and its director, William Wyler, are brave enough to recognize the topic. Still, they cannot create a compelling film rich with well-written characters and some soap opera-style drama.

The Children’s Hour is based on a play from 1934 and written by Lillian Hellman.

The setting appears to be New England, perhaps Connecticut or Massachusetts, though the film never identifies the exact area.

College friends Karen (Audrey Hepburn) and Martha (Shirley MacLaine) open a private all-girls boarding school catering to their affluent community. They run the school with Martha’s Aunt Lilly, a faded Broadway actress who often hen-pecks the women.

Karen has been dating handsome obstetrician Joe (James Garner) for two years. When he proposes marriage, she hesitantly accepts, which saddens Martha.

All the while, spoiled brat child Mary, furious over being punished by her teachers, plots revenge against Martha and Karen and embellishes a heated discussion between the ladies into a scandalous lie she whispers to her grandmother (Fay Bainter).

The grandmother promptly tells the parents of the other students, who remove their children from the school en masse. The lie is that Karen and Martha are lovers, and Mary witnessed the two women kissing.

Meanwhile, Mary is blackmailing a fellow student, Rosalie (Veronica Cartwright), over a stolen bracelet.

The town ostracizes Martha and Karen.

The Children’s Hour becomes even more compelling when one of the women begins to realize that she does indeed have homosexual feelings towards the other woman and has always harbored anger and resentment as well as feeling “different” from other women.

As well-written as the film is, the fact that the audience does not get to hear what Mary whispers to her grandmother is instead telling and prevents the film from being even more powerful than it is.

Also, the downbeat conclusion to the film sends a clear message that in 1961, audiences were not ready to accept lesbianism as anything to be normalized or to be proud of.

The decision was made to make it abundantly clear that one of the central characters is not a lesbian. Any uncertainty may have risked freaking out mainstream audiences at the time.

Since the traditional opposite-sex romance between Karen and Joe is at the forefront of the film, I did not witness much chemistry between actors Hepburn and Garner. Still, I might have been at the point of achieving a subliminal sexual complexity.

The Children’s Hour and William Wyler deserve heaps of praise for going so far as to suggest that censorship in film in 1961 would allow them to offer nuggets of progressivism mixed into a brave film.

Incidentally, Wyler made another version of this film in 1936 named These Three. Because of the Hays Code, any hint of lesbianism was forbidden, causing Wyler to create a standard story of a love triangle between the three, with both Martha and Karen pining after Joe.

What a difference a couple of decades make!

MacLaine and Hepburn must be credited with carrying the film and eliciting nice chemistry between the women. However, it is too subtle to be realized if the chemistry is of a friendship level or a sexual nature.

And I adore how Wyler makes both characters rather glamorous and avoids stereotypical characteristics.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Fay Bainter, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White