Tag Archives: Drama

A Man Called Ove-2016

A Man Called Ove-2016

Director-Hannes Holm

Starring-Rolf Lassgard

Scott’s Review #653

Reviewed June 12, 2017

Grade: A

A Man Called Ove is a wonderful 2016 Swedish film, honored with a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar nomination, that is just a darling watch-in fact, the film is wonderful.

Equal parts whimsical, humorous, and heartbreaking, the film churns up emotions in me brought to the surface, and that is quite telling about the experience.

The film is magical in a sense.

The lovely scenery of Sweden also abounds, making A Man Called Ove an unexpected marvel and certainly worth checking out for good film lovers.

Ove (Rolf Lassgard) is a fifty-nine-year-old curmudgeon living in suburban Sweden. He is the keeper of law and order in his quaint, little community of bungalows, regularly ridiculing rule breakers and the oblivious with torrents of shouts and insults. He despises several of his neighbors including a beautiful cat that saunters around the complex as if she owns the place.

When an interracial family moves in next door to Ove, his life forever changes as he becomes acquainted with the husband, the wife, and their two young girls. In his newfound entertainment, Ove regularly visits his deceased wife’s gravestone, bringing her flowers, and plotting his suicide.

Through flashbacks, we are taken on a journey through the past as we learn all there is to know about Ove.

The film as a whole is a beautiful experience and, admittedly, I worried at first that A Man Called Ove would be too lighthearted and sentimental- just the type of foreign language film the Academy far too often recognizes in place of darker, more complex (and in my mind, deserving) films.

A Man Called Ove is not exactly dark, but certainly not trivial or fluff either. I found the film rich with great writing and character development.

Romance is also a major theme of the film, but not in a corny way. For a good portion of the running time, Ove’s deceased wife Sonja is a complete mystery. We only know that Ove misses her terribly and cannot wait to be with her in the afterlife. We only get brief glimpses of her photo on the table.

When finally introduced to the story, we see them both in their younger years, filled with hope and promise. I beamed with delight during these wonderful moments. The scenes of their innocent first dates and the connection they develop are heartwarming and innocent.

Later, when Sonja’s story is wholly explored, we come to a new appreciation for Ove and why he is the way he is in present times- we understand him better and the character develops.

Some of the paths that life takes Ove and Sonja are tear-inducing and emotional, largely due to the character and personality that Sonja possesses. On the heels of the Ove and Sonja back-story, we are treated to scenes of Ove and his father, in the past.

His mother dying way too young, the pair develop an unrelenting bond that is severed only by tragic circumstances.

Ove’s constant bungled attempts at suicide (he buys poor quality rope to hang himself, a visitor interrupts his attempt to breathe in toxic garage fumes, and he ends up saving a life when he intends to be hit by a train) are the comic turns that the film mixes perfectly with the heavy drama.

A perfect balance of drama, comedy, churning emotions, and heartbreaking honesty, A Man Called Ove is a pure treat in modern cinema and is highly recommended for those seeking a treasure with a full array of characteristics.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Fences-2016

Fences-2016

Director-Denzel Washington

Starring-Denzel Washington, Viola Davis

Scott’s Review #652

Reviewed June 11, 2017

Grade: B+

Denzel Washington and Viola Davis both give dynamic performances in Fences, a film directed by Washington himself, and based on a stage play, written by August Wilson.

The film reunites several actors from the stage version and, while compelling, Fences does not translate as well onto the screen as hoped. Throughout the film, I kept surmising how much better Fences would be on the live stage.

Still, a tremendous acting tour de force transpires, which is well worth the price of admission.

Set in 1950’s Pittsburgh, Troy Maxson (Washington) is a struggling fifty-three-year-old black man, working as a trash collector alongside his best friend, Jim Bono. Married to Rose (Davis), they share a teenage son, Cory, an aspiring high school football player.

In the mix are Troy’s younger brother, a mentally impaired World War II veteran, and Troy’s older son, Lyons, a fledgling musician. Everyone lives in a close-knit community and there is a sense of comradery, though the principal characters are frequently at odds with each other as dramatic situations slowly arise.

Troy is a very angry man, frequently going on rants about his time playing in the Negro baseball league and complaining about the unfairness of the world, specifically the racial injustice of the time.

The friction between Troy and Cory is thick as Cory wants to dedicate his life to football, while Troy feels his son will ultimately be disappointed. When Troy drops a startling bomb on Rose, their lives are forever changed as they work to mend the damage inflicted between them.

Fences at its core is a family drama and the story offers tons of conflict. Almost all of the action takes place in the Maxson family home- a two-story brick house- and scenes frequently play out in the backyard. In this way, the film stays very true to its roots as a stage production, which is good and bad.

The film feels like a play, so therefore I found myself fantasizing about how good the production would be on the stage rather than on the screen, especially since some of the actors (namely Washington and Davis) starred in that version. What a blessing and a curse.

The film feels a bit too limiting at times and contains a glossy “Hollywood look” to it. This is all well and good, but the stage version would undoubtedly be more bare-bones, giving the production more of a raw feel- especially important in several key dramatic scenes between Troy and Rose.

Despite other opinions, I did not find Troy to be a likable character at all. Certainly, Washington infuses power and good acting grit into the character, but I found few redeeming qualities. To say nothing of the situation with Rose, he does not treat his son Cory with much respect.

I found Troy’s repeated verbal rampages and stories irritating after a while, and began to wonder, “why should we root for this man?”

Viola Davis deserved the Best Supporting Actress award she received for her turn as Rose. Dutiful, loving, and woefully underappreciated, her character rises well above a traditional housewife, as during one pivotal scene, she explodes with rage.

Davis, a fantastic “crier”, saves her best tears for this part, as it is a weepy portrayal. But more than that, she exudes a strong woman, in a time when black women had it particularly tough.

I would have preferred an edgier film than the final result of Fences brings to the big screen, but the wonderful performances more than compensated for what the film otherwise lacks in darkness. At times too safe and slightly watered down, the stage version may be the one to see.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Denzel Washington, Best Supporting Actress-Viola Davis (won), Best Adapted Screenplay

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Director-Mel Gibson

Starring-Andrew Garfield

Scott’s Review #651

Reviewed June 9, 2017

Grade: B+

Hacksaw Ridge is considered somewhat of a comeback film for troubled director Mel Gibson, having not directed a film in over ten years.

The film received several Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Andrew Garfield). While the film has a few minor flaws, and despite being yet another exhausting war film, Hacksaw Ridge is quite powerful, mostly because of the warmth and convictions that Garfield breathes into the central character, and real-life hero, Desmond Doss.

The film also leans anti-war and pacifistic, needed components in these troubled times.

During World War II, Desmond is a young man living in Virginia. With a brother around the same age, they deal with an abusive, alcoholic father and a passive mother. Desmond realizes he has a talent for medical care and, after falling in love with a small-town nurse, he decides to enlist in the Army as a non-combat medic.

After refusing to use weapons and train on Saturdays, he is met with contempt by his commanding officers and fellow recruits. When, inevitably, Doss and his troops are deployed to the Pacific theater during the Battle of Okinawa, Doss becomes a hero when he saves numerous lives on the frightening  “Hacksaw Ridge” in courageous form.

For the first half or so of the film (save for a peculiar opening battle sequence that comes into play during the second half of the film), the action largely either takes place in Desmond’s hometown of Virginia or at a basic training facility.

We get to know a bit about Desmond’s childhood experiences, his love life, and his love of country and duty. His father, a retired military man himself is damaged- he drinks, beats on his wife, and hits the boys, though Gibson tones down the abuse by not showing much of it.

He saves the real gore for later in the film.

The film during the earlier portions has a very mainstream, safe feel to it and I found more than a couple of aspects to nitpick. Desmond’s fellow training recruits are laced with too often used stereotypical, stock characters- the brooding one, the cocky one nicknamed “Hollywood” for his good looks and tendency to walk around naked, the funny one, the strange one, the list goes on and on.

Predictably, drill Sergeant Howell (played by Vince Vaughn, now parlaying from comedy roles to drama) is tough as nails. This is a character we have seen in dozens of war films before it and it feels stale as do all of the characters.

Some of the jokes used are cheap one-liners like, “we are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy” to describe new surroundings- Duh?

Additionally, there is glaring machismo in the first half that is a negative to the film and it makes the film feel like nothing more than the standard fare.

However, the second half of Hacksaw Ridge drew me in much more than the first half did. Now in Okinawa, the film grips a much darker tone with the inclusion of battle scenes, some very gruesome with the loss of limbs and life.

Technically speaking, the cinematography and camera work is shaky and move very quickly, causing an effective shift from the sun and peace of the United States to the dark and fog of unfamiliar territory.

A sweet scene between Desmond and brooding former rival, Smitty Ryker, inside a foxhole, is wonderful as we get to know each character much better within that one scene.

Both men discuss their pasts and grow a new affection for one another. It is humanistic and character-driven and thereby makes the film much more powerful.

Andrew Garfield is a marvel in the film and deserves the attention received for the role. Coming into his own as an actor after suffering hiccups with Spider-Man, he has thankfully returned to character-driven and empathetic roles.

The role of Desmond is a truly heroic role for him and he is wonderfully cast.

A war film with a distinct Anti-war message, Hacksaw Ridge is overall a “guy’s film” with the female characters taking a backseat to the men, and suffering from some tried and true aspects, and some of the hairstyles seem 2016, but in the end, the film depicts a wonderful human being and tells his heroic story, so that makes the film a good watch.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Mel Gibson, Best Actor-Andrew Garfield, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Fellini’s Roma-1972

Fellini’s Roma-1972

Director Federico Fellini

Starring Britta Barnes, Peter Gonzales

Scott’s Review #649

Reviewed June 5, 2017

Grade: A-

Fellini’s Roma (1973) is a trippy experience through Rome during two different periods

As with all Fellini films, the film is meant to be experienced rather than analyzed.

One must nestle into the life that Fellini offers on-screen- in this instance the fabulous city of Rome, Italy in both positives and negatives.

The experience was very good for me, as both a world of odd characters and of ancient Rome oozed from the screen appealingly and absurdly.

From a plot narrative- there is a rot one. Arguably the only character portrayed is Rome herself. The film takes place in both the 1930s as well as the 1970s and is said to be an autobiographical tale of director Fellini’s experiences growing up in Rome.

We see little Fellini as a youngster, experiencing the vast city for the first time, and as a teenager now living in the city. Interestingly, the film traverses from both sets of periods back and forth with really no rhyme or reason.

Throughout the film, we see both the beauty and the ugliness of Rome- the majestic Colosseum and the dirty entrails of the gloomy city. Scenes of seedy brothels, mainly in the 1930s, and a myriad of strange and scantily clad females prance before the cameras looking for a lucky score amid the droves of men lusting after them.

Another depicts a fashion show, of sorts, taking place at the Vatican, involving nuns and priests in bizarre costumes.

The 1930’s setting is my personal favorite. Gritty, cold, and harsh, the bleakness of Rome is depicted. Unsurprisingly, this has much to do with the historical period Since Mussolini was in power, and on the eve of World War II, the darkness was apparent.

In a frightening scene, bomb sirens wail while a woman shrieks in panic. The brothel scenes are downright creepy and the subsequent theatre scenes involving drunken, rowdy, young men leering and cursing at the entertainment, is a particular slice of a life sequence.

In contrast, the 1970s sequences are layered with more beautiful depictions of the city. Brighter colors are featured, and there appear to be either scientists or explorers digging into ancient ruins and finding gorgeous art that is subsequently ruined by the blowing air. We also see hippy types basking in the sunlight.

Again, much of this film is largely open to interpretation.

I adore Fellini’s Roma in terms of an expression of the city of Rome as an art form, but the film is highly unconventional- another plus for me.

Sure, I may have desired to learn more about the bevy of creepy and potentially interesting characters, but I finished the film with an appreciation of Rome, unlike none I have ever known.

A startling final scene, in which legendary Italian film star, Anna Magnani, appears scantily clad, implied to be a prostitute, was filmed shortly before her untimely death at the age of sixty-five.

As a film, Fellini’s Roma is a wonderful history lesson, but also a lesson in interpretation and film appreciation. Most filmgoers are accustomed to a beginning, middle, and end, as well as some semblance of a plot.

Roma contains none of that, but rather, is mind-opening and still fresh many years after its release, which is a true testament.

Spa Night-2016

Spa Night-2016

Director-Andrew Ahn

Starring-Joe Seo

Scott’s Review #645

Reviewed May 19, 2017

Grade: B+

On the surface, Spa Night may seem like a straight-ahead independent LGBT-themed film (of which in recent years there is no shortage of), but the plot of the film is twofold.

Sure, it tells the coming of age story of a young man’s sexuality, but Spa Night is also a story of the boy’s Korean parent’s financial struggles and their desire to raise a son into a successful young man, sacrificing their happiness in the process.

The film’s tone is very subtle and the action moves slowly, but it is a sweet story and a relevant one.

David Cho is a shy Korean-American high school student on the cusp of going to college. His parents (who only speak Korean) have sadly recently lost their take-out restaurant in Los Angeles. The parents struggle to make ends meet (she by waitressing, he by doing odd moving jobs), while David takes SAT classes to ensure he gets into a great college.

David is also struggling with his sexuality and one night visits a local male spa with drunken friends. He gets a job there and begins to experience male on male shenanigans taking place on the sly in the spa, all the while developing his blossoming sexual feelings.

David’s development in the story is key- he is resistant to coming out as gay because his parents are traditionally Korean, constantly mentioning David finding a girlfriend and succeeding in school, becoming what they have failed to achieve.

When, at one point, he fools around with another male in the spa, David insists on a no kissing policy. This reveals to the audience that he has issues with the intimacy with another male and in one compelling scene some self-loathing occurs.

When he stares too long at a buddy in the bathroom, while both are inebriated, this clues in the friend, who is then distant towards David.

The film is enjoyable because two stories are being told rather than one, which helps the film succeed. We also care a great deal about David’s parents, compassionately portrayed rather than the stereotypical “tiger mom” and a rigid father.

Wanting only the best for him, and having no clue about his sexuality struggles, they trudge along with their issues. The father drinks too much and the parents frequently squabble. This is a clue to the film because it explains why David is hesitant to mention anything to them, even though he is close to his parents.

I also enjoyed the slice of life and coming of age appeal that the film possesses.

Several shots of day-to-day life in Los Angeles are shown, mainly as characters go about their daily routines. The budget allotted Spa Night must have certainly been minimal, but the lesson learned is that some fantastic films are made for minuscule money, but as long as the characters are rich and the story humanistic, the film succeeds- this is the case in Spa Night.

Almost every single character is of Asian descent- I am guessing all Korean actors. This is another positive I give to Spa Night.

In the cinematic world, where other cultures and races are woefully underutilized or still stereotypically portrayed, how refreshing is that Spa Night breaks some new ground with an LGBT-centered film with Korean characters.

Spa Night was deservedly crowned the coveted John Cassavetes Award at the 2016 Independent Spirit Awards (for films made for under $500,000) and director Andrew Ahn is certainly a talented novice director to be on the watch for.

He seems destined to tell good, interesting stories about people.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: John Cassavetes Award (won), Acura Someone to Watch Award

Elle-2016

Elle-2016

Director- Paul Verhoeven

Starring-Isabelle Huppert

Scott’s Review #644

Reviewed May 17, 2017

Grade: A-

Certain to evoke both disgust and intrigue from viewers brave enough to watch it all the way through, and hopefully ponder the character dynamics, Elle is a titillating French film that was showered with heaps of praise upon its release in 2016.

Controversial without question, in large part by the film’s main character, Elle will undoubtedly divide film fans- some heralding the picture as greatness, others detesting it as too exploitive.

Not an easy watch by any measure, one aspect is cemented in truth-Isabelle Huppert gives a fantastic performance in a complex and perverse role.

Unique even in its first scene, Michele Leblanc (Huppert) is a ruthless, alpha, businesswoman, who is raped and beaten by an intruder in her lavish Paris home.

The violent act occurs in the very first scene immediately giving the film an “in your face” presence. When the rapist, who wears a ski mask, flees, Michele shakes off the incident with nary an emotional scar.

Through backstory, we learn that years ago Michele’s father brutally murdered many people and is imprisoned for life. Michele’s mother is an aging glamour girl who hires sexy male escorts. Michele’s son is engaged to a domineering pregnant woman, and her ex-husband is dating a younger woman.

Michele lives a complicated life.

At first, Michele seems like a sympathetic character and we feel her pain as she is taunted by a woman in a coffee shop for her father’s past deeds.

To say nothing of her rape, we cringe when Michele hears noises and imagines the masked intruder returning to rape again, empathizing with the character.

When Michele is harassed by the mystery man- he sends coy notes and leaves “gifts” in her home- we are scared for her. However, as the film goes along Michele’s obsession and other questionable actions, make the character tough to like.

I also began to wonder if, perhaps, the entire film was being imagined or dreamed in Michele’s head!

As a fan of acclaimed film director, Claude Chabrol, Elle appears to be heavily influenced by him.

Director Paul Verhoeven certainly must have studied his works. No slouch himself- female-empowering sex films such as Basic Instinct and Showgirls that he directed, come to mind, he gives Elle a sleek and sexy feel.

The fact that it is set in romantic Paris somehow helps and also makes the film glamorous and cultured. Verhoeven even weaves a whodunit into the story for much of the film until the rapist is revealed shockingly.

If the film had ended with the big reveal, this would have made for a compelling, if not mainstream Lifetime television type film, but Elle takes off from this point. Michele, already fancying her handsome rapist, actually begins a macabre relationship with the man, going so far as to act out the rape again- her fantasies coming true!

This story turn may repel the average viewer, but to me, this turns the film into a completely left-of-center, layered, psychologically themed story. Elle is not a revenge tale or a film about a victimized woman, it is so much more.

What a dynamic performance Ruppert gives and here is why- she successfully makes Michele both sympathetic and reviled.

Besides the aforementioned rape complexities, she despises her mother, sleeps with her best friends husband, and in a scene that arguably makes Michele cross the line in reprehensible behavior, she confesses her affair to a best friend Anna, just when Anna is at her happiest moment- this is downright cruel!

So, no, the audience does not completely sympathize with this character, but how layered does this make the character, and what a treat for actress Ruppert to sink her teeth into a character like this one.

With a wounded yet cold central character-Elle-in large part thanks to exceptional direction by Verhoeven and a brilliant portrayal by Huppert, takes Elle into largely unchartered territory and brave waters to create a film that will make the viewer both think and loathe.

Part nymphomaniac wounded bird, and vicious shark, Elle contains a complex and memorable leading character.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Isabelle Huppert

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Isabelle Huppert (won)

Free Fall-2013

Free Fall-2013

Director Stephan Lacant

Starring Hanno Koffler, Max Riemelt

Scott’s Review #641

Reviewed May 3, 2017

Grade: A-

Free Fall is a 2013 German-language film that is very reminiscent of the highly influential LGBT film, Brokeback Mountain (2005), only set in Germany- during present times.

The loneliness, struggles, and deceit that the characters face are similar in both films and both are arguably bleak as overall films. I, however, truly enjoyed this film and embraced the touching aspects and truthful writing.

In the case of Free Fall, as compared with Brokeback Mountain, only one of the male characters is a family man- coming to terms with his sexuality at very bad timing, while the other male character is more comfortable in his skin.

A case could be made that a similar characterization is apparent in Brokeback. In both films, a love story develops between two men, and outside forces thwart their happiness.

The film is a very good watch and the love scenes are particularly steamy and emotional.

Marc Borgmann is a young police officer, fresh out of the academy, living with his very pregnant girlfriend, Bettina. They are temporarily staying with Marc’s parents until the baby is born.

Seemingly happy, Marc befriends a recruit, Kay, and they begin a ritual of jogging together in the forest.

Both men are young and handsome and very masculine- an aspect in an LGBT film that I find as a positive. Kay is much more brazen about his sexuality than Marc, and they eventually fall in love with the added pressure of their very macho surroundings, and Marc’s pregnant girlfriend to contend with.

Free Fall, as the title implies, is not a cheerful, romantic film, as a whole- nor is it completely bleak either. Yes, the love affair between Marc and Kay has some happy moments, but more often than not they face some sort of peril and do not get much time to relax and enjoy each other.

As circumstances begin to unravel, Marc’s girlfriend slowly suspects something is going on with Marc, but when Kay is outed (the film suggests he purposely outs himself) during a gay nightclub raid, their lives spiral out of control.

The film itself is very realistic and does not come across as forced or plot-driven. The acting by both principal actors (Koffler and Riemelt) is quite strong and I buy their attraction instantly.

The scenes where Marc questions whether the pair are buddies while internally fighting his attraction for Kay are excellent and very passionate. The range of emotions on the face of the actor, Koffler, is excellent.

Passion is felt during every scene the pair share together.

The way many of the supporting characters are portrayed, however, is disappointing,  yet also a brutal strength of the film. Marc’s parents are quite unsympathetic to either Marc or Kay and are written as stereotypical, anti-progressive, and rigid.

When Marc’s mother catches Marc and Kay kissing, she coldly chastises Marc for being “raised better than that”. In her mind being gay is bad- the father wholeheartedly shares her beliefs.

Another of the cops in the police academy is written as homophobic, but the film wisely writes Marc and Kay exceptionally well, proudly with none of the unfair effeminate qualities films and television still seem to cling to.

The characters are not written for laughs, nor should they be. They are strong men.

The film wisely throws in a handful of supportive characters, like the police force as a whole- teaching and recognizing diversity and inclusion, and a fellow cop who is supportive of the situation with Marc and Kay, but most of the characters come across as harsh and unfeeling to same-sex attraction.

The conclusion of the film is slightly disappointing as the story ends abruptly and in a rather unsatisfying way- rumors of a proposed sequel have circulated the film.

Shot on a very small budget, the funding for a follow-up film must still be raised, which hopefully will occur. A nicer (and happier) ultimate resolution would be great.

American LGBT films, sometimes going too much the comical, or worse yet, the sappier route, can take a lesson from this treasure of a German-language film.

Free Fall (2012) is a humanistic, realistic, and brave film that I hope more people find themselves experiencing. The film will touch those who are either involved in or sympathetic towards the LGBT community.

The Lobster-2016

The Lobster-2016

Director-Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring-Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz

Scott’s Review #635

Reviewed April 20, 2017

Grade: A-

One thing is certain about the puzzling 2016 film, The Lobster- it is a film worthy of discussion long after the end credits roll and will leave the viewer pondering many facets of the film- a great film to dissect if you will.

This in itself is worth recognition and praise to the power of the film- so many questions abound.

I was immediately struck by how heavily The Lobster contains major subject matter influences from “message novels” (and films) such as Brave New World, 1984, and A Clockwork Orange, as well as creative, stylistic recent film influences from The Grand Budapest Hotel and the Moonrise Kingdom.

The story begins somewhere outside of Dublin, where David (Colin Farrell) has recently been dumped by his wife in favor of another man.

Now single, he is whisked away by authorities to a luxurious hotel in the woods, where he (and the other guests) are given forty-five days to find a suitable romantic partner, or else they will be turned into an animal of their choice.

David is accompanied by his brother, now a dog, and has decided, should he be turned, that he will become a lobster because he loves the sea and they tend to live to be over one hundred years old.

The hotel management adheres to strict rules- no masturbation, mandatory temptations by hotel employees, and a strange outdoor hunting game where the guests hunt other guests to win extra days extended to their stays.

As David befriends fellow hotel guests, he is conflicted and desperate to find a mate. Events take a surprising turn when circumstances allow the rules to change for him and he becomes involved with a short-sighted woman (Weisz).

The plot of the film is strange beyond belief, yet also incredibly creative and thought-provoking. The subject matter is pure dystopian- a facility, presumably controlled by the government, with a rebel group intent on ruining the “status quo”.

Mixed in with all of this suddenly appears an odd little secret romance between David and Shortsighted Woman that begins only during the final act of the film.

One aspect of the film that I found interesting was the odd monotone dialogue that the characters used- almost matter-of-fact in whatever they were saying, even while expressing anger.

This peculiarity perplexed me, but the more I think about it, the more this decision makes the film dark-humored and dry with wry wit.

Another interesting nuance to the film is the multitude of quirky characters, many of whom are mainly referred to by their nicknames. Lisping Man, Limping Man, and Nosebleed Woman to name a few.

And what viewer would not spend the duration of the film imagining which animal he or she would desire to be turned into and why?

My favorite aspect of the film is the offbeat performance by Colin Farrell- typically a rugged, sex symbol, he goes against the grain and plays a pudgy, socially awkward, insecure man, but all the while instilling the character with enough warmth and likability to make the character work- and his chemistry with Rachel Weisz is fantastic.

This turns the strange dark comedy into a strange romantic drama.

A beautiful forest becomes the backdrop for a large part of the film as does the city of Dublin itself, contrasting the film in nuanced ways. Combined with the lavish hotel, the film achieves several different settings for the action, each meaningful in its own right.

Without giving anything away, the conclusion of the film- the final scene in particular- is positively gruesome in what goes through the viewer’s mind, and the resolution is left very unclear. Does David do it or doesn’t he?

Much of the film is open to one’s interpretation and imagination.

Black humor and cynicism are major components of The Lobster, which is a thinking man’s movie. I continue to think of this film as I write this review.

The film flairs with originality and thought and this is a great positive. Confusing and mind-blowing? For sure. A run-of-the-mill film? Not.

The Lobster is a film that gives no answers and is not an easy watch, but an achievement in film creativity- something sorely needed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

99 Homes-2015

99 Homes-2015

Director-Ramin Bahrani

Starring-Andrew Garfield, Michael Shannon

Scott’s Review #633

Reviewed April 13, 2017

Grade: B+

99 Homes is a 2015 independent film that contains an underlying theme of morality as its central message, bubbling to the surface throughout the run of the film as our main hero is faced with a major dilemma.

Set in 2010 amid the dark economic housing crisis where thousands of families lost their homes to foreclosure, the film is depressing at times but turns uplifting towards the end.

Reminiscent of The Big Short and Inside Job in subject matter, we witness a wonderful performance by Andrew Garfield in the lead role, with a worthy supporting turn by Michael Shannon as a venomous opportunist.

Director Ramin Bahrani immediately creates tension with a taut musical score that bombards the screen. We see a poor victim of foreclosure, having shot himself to avoid the humiliation of being evicted from his home, followed by the introduction of a powerful real-estate mogul, Rick Carver.

Carver has wisely capitalized on the slew of Florida working-class families, living well beyond their means and novice homeowners, booted from their homes thanks to adjustable mortgages that they cannot afford to pay.

Andrew Garfield plays Dennis Nash, a struggling construction worker, raising his young son and presumably supporting his mother (Laura Dern). They are fated to be evicted even though they have tried to win an extension with the court- months behind in their mortgage payments. They feel victimized and are forced to move to a seedy motel that houses many others in the same circumstances.

Desperate for work, Dennis ironically ends up working for Rick and becomes encased in the dishonest world of real estate scheming- manipulating banking and government rules at the expense of homeowners who are down on their luck.

The main point of the film is the exploitation of the “working man” at the expense of “the man” and Rick is an example of this beast. Dennis represents the goodness of humanity as he wrestles with the moral repercussions of evicting families since he has met with similar circumstances.

Is the money worth the pain and the hardship he causes people? How is it Rick has no morals, but Dennis does? Will Dennis choose money and lose himself in the process? What would the viewer do?

Despite the morality questions, the film does play like a slick thriller, with a few slight contrivances and the “wrapped up in a neat bow” style ending.

This slightly makes the film lose its luster at times. It is implied that the film ends happily for Dennis and that Rick gets his “just desserts”, but what about the characters kicked out of their homes?

Sadly, as in real life, they are largely forgotten by the end of the film and play as footnotes in a larger story. Some follow-up as to what happens to them might have been nice.

99 Homes is a thinking man’s film and will undoubtedly leave the viewer asking what he or she would do in many situations that Dennis is faced with.

The emotions ooze from the face of Andrew Garfield as Bahrani uses many close-ups and enough cannot be said for Garfield’s bravura performance.

In one heart-wrenching scene, he is forced to evict a man and his wife and children from their home, the man reduced to tears, comforted by his wife-Dennis is pained. In another, an elderly man with nowhere to go is evicted, left defeated by the side of the road.

These scenes may have played as overwrought, but Garfield convincingly brings honesty and raw emotion to the work.

Laura Dern is very good in her role as a young mother, Lynn,  to Garfield’s Dennis and I am perplexed why she was cast- she barely seems old enough to play convincingly as his Mom, but she does pull it off.

However, I could not help but desire more meat from this Oscar-nominated Actress- sure there is one great scene when Lynn realizes the extent of Dennis’s involvement with Rick, but I wanted more.

Still, the acting all around in this film is superb.

What left me so bothered by 99 Homes is that situations just like the ones that played out in the film are examples of countless real-life occurrences people experienced due to greed, dishonesty, and uncaring fellow human beings and that is a sad realization.

Director, Bharani, surrounded by a stellar cast, brings this realism to the big screen in raw, honest, storytelling.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Michael Shannon

The Visitor-2011

The Visitor-2011

Director Tor Iben

Starring Sinan Hancili, Engin Cert

Scott’s Review #630

Reviewed April 4, 2017

Grade: B-

The Visitor is a 2011 LGBT-centered film that is set in Berlin, Germany but features mainly Turkish characters.

While the film tells a nice story and features some cool shots of the metropolitan city, it is rather amateurish in style.

The pieces of the film do not always come together or fit very well and there is no character development to speak of, but still, the film does have good intentions with a nice message and theme that deserves at least a few props.

The story involves a young male and female couple, Cibrial and Christine, who are dating. Cibrail works as a policeman and the pair seem to be in a happy relationship, enjoying walks and dinners together.

One day, when Christine’s gay cousin, Stefan, comes to town, the relationship between Cibrail and Christine sours. The cousin is openly gay and comfortable with his sexuality, while Cibrail secretly harbors feelings for the same sex, which he dares not tell Christine about, though she eventually catches on dramatically.

Stefan is looking for action, cruising the city and parks for sex and companionship, while Cibrail is both lustful and jealous of Stefan.

Many scenes involve Cibrail looking longingly at Stefan and fantasizing about him. In that regard, the film teeters on being quite steamy and features more than one nude shower scene- this smoldering element helps the film avoid complete doldrums.

Specifically, Cibrail showers alone during one scene, washing and presumably daydreaming about Stefan. But too many other scenes show a character jogging or walking around the park- too much like filler material.

The climax of the film is highly predictable as the two men find their way into each other’s arms, though the passion is not exactly evident to the audience.

The lack of buildup is a negative aspect of the film because there is very little rooting value and too many questions.

Is the film a love story? Is it supposed to be about Cibrail coming to terms with his sexuality? Why do we not see more of a blowup scene between Cibrail and Christine?

He simply moves out once she catches him in bed with Stefan and before we know it, Stefan and Cibrail passionately embrace and the film closes in celebration.

A side story involving a dead body found in the park- a park known for gay shenanigans- is included as Cibrail investigates the crime with his police partner, but this seems to have nothing to do with the main plot unless we are to suspect one of the two men as the killer, but this is hardly focused on.

Another shot of a gay pride parade in Berlin is included, but is this to make it known that The Visitor is a gay film?

Additionally, a statue of two men is shown in several scenes for seemingly no other reason than to reinforce that the film is gay-themed.

The Visitor is a simple story of two men finding each other, which is a nice message, but the film’s run time is a brief seventy minutes, hardly enough time for character development.

A muted, videotaped look does not help the film seem very professional, and seems downright amateurish as an entire film, so much so that I would not be surprised if a film student might have made The Visitor (2011).

Bonnie and Clyde-1967

Bonnie and Clyde-1967

Director Arthur Penn

Starring Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway

Scott’s Review #628

Reviewed March 25, 2017

Grade: A

Bonnie and Clyde is an excellent 1967 crime drama that is not only a great film, but successfully, and surprisingly wound up influencing an entire generation, becoming somewhat of a rallying cry for the youth generation of the time.

Released in a tumultuous period in history (the Vietnam War, the Sexual Revolution, and Civil Rights), the film fits the times and was groundbreaking in its use of violence, blood, and sex.

The film holds up tremendously well to this day and is beloved by intelligent film lovers everywhere.

The film begins with snapshots of the real Bonnie and Clyde- a duo of bank robbers who rampaged the southwest during the Great Depression.

Set in steamy Texas, circa the 1930s, the film tells its story.

Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) meets Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) when he tries to steal her mother’s car one hot day. Instantly infatuated with each other, the steamy duo team up and become partners in crime.

Over time they enlist the help of others and become more successful bank robbers with the stakes rising with each heist. Rounding out the crew of criminals are gas-station attendant, C.W. Moss, and Clyde’s older brother Buck, played by Gene Hackman, along with his wife, Blanche (Estelle Parsons), an innocent-minded, and sometimes hysterical, preacher’s wife.

Bonnie and Clyde is a unique film in many different ways- the quick-cut editing style influenced Sam Peckinpah in his films to come, and the film uses a fast-paced rat-a-tat-tat style that symbolizes the gunfire-a major element of the film.

Blood spurts from victims’ bodies in a style never before seen on the big screen and led to many filmmakers’ comfort with using increased violence.

You could say that Bonnie and Clyde took away the innocence of Hollywood films and shook all of the traditional elements inside out.

The conclusion of the film is one of the greatest in cinematic history.

Far from an idyllic, happy ending, traditional with films in those days, the law finally catches up with Bonnie and Clyde with grim results for the pair, and their demise is gruesome but true to form.

We have fallen in love with the characters so their hasty exit from this world is tough to stomach and as they writhe and twitch with each gunshot wound, the bullets pummeling the bodies, the scene is a difficult one to watch.

The love story between Bonnie and Clyde is intense, yet sweet, and the casting of Beatty and Dunaway is spot on. Smoldering with sexuality- as Bonnie fondles Clyde’s gun who does not see this as a phallic symbol- their relationship is fraught with stamina and emotional energy.

The two actors feed off of each other and fill the scenes with gusto. Their chemistry is part of what makes the film so great.

One of the best scenes is the shoot ’em up showdown at a ranch where the group of robbers is hiding out the scene is laden with intensity and violence. As Buck is mortally wounded, Blanche is blinded and captured, soon to make a grave mistake in revealing one of the identities of the others.

Bonnie, Clyde, and C.W. barely escape with their lives and their antics from this point become bloodier and bloodier. The cat and mouse play during this scene makes it the most suspenseful of them all.

Amid all of the violence, a wonderful scene exists when Bonnie and Clyde meet up at a secret location with Bonnie’s mother. A local townswoman and non-actress were cast in the pivotal role of Bonnie’s mother and the scene is an emotional experience.

The woman’s kindness and sensibility and the sheer “regular person” she encompasses humanize Bonnie and Clyde, and ominously, their downfall is soon to occur.

A heavily influential film, Bonnie and Clyde is a film that is still quite relevant, especially for those who appreciate the good film, and rich, intelligently written characters, who are flawed, yet humanistic, layered with complexities.

This is what director, Penn, carves out, and the film is an all-time Hollywood classic.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Arthur Penn, Best Actor-Warren Beatty, Best Actress-Faye Dunaway, Best Supporting Actor-Gene Hackman, Michael J. Pollard, Best Supporting Actress-Estelle Parsons (won), Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography (won)

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 compelling films yet safe films and the 2016 Eastwood offering, Sully, fits into both of these categories in snug fashion- just as Sully feels like a snug film.

Everything seems to fit into a nice package by the time the credits roll and 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 demerit towards the film as it is very good and well made with a high budget, but edgy is not its thing in the least and it might have gone for a bit more grit.

The quite recent perilous United Airways flight 1549 that now-famous Captain Sully successfully landed into New York’s frigid  Hudson river one January morning, is recounted in the film.

Tom Hanks plays the role of the subdued and unassuming hero to perfection as his calm demeanor and grounded persona makes him quite a likable chap to say nothing of the fact 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 has already happened.

Captain Sully, clearly jarred by the events, is startled awake by nightmares as 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 getting slightly bored, as the film takes about thirty minutes to even focus on the actual crash or show and airplane scene, rather building up the events by focusing on Sully and Skiles mental health, but in retrospect, this is a wise decision by Eastwood.

The entire film in itself is barely over ninety minutes total so the action does come fast and furious mid-stream.

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

The danger scenes as Sully navigates the plane into the river, while technically well done, 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 are not enough for the audience to become too enveloped in their characters.

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

To my mention above, the point of the film certainly surrounds Sully (and arguably it should; 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 by way of phone conversations (played by Laura Linney) that he is happily married with two daughters. There is brief talk of some 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 real 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 focus of the film centers on Captain Sully 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 stronger background of the man that is Sully.

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

Still, as a whole the film is nice and quite watchable, just nothing that will 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 is an unconventional coming-of-age drama that deserves kudos for not only being shot on a shoe-string budget, but also for having something of substance to tell.

The film is mostly shot outdoors throughout the scouring summer months in heat-drenched Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas, as the film follows a group of rebellious, lonely teenagers as they 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 by hand-held cameras and only uses natural light, which is an admirable feat in film.

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, along with a group of teenagers, offers 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 bible-states, where they prey on wealthy, religious types willing to lend a hand, under the guise of selling them magazines.

The main story envelopes Star, her romantic feelings for Jake, and the quandaries that 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 comes into contact with older men- all rather well-mannered and some 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? Star grows up throughout the film. Star is also a kind and confident character.

At two hours and forty-three minutes long, American Honey is extremely lengthy, especially given the fact that the film is an independent feature and also seems not to contain many concrete plot points nor much of a conclusion.

It seems to just go on and on and on.

Despite this, the film never bored me and I was quite enraptured with the antics of the story’s characters, finding myself quite fond of the surprising love story shrouded amongst the hip hop and rap soundtrack.

Star and Jake (thanks in large part to the talents of Lane and LaBeouf) have true 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 very intelligent and capable, all the while exhibiting kindness to strange children and her “colleagues”.

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

Also, the film is almost entirely shot using a basic hand-held camera or cellphone eliciting a shaky, documentary-style feel. Instead of these characteristics giving American Honey an amateurish feel, it gave 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 the film, American Honey 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 simply create a good story is worth something in itself. 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 is one of the earliest films to center around an LGBT theme and the subsequent scandals that the subject matter 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 bad rather than something to be accepted or even embraced.

Still, the film, and director William Wyler are brave enough to recognize the topic- with limitations to spin 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 of the film appears to be somewhere in New England, perhaps Connecticut or Massachusetts, though the film never really says the exact area.

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

Karen has been dating handsome obstetrician, Joe (James Garner) for two years when he proposes marriage and 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 that 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, of course, is that Karen and Martha are lovers and that Mary has witnessed the two women kissing.

Meanwhile, Mary is blackmailing a fellow student, Rosalie (Veronica Cartwright) over a stolen bracelet. Martha and Karen are then ostracized by the small town.

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 rather 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, but might have this been the point in achieving a subliminal sexual complexity?

The Children’s Hour and William Wyler deserve heaps of praise for going as far as censorship in film in 1961 would allow them to successfully 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, though it is too subtle to be realized if the chemistry is really of a friendship level or a sexual nature.

And, I adore how Wyler decides to make both characters rather glamorous and avoid any 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

Hidden Figures-2016

Hidden Figures-2016

Director-Theodore Melfi

Starring-Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monae, Octavia Spencer

Scott’s Review #619

Reviewed February 26, 2017

Grade: A-

Hidden Figures is a mainstream, “Hollywood” style film that is produced, written, and acted very well.

It is a film that tells of three female African American mathematicians who faced many struggles and were rather overlooked at the time, the early 1960’s. The women achieved historical success and were instrumental in allowing John Glenn to orbit planet Earth.

From a film perspective, the story is feel-good but does not feel contrived it feels quite fresh and features a wonderful ensemble cast with nice chemistry.

I enjoyed this film immensely.

Blessed with good smarts, Dorothy Vaughan (Spencer), Mary Jackson (Monae), and Katherine Johnson (Henson) are fortunate enough to work for the Langley Research Center – the time is 1961.

In those days, segregation still existed and the women worked as temporary workers and used separate “colored” bathrooms and were largely excluded from the white workers.

The three women are best friends and drive to work together- each of them has an individual specialty and the film focuses on each woman’s story.

The larger role and main story are about Katherine. Since the Russians had achieved success in outer space already, the race was on for the United States to follow suit. Katherine is assigned as a “computer” in the Space Task Group, led by Al Harrison (Kevin Costner).

Initially, Katherine is dismissed by her colleagues but eventually is accepted due to her smarts. In sub-plots, Dorothy struggles to be given a Supervisor position, and Mary aspires to be the first female engineer, despite needing entry into an all-white school to take necessary classes.

My favorite of the three performances is Taraji P. Henson.

The actress impresses with her spunky, well-mannered, portrayal, and specifically her fantastic scene when she has simply had enough of the segregation and the difficulty in performing her job.

She loses it in front of the entire team and rails against them- expecting to lose her job, instead, her boss Al, (a fantastic nice-guy role for Costner), sees her point and declares NASA will see no distinction of color.

Henson is the lead actress in the film and carries it well.

The chemistry between the three actresses is what allows Hidden Figures to work so well and come off as believable. The women always have each other’s backs and are friends outside of work- attending church and picnics together.

The film is smart to feature women’s lives outside of their professions.

A nice side story of single mother Katherine (her husband having died) meeting and being courted in lovely fashion by handsome National Guard Jim Johnson (Mahershala Ali) is a sweet story, genuinely told.

The two also have nice chemistry together.

The film’s finale as the attempted launch of John Glenn is met with problems, is compelling. Due to the genius of Katherine, she must save the day as Glenn trusts only her judgment and calculations of the ever so important numbers.

The scene is a “just desserts” moment for Katherine as the country rallies behind the events in patriotic fashion.

Hidden Figures plays it safe and the true struggles of the real women undoubtedly had darker and meaner situations as the discrimination they faced had to have been more intense, but the film strives to downplay some of the grit in favor of light-hearted, crowd-pleasing fare, but I fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and enjoyed the film ride that I was given.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress-Octavia Spencer, Best Adapted Screenplay

The Stoning of Soraya M.-2008

The Stoning of Soraya M.-2008

Director Cyrus Nowrasteh

Starring Shohreh Aghdashloo

Top 10 Disturbing Films #2

Scott’s Review #618

Reviewed February 18, 2017

Grade: A

The Stoning of Soraya M. (2008) is a brutal film and one of the most disturbing films that I have ever seen. I have viewed the film a total of two times and that is enough for me.

The terrifying aspect of the film is that the story is true and the events depicted not only have happened to the woman featured but happen to women day in and day out in certain cultures.

The film is a frightening reminder of the atrocities of human suffering.

The film is an American Persian language film made in 2008. Academy Award nominee, Shohreh Aghdashloo, stars as a woman living in a remote village in Iran- the time is 1986.

Interestingly, the film begins following the events that conclude the story and works in reverse. A reporter who has car trouble and is lost in the village is taken by the aunt of Soraya (Aghdashloo) who must tell the journalist the painful story of a tragedy that befell poor Soraya the day before.

Soraya was brutally stoned to death, and wrongfully accused of adultery, and the journalist wisely records the aunt’s tale with his tape recorder. The journalist must then escape the village alive for Soraya’s story to be told to the masses.

From this point, the film transfers to several days earlier.

Soraya’s abusive husband, Ali, wishes to divorce Soraya so that he can marry a fourteen-year-old girl from the village. When she refuses, Ali uses manipulation and blackmail to turn many in the village against Soraya, including her two teenage sons.

Ali convinces everyone that Soraya has been unfaithful to him with a widower whom Soraya innocently works for. Ali is then granted his divorce and Soraya is sentenced to be stoned, as an example, in front of the entire village.

The message is clear- women are not equal to men and are not permitted to do the things that men can.

Throughout the film, we get to know Soraya and she does have her loyal female friends and supporters. Aghdashloo portrays Soraya with gusto and bravery and the fact that we care for the character so much makes the inevitable stoning sequence heartbreaking and painful to watch.

When Soraya is chained to a short pole and buried up to her neck so that she cannot move, the scene of her victimization is almost unbearable to watch. Ali and her sons are the first to cast the stones that strike her square in the head.

Director, Nowrasteh provides the stoning sequence with a dull, muted sound so that we almost experience the thuds of the rocks from Soraya’s perspective, making the scene all the more chilling.

The scene also goes on for seemingly an eternity as it takes a long time for Soraya to succumb to her many wounds. Needless to say, she is a bloody mess and unrecognizable.

This scene is not for the squeamish.

How disheartening to know that experiences like Soraya’s still occurring to this day in Iran and many other countries and there is not much that is done to help.

The Stoning of Soraya M. is based on a 1990 book, Le Femme Lapidee, written by Freidoune Sahebjam, who appears in the film as a journalist. The book has been banned in Iran.

The Stoning of Soraya M. (2008) is one of the most disturbing films that I have ever seen and as much as the message is tragic and painful, I never want to see this film again.

The pain rings too real and the thought fills me with sadness.

Captain Fantastic-2016

Captain Fantastic-2016

Director-Matt Ross

Starring-Viggo Mortensen

Scott’s Review #616

Reviewed February 10, 2017

Grade: B+

A thought-provoking story that raises a question of home-schooled, non-traditional book intelligence versus the lack of social norms and interactions, and debates which upbringings are more relevant, Captain Fantastic is a terrific film with a moral center.

Starring Viggo Mortensen, who is not afraid to tackle complex and thoughtful roles, the film is a family drama with a unique spin and an edgy subject matter.

Perhaps not as gritty as it could have been and feeling a bit safe, it still entertains and elicits thought, which is an important aspect to film and is oftentimes lacking in modern films.

Director Matt Ross immediately treats us to aerial views of green and mountainous Pacific Northwest where a family of seven- 1 father and 6 children ranging in age from five to seventeen- silently prey on and kill a deer grazing in the forest- this is their dinner.

The family is unorthodox, to say the least. Led by Ben Cash, he teaches the children how to fight, how to survive, and how to be ready for any situation. They are highly intelligent kids- able to recite the Bill of Rights and the most complex of literature.

Soon, it is revealed that their mother, Leslie, has committed suicide and a battle ensues between her parents (Frank Langella and Ann Dowd) who are determined to bury her “properly” with a Christian funeral, and Ben and his children, who are determined to honor her last wishes for cremation.

Ben and the gang travel via their run-down school bus to New Mexico, meeting local townspeople along the way as a battle of cultures takes place.

I commend Ross for creating a story that challenges the viewer to think- depending on the viewer’s religious or political views, there is a risk of people either loving or hating the film.

The film is skewed toward the left, certainly, like dinner and sleepover with Ben’s sister and her very “Americanized” family is awkward- the families having completely different styles.

Ross makes it clear that Ben and his families are the intelligent ones and his sister’s kids quite dumb- not even knowing what the Bill of Rights is and mindlessly playing violent video games.

The fact that they are a “typical American family” is sad and quite telling of what Ross’s view might be.

Captain Fantastic wisely shows that either side is not perfect. His oldest son, Bodevan, blooming sexually, has an awkward encounter with a pretty girl, proposing marriage to her with her mother present because he knows no social norms.

A younger son is attracted to a “normal” life with his grandparents, who are a wealthy couple. The grandparents are not presented as bad people, but rather, wanting the best for their grandchildren, and fearing how their lives will turn out without better structure or what they perceive as a better upbringing.

Some of the kids blame Ben for their lack of social skills and being what they perceive as “freaks”.

The film does end safely as a happy medium is ultimately reached, but I never felt cheapened by this result. I found Captain Fantastic to be rich in intelligent writing and a challenging tale.

Many moments of “what would you do?” were brought to the forefront. Mortensen portrays Ben Cash flawlessly mixing just the right vulnerability with stubbornness to the character, and it is a great film for anyone fearing being intelligent is not cool, because it is.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Viggo Mortensen

The Diary of a Teenage Girl-2015

The Diary of a Teenage Girl-2015

Director-Marielle Heller

Starring-Bel Powley, Alexander Skarsgard, Kristen Wiig

Scott’s Review #614

Reviewed February 2, 2017

Grade: A-

I was not entirely sure of what I expected from the Independent Spirit award-winning film, Diary of a Teenage Girl.

I surmised that I would be treated to a light-hearted, yet well-written coming-of-age story, but the film is much darker than I would have thought- and this is a plus- the film is edgy.

There is so much depth to the central characters and incredibly complex performance by newcomer, Bel Powley as the title role.

Stars Kristen Wiig and Alexander Skarsgard also give tremendous performances.

The film is based on the graphic novel The Diary of a Teenage Girl: An Account in Words and Pictures by Phoebe Gloeckner.

Set in 1976 San Francisco, a time filled with hippies, drugs, music, and life, fifteen-year-old Minnie, an aspiring comic book writer, is insecure as any typical fifteen-year-old is.

With wide eyes and stringy hair, she is cute, but rather quirky looking, not the prettiest girl in her class, and records all of her deepest thoughts into a cassette recorder. Minnie is intelligent and worldly, accepting of alternative lifestyles and drugs, despite her young age.

She is wise well beyond her years.

Minnie’s mother Charlotte (Wiig), lives a bohemian lifestyle, constantly partying and losing jobs, and is divorced from Minnie’s and sister Gretel’s affluent, but mostly absent father, Pascal (Christopher Meloni).

Comically, the girls refer to him as “Pascal” instead of “Dad”, which he abhors. Determined to lose her virginity, Minnie is man crazy and develops a sweet relationship with her mother’s boyfriend, Monroe (Skarsgard).

Things begin slowly but develop into a full-blown sexual relationship. A controversial piece to the story is that Monroe is thirty-five years old- Minnie is only fifteen. Both Monroe’s and Minnie’s feelings are challenged due to circumstances and Minnie’s emotions spiral out of control.

The subject matter of The Diary of a Teenage Girl will undoubtedly be off-putting for many folks as the actions are technically statutory rape, but the film never goes in that direction.

Rather, director Marielle Heller crafts a tender story of young love, and when there is too much drama, there is comic relief thrown in.

Monroe is never the aggressor and Minnie is. She is a young girl who knows what she wants.

Since the director is female there is absolutely no hint of Minnie being taken advantage of or regretting her affair- the film is not about this.

Rather, it is about a young girl with blooming sexuality and blooming emotions finding herself in the world. I admire this left of center approach to the story immensely.

Other aspects of the film may be too much for some- Minnie and her best friend pretend to be prostitutes and orally service two young men in the men’s room on a lark.

Later, Charlotte uses filthy language to describe Monroe’s and Minnie’s relationship.

The film is not safe, but brazen and honest- I admire its courage.

Enough cannot be said for the three principal actors in Diary of a Teenage Girl. Bel Powley is a find! Nominated for an Independent Spirit award, this amazing young actress should have been recognized by the Academy Awards, but she no doubt has many years and films ahead of her. She is a “regular girl” type and reminds me a bit of actress Lena Dunham in her looks and her rich delivery.

Kristen Wiig is fantastic and is evolving into a great dramatic actress. As Charlotte, Wiig is wonderfully insecure and an offbeat mother. She does not discipline, but rather befriends her daughters, showering them with hugs and kisses and giving vulnerable neediness to the character.

Wiig, dynamite in the comedy/drama The Skeleton Twins, has embraced small, but important indie films, and kudos to her for this.

Lastly, Skarsgard, mainly known as HBO’s villainous Eric on True Blood, is inspiring as Monroe. Providing his character with sympathy and humanity (tough when having an affair with a teenage girl who also happens to be your girlfriend’s daughter), Skarsgard evokes so much emotion into the role that you almost root for Monroe and Minnie before remembering that she is too emotionally fragile.

Skarsgard is brilliant in Monroe’s breakdown scene. I hope audiences see him in more of these complex roles as he is far more than a hunky actor.

Diary of a Teenage Girl intersperses graphic novel/animated elements into the story told from the perspective of Minnie and the character narratives parts of the film.

An authentic, interesting story not only for teenagers but for smart thinkers and anyone who has ever been over their heads in the emotions of love.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Bel Powley, Best First Screenplay, Best First Feature (won)

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Director-Stephen Frears

Starring-Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant

Scott’s Review #613

Reviewed January 30, 2017

Grade: B

Director Stephen Frears certainly loves to direct films that are starring vehicles for mature actresses- Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, and now Meryl Streep has benefited vastly from his direction (all received Oscar nominations).

In Florence Foster Jenkins, Frears crafts a warm-hearted tale of a famous real-life opera singer, the title character, played by Streep.

The film is likable, but not up to par with other Frears’ gems, specifically Philomena or The Queen.

The film is a tad too safe for my tastes and should have been darker given the subject matter.

Florence Foster Jenkins is a New York City socialite and heiress living and flourishing during the year 1944. She is the founder of the Verdi Club and does a world of good for music, specifically the world of opera, which she adores.

Nicknamed “Bunny” by her husband Bayfield, played by Hugh Grant, he reveres her, but not in the physical sense- he resides elsewhere with a girlfriend.

This is due to Bunny being afflicted with long-term syphilis, causing her to be medicated and rendering her bald and unable to engage in sexual relations.

Bunny is a wretched, flat singer, despite her passion for singing, yet everyone convinces her how wonderful she is because she is so well regarded in her social circle. Many people are paid off in exchange for their support.

Due to Bunny’s medication, it is assumed that she cannot hear properly leaving her unaware of how bad she sings. Bunny now determined to sing at Carnegie Hall, Bayfield must scramble to make sure no critics are anywhere in sight for the big show, saving his wife from humiliation.

Any film starring Meryl Streep is assured to be fantastic from an acting standpoint and, per usual, she does not disappoint. Streep envelopes the role of Bunny- giving her charm and a vulnerability that only Streep can do.

The character knows what she wants and is stubborn, but there is a kindness to her and we see the passion oozing from her pores.

Streep is the highlight and the draw of the film.

Hugh Grant is worthy of kudos himself and I rather liked the chemistry between the two actors. Seeking physical relations with another woman may risk making him appear a cad, but Grant also gives Bayfield sensitivity and genuine care for his wife. They have “an arrangement” but he hides his girlfriend when Bunny shows up unexpectedly- not wanting Bunny to be embarrassed.

Grant’s and Streep’s scenes together are tender and believable.

Simon Helberg, like Bunny’s pianist, McMoon is also a positive of the film. Hired to accompany Bunny’s singing, he is first appalled, bemused, and finally understanding of Bunny, coming to love and respect her for who she is.

The character is clearly gay (the film never comes out and says this), but gay themes are common in Frears films and it is a non-issue among the principal characters- wonderful, but perhaps unrealistic for that time.

A flaw of the film is the lack of any purely great moments during the film. I suppose the climax at Carnegie Hall should have been it, but I did not completely buy the entire film.

Even the laughter and the mocking of Bunny by the crowd seem done in a soft, light way.

The film is a decent offering, nonetheless, and Streep the ultimate selling point. Great costumes, too.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Costume Design

Holding the Man-2015

Holding the Man-2015

Director-Neil Armfield

Starring-Ryan Corr, Craig Stott

Scott’s Review #612

Reviewed January 24, 2016

Grade: B+

Holding the Man is a brave love story centering on two young men and spanning fifteen years as the men begin as high school sweethearts and progress into adulthood and sadly both contract AIDS.

This is a pivotal aspect of the film as it is set during the 1970s and 1980’s- a time when this disease was dreadful and more or less a death sentence.

The film is tender and poignant, but despite these characteristics, I felt at times something with more vigor was missing from the film- I did not have the exact emotional reaction that I thought I might have and felt a slight blandness.

The film is set in Australia and adapted from a 1995 memoir of the same name.

The action begins in 1976 as we meet Tim and John- both high school students. They are from opposite social groups- Tim a theater student and John captain of his soccer team.

Surprisingly, they connect romantically as Tim asks John out on a date.

For the period, it was, the pair receive little hassle and are quite open with their relationship. Certainly, they face a bit of opposition from officials at the school, but this is not the main aspect that the film goes for.

Instead, the main problems come from John’s family- specifically, his father, but this is certainly played safely. Tim’s family is much more accepting.

Over the next fifteen years, the couple encounters death directly when they are simultaneously told they have acquired HIV.

The film is mostly told chronologically, but does go back and forth at times- specifically, we are reminded of John’s youthful good looks in flashbacks, when he is close to death-now bald and sickly looking.

The main point of the film is the men’s enduring love for each other, which is a nice message.

Otherwise, the film (2015 and long since the AIDS plague), goes for a reminder of how harsh those times were for gay men, though there is a softness to the film that I felt instead of the brutal reality.

The actors playing John and Tim (Craig Stott and Ryan Corr, respectively) have decent chemistry, but this may have been stronger than my perception was, and the reason I did not feel emotionally invested in the film.

The film was nice and sweet-the romance part, but when one of the men succumbs to AIDS I should have been a puddle of tears and I just wasn’t.

I did enjoy how the film does not focus too much on the opposition by John’s father (Anthony LaPaglia). He certainly would wish his son’s sexuality differently, but is more concerned with how his son’s relationship with a male looks to Dad’s friends and neighbors. The deeper story was the love between the men that knew no barriers.

It was nice to see Geoffrey Rush and Guy Pearce in supporting turns as a drama teacher (Rush) and as Tim’s father, Dick (Pearce). Both do well with limited roles and I adored how the film portrayed Dick as a supportive father- even dancing a slow dance with his son at a wedding- free of embarrassment.

Also notable is the sweet ending of the film where a photo of the real Tim and John is shown during a narrative from an interview the real Tim did before his death.

Holding the Man is a nice film, but does not quite have the power that other LGBT films in recent decades had- Brokeback Mountain immediately comes to mind as a similar film, but one which was more emotional and engaged me much more.

A nice, honest effort, though.

20th Century Women-2016

20th Century Women-2016

Director-Mike Mills

Starring-Annette Benning, Greta Gerwig, Elle Fanning

Scott’s Review #611

Reviewed January 22, 2017

Grade: A-

Annette Benning gets to shine in her leading role in 20th Century Women, a film directed by a formidable independent director, Mike Mills, whose credits include 2010’s Beginners, and 2005’s Thumbsucker.

In 20th Century Women, Mills serves as both director and writer, so the film truly is his vision.

All of the five principal characters are quirky and well-written, though Benning’s is the most nuanced and fascinating to me.

The time is 1979, Santa Barbara. Despite the image of Santa Barbara as a wealthy, grand town, dripping with the wealthy and powerful (perhaps due to the sweeping 1980’s daytime soap opera of the same name), Mills does not present this film as such. He presents Santa Barbara as a more artsy town as least where his characters are concerned.

Benning plays Dorothea Fields, a fifty-five-year-old divorced mother of a fifteen-year-old boy, Jaimie. She is a free spirit and allows two borders to live with her-Abbie (Greta Gerwig), a twenty-five-year-old aspiring photographer with fuchsia-colored hair, recovering from cervical cancer, and William (Billy Crudup), a handyman.

They are joined by Jaimie’s good friend, Julie (Elle Fanning), a depressed neighbor.

The film nicely dives into the trials and tribulations of each character as well as their interactions with each other, in a highly quirky manner, and we fall in love with each of them. Dorothea enlists the help of Abbie and Julie to assist in having a positive influence over Jaimie after he nearly dies after a foolish teenage prank.

Mills successfully gives a slice of life feel to the period as punk rock and the political climate of the times are heavily used in the film. Bands such as Talking Heads and Black Flag are focused as Dorothea strives to learn what young people like, herself striving to remain youthful and in touch with her charges.

Dorothea is a chain-smoker and many scenes of her pondering a situation while taking long drags, are featured. I love this aspect of the film as it showcases Benning’s cerebral performance. She is a thoughtful woman, only wanting her son to grow up sane and productive since his father is absent.

Sex and feminism are big parts of the film. Abbie loans Jaimie two books by female feminist authors to allow him a better understanding of women.

When he begins to discuss orgasms and a strange conversation about sex and virginity ensues during a dinner party Dorothea is hosting, the graphic detail is a bit too much for Dorothea.

She is a conflicted character- open-minded and caring, when it comes to her son, she has a more conservative edge while trying to remain open to his new experiences as a teen.

20th Century Women is strictly a character-driven film, which is an enormous strength. Each character is in a different place in their lives and I adore how the film gives a conclusion to each of the characters’ lives in the years to come.

Certainly, the film does go the “happily ever after” route, but this does not bother me. Rather, the film is so well composed that I was enraptured by the characters’ lives. Admittedly, the film is slow-moving at times, but this is due to the richness of the dialogue- nothing is rushed along.

Kudos to the cast- specifically Gerwig and Fanning are wonderful. Fanning’s Julie is a unique character- her mother is a psychiatrist who forces her to attend group sessions that she holds. Julie has a step-sister with cerebral palsy, so Julie frequently sleeps at Dorothea’s house as a way to escape her life.

Sexual active, Julie has a pregnancy scare during the story.

A coming of age type film set in an interesting time, 20th Century Women showcases the talents of a stellar cast, led by Benning, takes its audience into a wonderful, character themed world, and discusses the lives of its intriguing characters with a clear portrayal of life in the late 1970s.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Annette Bening, Best Screenplay

The Lady in the Van-2015

The Lady In The Van-2015

Director-Nicholas Hytner

Starring-Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #610

Reviewed January 19, 2017

Grade: B

As far as I am concerned Maggie Smith can do no wrong and I will happily enjoy watching her in anything- anytime. Around in film since the 1950s this lady deserves a starring film role.

Utterly distinctive she is- as legendary actress Bette Davis was- Smith has a style purely her own- her facial expressions and exasperated gasps make her one of the great film stars.

The Lady in the Van is specifically made for her, I have no doubt, but besides her talents, the movie is a decent offering, but very safe.

It lacks the depth that it could have had.

Written by Alan Bennett, the film tells the true story of Mary Sheperd, an elderly woman living in a broken down van, who befriends Bennett and eventually lives in his driveway for fifteen years before her inevitable death.

Set in northern London, a quaint and gorgeous part of the world, Mary harbors a deep secret involving her van and is revealed to have been a star piano pupil in her day.

Smith has no qualms about playing unflattering characters.

Shepherd is grizzled, abrupt, and rude, but Smith puts a lot of heart into her too, so that the audience senses her vulnerability and falls in love with her. With her sad protruding blue eyes, wrinkles for miles, and chirpy voice, Smith is fantastic at giving her all to the role.

The rest of the cast, however, adequately play their roles but are limited and out-shadowed at every turn. Most notable is the wasted talents of Jim Broadbent, appearing in a small and quite meaningless role.

Besides Smith’s brilliant performance, The Lady in the Van lacks any layers. The story is well and good, but we never see many of Mary’s struggles- how does she afford food? how is she not sick? The film skims over the darker elements of being homeless in favor of a lighthearted tale. Fine, but what about her inevitable issues?

Other less important stories are mentioned but not fully explored. Alex speaks to what looks like his twin brother, but is it his alter ego?

Young men come and go at night, so the presumption is that Alex is gay, and in the end, we do see Alex living with a man, but why is this so vaguely written? Why mention it at all? This story would have been interesting to delve deeper into especially given the fact that the real Alex Bennett wrote the film.

Other side stories are introduced but remain on the surface. Alex’s mother suffers from Alzheimer’s, but this is not explored much, and Mary’s brother, who institutionalized her at a young age, offers no explanation as to why this was done she had a mental illness- but the brother’s motivations are not clear.

I wanted more from the supporting characters than was offered.

Still, the bottom line is that The Lady in the Van is a Maggie Smith film, and any film in which she has the lead role, is pretty damned good for that reason alone.

Hell or High Water-2016

Hell or High Water-2016

Director-David Mackenzie

Starring-Jeff Bridges, Chris Pine, Ben Foster

Scott’s Review #609

Reviewed January 16, 2017

Grade: B+

Reminiscent of the Coen Brothers No Country for Old Men or a classic Sam Peckinpah film from the 1970s, Hell or High Water is a splendid tale of bank robbers being chased by lawmen in rural, western Texas.

The film provides a good story with a tale of morality so the viewer is unsure who to root for the good guys or the bad guys. This gives the film substance compared to the typical action, guy film, done to death.

Odd, quirky, small characters are interspersed throughout the film which adds comedy and a unique feel. The film is directed by David Mackenzie- up until now an unknown to me.

Chris Pine and Ben Foster play Toby and Tanner, two brothers who embark on a series of small-town bank robberies to save their recently deceased mother’s ranch.

Tanner (Foster) is the more seasoned criminal of the two, having spent time in jail and being more volatile than his brother. Toby (Pine) is a family man with two kids and is more intelligent and sensible than his brother.

They are pursued by two Texas Rangers, Marcus Hamilton (Bridges), a grizzled man-weeks away from retirement, and his partner, Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham).

What I enjoyed most about this film is the authenticity of the setting.

The film was shot in New Mexico, but, meant to be in west Texas, this is believable and the cinematography is gorgeous. The vastness of the land, the sticky desert heat are filmed very well.

Small town Texas is portrayed as tiny characters are introduced as townspeople, giving many credos to the film.

My favorites are the diner waitress-smitten with the handsome Toby (and her $200 tip), and t-bone waitress- grizzled and rude after forty-four years in the same place- their sassy and abrasive behavior works and adds much to the film. Dale Dickey is a treat in any film and her turn as a bank employee is a joy.

How nice to see Chris Pine in a challenging role. His character is conflicted morally- not wanting to hurt anyone, he struggles with the robberies and wants to do right by his kids and his mother. He is a decent man caught in uncertain circumstances and Pine does an excellent job at portraying him, proving the actor is becoming more than just a pretty face.

Bridges play anger quite well and how nice to see the actor succeeding career-wise in his golden years. His Texas Ranger character is determined to uphold the law, but below the surface is more than a bit worried about his upcoming retirement, closing a chapter in his life that undoubtedly is important to him.

His relationship with his partner is jovial, and buddy-like, but is there an underlying physical attraction between the men? The film does not go there, but perhaps on a subconscious level, it is hinted at.

A fantastic scene laced with tension occurs near the end of the film when two of the main characters are killed. It is a stand-off of sorts, atop a desert mountain ridge. One of the characters loses it, which results in a shoot-out and a shocking loss of life.

The scene is great in that it is good, old-fashioned shoot ’em up done well.

Hell or High Water is a gritty action film that contains great elements, nice characterization, and good, clean fun. A throwback to a crime-western of long ago, without the standard stock characters.

This film is more layered than the traditional sort of film and is intelligently written, thereby achieving something unique in its own right.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Jeff Bridges, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Ben Foster (won), Best Screenplay, Best Editing

Closer-2004

Closer-2004

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman

Scott’s Review #605

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B+

Closer (2004) is a very odd, offbeat sort of film, yet it is strangely fascinating and reels you in as the story unfolds and more is revealed. One will become engrossed in the characters as the film is rich in nuanced character development.

Closer is very adult and not for everyone, but if you enjoy character-driven films this one is worth checking out.

Based on a play of the same name and featuring a star-studded cast to go along with several Oscar nominations, Closer tells the story of companionship, isolation, and betrayal.

It centers on four characters, (Anna-Julia Roberts, Dan-Jude Law, Alice-Natalie Portman, and Larry-Clive Owen), each of whom spends the film either bedding, scheming, or jealous of each of the others.

Purely a character study, we see many different emotions from each, which is the film’s strength.

To the film’s credit, it is shot much like a play, however, is just a tad on the slow-moving side.

However, I adored the London locales, and the film’s successful attempt at making the viewer uncomfortable and just a tinge disturbed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Clive Owen, Best Supporting Actress-Natalie Portman

The Reader-2008

The Reader-2008

Director Stephen Daldry

Starring Kate Winslet

Scott’s Review #603

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: A

The Reader (2008) is by far my favorite of all of Kate Winslet’s film roles-and that is saying something! It is her most challenging and provocative to date and will ruffle some feathers for sure based on the subject matter of the story.

The subject of a grown woman in her thirties involved in a steamy and passionate love affair with a young boy half her age is too much for some, but I found the bravery of the film admirably.

To be fair, the film is a slow build-up type of story and it takes a little while to get going, but if you stick with it, it will be worth your time.

Winslet plays a woman (Hanna) in 1950’s Germany, living an ordinary life. She is a poor woman and a young boy she meets changes her life for the better.

He teaches her readings and other educational things and they are inseparable. When she leaves town one day, the boy is devastated.

The film then fast-forwards thirty years to the 1990s and the boy, now grown up and played by Ralph Fiennes, comes upon Hanna in a most unusual, dramatic, and devastating way.

The film is told from the perspective of Fiennes’s character, which is a wonderful decision.

The Reader (2008) is very heavy on sex and nudity (I mean lots!), so if anyone is offended by that you might want to skip it.

The story is riveting and the acting is top-notch.

An excellent film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Stephen Daldry, Best Actress-Kate Winslet (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography