Category Archives: 2014 Films

Maleficent-2014

Maleficent-2014

Director-Robert Stromberg

Starring-Angelina Jolie

Scott’s Review #251

Maleficent_poster

Reviewed June 27, 2015

Grade: C+

Maleficent is an updated re-telling of the classic fairy tale “Sleeping Beauty” told from the perspective of Maleficent, the evil godmother, who in this version, it is revealed, was not always so evil after all and, in fact, is rather sympathetic towards the beginning of the film.

Later in life, becoming the antagonist of the story, she initially begins life in a world of goodness, wonder, and hope until one day she is duped by a young man she loves and is then turned wicked with hatred and revenge.

The casting of Angelina Jolie as Maleficent is excellent and the main reason to watch the film.

Also worth noting is the wonderful, creative art direction and costumes that allow the film to look gothic and interesting.

Otherwise, the film meanders a bit, is slightly watered down, and contains a sappy Disney-style love story. The story itself is the weakest part of Maleficent.

Born Maleficent, protector of the fairies in the magical land of the Moors, as a young girl she is betrayed and is NOT a villain. Her male suitor (Stefan) is someone she trusts, loves, and respects, and she is then duped and has her wings stolen by him. He goes on to become the King of the neighboring land of humans, which is vastly different from the peaceful world that Maleficent lives in.

These events lead her on a path of devastation followed by revenge as she places a vicious sleeping curse on Stefan’s firstborn, Aurora.

Let’s start with some positives. Jolie is simply wickedly delicious in this role- the sultry, pouty looks, and those eyes! She plays scorned, revenge-driven to the hilt without being too over the top as lesser actresses certainly would have.

As the actress ages, she is beginning to take on more character, villainous parts rather than sexy bad girls or heroines and I am all for that. It gives the actress something meaty to sink her teeth into. Her dark costumes perfectly give the character edge.

The art direction is magical and the difference between the two lands is distinctive. The beauty of the Moors with gushing streams, mountains, and flowers contrasts with the stark nature of the human world.

The fairies symbolize peace and freedom with a life filled with treasures, whereas the human kingdom symbolizes ambition, greed, and coldness. The tiny fairies flittering around add zest and life to the film.

The silly love story, though is not believable nor compelling to me, especially the latter film romance between Stefan’s daughter- Aurora, and her wealthy suitor Phillip. They seem manufactured to be together without having a chance to get to know each other. This seems contrived and produced to add something young to the story.

And on a storytelling note, Maleficent’s sleeping curse is set to transpire on Aurora’s sixteenth birthday when she will prick her finger on a spindle and fall into a deep sleep that can only be remedied by love’s true kiss.

Why does he send Aurora away to live in hiding when she is a newborn? Doesn’t he have sixteen years to enjoy her?

The film then dwindles to the inevitable battle finale with lots of movement and fire and a stand-off between Maleficent and Stefan that is dull and predictable.

Overall, the first half of the film is the better part and the performance of Angelina Jolie is wonderful.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design

Wild-2014

Wild-2014

Director-Jean-Marc Vallee

Starring-Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern

Scott’s Review #249

80013281

Reviewed June 21, 2015

Grade: B+

Wild is a personal story of a young woman’s 1995 challenge to hike the 2,650 mile Pacific Crest trail as a form of therapy from her divorce and her recovery from drug addiction.

The film stars Reese Witherspoon in a thoughtful biography of a real-life figure, Cheryl Strayed, and is adapted from a novel entitled Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Trail.

The film depicts Cheryl’s struggles to survive in the remote area of northern California throughout various weather patterns, and her interesting encounters with strangers along the way.

The film is a showcase for Witherspoon as she takes center stage, appearing in almost every frame of the film.

Her producing the project undoubtedly has something to do with this. Regardless, it is a winning turn for Witherspoon as she is excellent. She portrays the role with vigor, emotional rawness, and vulnerability, which comes across on-screen. She certainly deserved her Oscar nomination for this part.

What sets her apart from other actresses who may have gotten this part is that Witherspoon is a small woman, which makes her physical struggles to commandeer trails and wilderness while hauling a large backpack containing her necessities, believable.

Shot using many flashbacks of Cheryl’s life before the enormous hike, we are introduced to the character of Cheryl and her challenging life before. We know that she is a recovering addict, but we do not know what led to these events.

Living in Minneapolis, she is very close to her mother Bobbi, played by Laura Dern, who tragically dies. This leads to a path of destructive behavior for Cheryl and ultimately to her divorce from her husband Paul, who is a decent man and periodically sends Cheryl care packages along her journey.

The bond that Cheryl shares with her mother, a struggling woman herself, is deep. Bobbi has difficulties raising a family and striving to improve her education and her life and this is explored during the flashback scenes featuring Cheryl as a teenager.

I love the encounters that Cheryl faces along the trail and feel it adds depth to the film.

Few and far between are these gems of interchange since she is mostly alone with nature, the characters are interesting. Alone in the dark and desperate for a meal, she flags down a farmer named Frank. At first, it appears Frank may be dangerous and wielding a gun so Cheryl is wary as she goes home with him for dinner.

Happily, Frank is married to a kindhearted woman named Annette, and the three of them enjoy a lovely, jovial feast. Later, she encounters a young boy whose mother has died. They bond as the boy sings a song to her that his mother used to sing to him, and when the boy leaves, Cheryl sobs in emotion for her mother.

These small snippets of real-life conversations and togetherness make the film feel happy and we root for Cheryl to accomplish her enormous feat.

Thanks to a bravura performance by Witherspoon, Wild is much more than a woman surviving on her own in the wilderness. It is encased in quiet emotion and understated supporting performances that give layers to a very human story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Reese Witherspoon, Best Supporting Actress-Laura Dern

Selma-2014

Selma-2014

Director-Ava DuVernay

Starring-David Oyelowo, Carmen Ejogo

Scott’s Review #248

80013278

Reviewed June 19, 2015

Grade: A-

An Oscar-nominated factual feast, set in the mid-1960s during the Civil Rights movement, Selma is a re-telling of the life and times of Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggles that black Americans endured during a tumultuous period in history including dealings with then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and the famous and important 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights march, which led to the signing of the pivotal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This film reminded me quite a bit of 2013’s The Butler in both subject matter and style- ironic since originally Lee Daniels was slated to direct and instead signed on for The Butler.

Both featured a charismatic and intelligent black man struggling with racial matters.

The film, despite being an independent undertaking, looked glossy and polished and quite reflective of the time. Similar to The Butler, Selma boasts a huge cast, historical political figures, and focuses on a tumultuous era in history.

Selma features a bevy of real-life figures from George Wallis to President Johnson to the obvious leader of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., and his wife, Coretta Scott King, and the casting was very well thought out.

Tim Roth, David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, and Carmen Ejogo all portray their roles professionally and passionately. None of the above received Oscar nominations and I am okay with that. I did not feel that any were definite standouts from a crowded field of talent, though perhaps Ejogo could have been in the running with her understated though compelling performance.

The drama surrounding the lack of scores of expected Oscar nominations is not shared by me. The truth is, the film was included in the Best Picture category and won Best Song.

While an emotional and compelling film, neither is it a masterpiece nor will change the art of cinema, though I must stress it is a very good film.

I found Selma to be an important film- a look back on history and the shame and humiliation placed on blacks who attempted to obtain voting rights- a heartbreaking scene depicts a determined woman (played by Oprah Winfrey) being denied this right by a cold and racist authority figure as she is asked impossible and tricky questions to prove her patriotism, which of course, she cannot possibly answer correctly.

Yes, the film is directed by a black, female director (Ava DuVernay) and yes, one might argue that it has a black point of view. However, the film successfully sympathetically portrays several white characters and avoids the assumption that all white people were racist in this period.

Let’s face it- racism still exists, especially in the south, and in the 1960s even more so. I did not find the message of the movie in black people vs. white people terms, but rather as a humanistic struggle for rights. And the struggles continue as the film makes abundantly clear in the message of the film.

While King was a life changer to the black people of the United States, his life was abruptly cut short in his prime. One wonders how much more good this man could have achieved.

The song “Glory” is an emotional, powerful number featured in the film and especially during the marching and subsequent slaughter scenes are highly emotional and effective.

And who will not become teary-eyed as the innocent marchers are beaten and treated like cattle, simply for taking a stand? One will gasp at the senseless bombing scene that rocks a building and takes four innocent little girls’ lives away with it.

Selma successfully transplanted me to a time that was before my time and made me appreciate and capture the positive and negative experiences of a race of people that was not too long ago.

This film both inspired and moved me and taught me what a movement occurred in 1965.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Song-“Glory” (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Ava DuVernay, Best Male Lead-David Oyelowo, Best Supporting Female-Carmen Ejogo, Best Cinematography

The Babadook-2014

The Babadook-2014

Director-Jennifer Kent

Starring-Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman 

Scott’s Review #247

70300205

Reviewed June 14, 2015

Grade: B

The Babadook is an Australian (English language) psychological horror film that tells the story of a mysterious, haunted book, which torments its owner or owners.

Touted as one of the scariest films of 2014 or of all time for that matter, I kindly beg to differ, though admittedly the film does contain some genuine frights and jumps.

What has happened to the horror genre in general where frightening films have not been made since the 1970s?

Exceptions like The Conjuring must be mentioned.

The Babadook attempts to be scary without the use of CGI or any extravagant effects, but rather has a classic feel to it.

Amelia, the mother in the story, has tragically lost her husband, Oskar, in a terrible car crash on the way to the hospital to give birth to her son Samuel. Now six years old, Samuel begins to exhibit signs of psychological problems as he becomes terrified of an imaginary monster.

After a child’s book, Mr. Babadook, mysteriously appears in their home and Amelia reads it to Samuel, even stranger events occur throughout their house.

The film has remnants of The Sixth Sense- loner, bullied kid is haunted with a disbelieving single Mom touting along as a ghost story or who is alive or who is dead questions are explored.

The father, Oskar, is instrumental to the storytelling. Because of this, the viewer is often confused throughout the film, but that is not necessarily a knock on The Babadook. It is not exactly clear to me if Amelia is the central character or if that honor belongs to Samuel- the interesting part of the film is the relationship between mother and son.

The Babadook is a scary story. Can a book come to life and haunt? So says the film and that is worth thinking about.

Oftentimes in horror, there is some ridiculous premise that is so unrealistic it cannot even be fathomed.

Where the film suffers in my view is that it is not that scary. Having something jump out at you now and then or some other surprise is nice, but where is the terror? The exact motivations of the book also remain unclear to me.

I admire The Babadook for attempting to bring back old-school horror to modern audiences and for telling a good, solid, haunting story.

However, the film did not quite measure up to all of the hype surrounding it.

The great film reviews are a bit much as I do not believe The Babadook is quite on the level of one of the scariest films ever made.

St. Vincent-2014

St. Vincent-2014

Director-Theodore Melfi

Starring-Bill Murray

Scott’s Review #246

70295665

Reviewed June 5, 2015

Grade: B-

The film St. Vincent succeeds only due to the charming, funny appeal of its star Bill Murray, who fronts this cute, mainstream comedy.

Set in blue-collar Brooklyn, New York, it tells the story of a curmudgeonly old man (the title character, Vincent), who befriends a lonely young boy named Oliver, new to the neighborhood.

Mixed in with the cast of characters are Oliver’s struggling mother Maggie (played by Melissa McCarthy) and Vincent’s pregnant, stripper girlfriend, Daka, played by Naomi Watts.

I found intrigue in how we get to know Vincent first and then watch him evolve from a grumpy, cutting old man to a begrudging babysitter of the neighbor boy, all the while clashing with Maggie and fighting with Daka.

Murray returns to comic wit using his now-legendary flawless dry, sarcastic humor and perfect timing and displays much of that in St. Vincent. Throughout all of this Vincent remains brutally honest with his snarky remarks (mainly aimed at Maggie) yet heartwarming and I loved this aspect of the film.

Thanks to Murray, Vincent is lovable, making the film, which with lesser talent, would be overly schmaltzy.

As the film progresses we get to see Vincent’s struggles- his wife suffers from Alzheimer’s, and he is indebted to bookies (primarily Terence Howard- in a bit of a throwaway role).

The film staggers with some predictability issues, though, and is formulaic and easy to predict a warm finale.

Of course, in true form, Vincent is a Vietnam vet who drinks and gambles and is angry at the world, but has a heart of gold so, despite being temperamental, the audience falls in love with him (patriotism helps).

The character contains every cliche in the book. Mean old man- rises to new heights and becomes a nice grandfather figure to a bullied boy is what this film is going for. The bullying of Oliver is also contrived- during one scene Oliver, after being picked on once again by the prominent bully, flies into a seething rage and breaks the bully’s nose.

The audience is supposed to buy that the waif-ish, shy kid triumphs over the bully. If only life were that simple. Inevitably, after both serve after-school detention, they bond over bathroom cleaning and become the best of friends.

Who did not see that coming?

In addition, most of the characters are one-note.

Naomi Watts is a brash, sexy, and aging Russian (not sure I bought that accent) stripper with a soft spot- she comes across as uptight but is caring- another cliche.

Melissa McCarthy is a hard-working, soon-to-be divorcee, trying to raise her kid right- one-dimensional. Even Vincent is seemingly tough as nails, but of course, has a soft spot for the neighbor kid.

The casting of Watts, McCarthy, and Howard is okay, and I surmise the film was going for casting “name” actors, but certainly, these parts might have been played by unknowns and had the same effect.

The gem is Murray.

Murray effortlessly breathes life into a character who otherwise would have been as dull as dishwater. I found the writing of the characters to be the weakest point of the film.

In the end, a major incident occurs that brings the cast together united as one (yawn). The film closes with the family all happily eating dinner together. I do not see this as a spoiler as this ending can be seen a mile away.

Despite the flaws and sentimentality of the film, it is admittedly sweet, humorous at times, and sends a nice message to the audience- be kind to one another and help each other get through life.

Without Bill Murray, this film would have been completely bland and unlikeable.

St. Vincent is a feel-good film that is perhaps too feel-good.

Into the Woods-2014

Into the Woods-2014

Director-Rob Marshall

Starring Emily Blunt, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #241

70305948

Reviewed May 8, 2015

Grade: B

Based on the stage production of the same name, Into the Woods is a feature-length Disney film that incorporates several different fairy tales into the main story.

The film is a fantasy musical with numerous songs performed by the cast, featuring a large ensemble of seasoned actors within its ranks.

The classic fairy tales are modern versions of Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Cinderella.

The action mainly revolves around a baker and his wife (James Cordon and Emily Blunt) who are sad and lonely because they are unable to conceive a child due to a long-ago curse put upon the baker’s family by a witch- played by Meryl Streep.

Circumstances surrounding the baker’s father caused the once beautiful witch to be turned ugly. The witch offers a bargain to the baker and his wife- if they bring her four items (a white cow, a red cape, yellow hair, and a gold slipper) for a special potion, she will lift the curse, enabling them to conceive a child and live happily ever after.

This prompts the couple to venture into the dark forest to obtain the requested items. From this point in the film, the couple intersects with other characters from the fairy tales as all question various aspects of their lives.

Certainly, there are subsequent stories- the witch is Rapunzel’s adoptive mother and keeps her locked in a tower to prevent her from being hurt by the world.

Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) escapes her taunting stepsisters and attends a ball only to flee when noticed by the handsome prince (Chris Pine)- Jack attempts to sell beans to provide food for his mother- and Little Red Riding Hood attempts to bring sweets to her Grandmother, but is confronted by the Big, Bad, Wolf (Johnny Depp), and there is a strange Woman Giant stomping through the forest searching for Jack, but all of these stories revolve around the baker and his wife’s efforts to retrieve the witches requests.

The production and art direction in the film is great. I love the dark, gloomy forest, which translates so well on the screen and gives the magical effect of a mysterious, secret forest to the viewer.

I enjoyed the songs quite a bit- especially the catchy finale “Into the Woods”. However, some of the songs are quite one-dimensional and bland and not discernible from each other, let alone memorable.

The duet of the Prince’s, “Agony” is silly with, useless to the plot, gyrations, and silly dance moves.

Meryl Streep- dynamic in anything she appears in again steals the show as the vile witch turned beautiful in the latter stages of the film. She has a fantastic solo number mid-story, entitled “Stay with me”.

One drawback I found with the film is, at times it drags a bit and I was not sold on the casting of Anna Kendrick as Cinderella- something about her performance was lacking- perhaps she was not as sympathetic or convincing as another actress might have been.

Also, I would have enjoyed seeing Johnny Depp as the Wolf be more prominently featured as well as a larger role for the Woman Giant. As integral as she is to the plot, it was tough to even get a clear glimpse of her face let alone anything more substantial.

An entertaining feast of fairy tales immersed in one film, Into the Woods has some compelling moments but has a dull note to it and some lost opportunities that bring it far from the reaches of a masterpiece level.

A good film, but not a great film.

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

A Most Violent Year-2014

A Most Violent Year-2014

Director-J.C. Chandor

Starring-Oscar Isaac, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #239

_A_Most_Violent_Year__Theatrical_Poster

Reviewed May 1, 2015

Grade: B

Taking place in New York City, throughout the notoriously violent year of 1981 and influenced, at least in part, by The Godfather and, in my opinion, similar in texture to the elite HBO series The Sopranos, A Most Violent Year is an attempt at weaving a tale of a “good guy” mixed up with the mafia and attempting to remain upstanding throughout the adversity and corruption that he encounters.

Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain portray Abel and Anna Morales, who owned Standard Oil, an upstart business that they are attempting to successfully launch.

Due to the violent nature of the times, several trucks are hijacked, resulting in robberies and severe beatings. In desperate need of funds to expand their business and stay ahead of competitors, Abel and Anna are forced to take out loans, leading them into a world where crime and violence run rampant.

In the midst of all of this, they are under investigation for apparent price fixing and tax evasion activity by the Assistant District Attorney.

The main theme of this film is the conflict and guilt that Abel feels towards violence and the constant temptation to join the ranks of the crime world to protect his business ventures.

Abel faces pressure from Anna, who herself has mob ties (her father is an influential mafia boss known around town) and is all for fighting fire with fire. Abel refuses and is determined to lead a straight and narrow life. When circumstances spin out of control, his morals are questioned.

A Most Violent Year is an interesting film yet I think I was expecting a bit more than I was given.

For starters, it certainly is not in the same league as the aforementioned works of art that I compared it to. It is tough to put my finger on what exactly is the issue, but there is a certain quality that is missing from the film making it lack a compelling edge.

The plot moves slowly, for sure, but the film is successful as the character study that it is, however, I was left wanting more depth to the characters and a broader vision of the film itself.

I did not find myself truly vested in either character of Abel or Anna.

Chastain received heaps of praise for her performance, which I found to be adequate, but hardly a marvel. Nominated for several awards, but deemed “snubbed” for not receiving an Oscar nomination, I find this to be untrue.

Her performance is not brilliant and Oscar Isaac’s is superior.

This is not to say that I did not enjoy the film overall. It takes some risks, has a rich character complexity, and is shot very well, and looks great. It has a smooth look and I completely bought the 1981 time period, rather than it appearing to be dressed up for the era. There is certainly an authenticity to it.

A mob film not on the level of The Godfather or Goodfellas, A Most Violent Year is a decent contribution to the crime-thriller era. It just does not live up to the critical acclaim heaped upon it.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female-Jessica Chastain, Best Screenplay, Best Editing

Ida-2014

Ida-2014

Director-Pawel Pawlikowsi

Starring-Agata Kulesza

Scott’s Review #238

70293721

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: A

Ida, the winner of several Best Foreign Language statuettes, including the first-ever Best Foreign Language Oscar for Poland, is a black and white film, containing beautiful cinematography, with a fascinating story that is both moving, sad, and very character-driven and centers around not one, but two compelling characters.

Certainly, ravages and after-effects of war have been explored in film before, but Ida brings a fresh spin to the subject matter.

The film takes place sometime in the 1960s, years after the ravages of World War II and the brutality of the holocaust occurred, but the film explores the long-lasting pain and sadness that the incredible time in history left on the survivors, both mentally and physically.

The story’s focus is on Anna, a young nun about to take her coveted vows and begin a life serving the Lord. Quite beautiful, she was left as a toddler at a convent. Before she takes her vows she is instructed to spend time with her only known relative, her Aunt Wanda.

Wanda is a former judge who battles depression and alcoholism. Her brother, Anna’s father, was murdered along with Wanda’s young son, so she is a tortured soul. As Anna (real name Ida and Jewish) and Wanda begin a road trip to find the whereabouts of their deceased family’s bodies, they both face personal demons.

What struck me most about Ida is the cinematography- the black and white is lovely, beautiful, and especially when Ida and Wanda travel across the Polish countryside, exquisite to look at.

The farms, land, and roads are so crisp and perfectly lit that it is easy to fall in love with.

Many scenes resemble paintings giving the film an artistic quality. Ida is simply elegant and peaceful in style.

The story itself of Ida is wonderful. Ida- the title character young nun is torn. She knows no other life than the church that, presumably, literally saved her life. But she is a gorgeous young woman filled with desires. She sees her promiscuous aunt flaunt over men and dress to the nines in flashy outfits and makeup.

Ida, almost always dressed in her nun’s garb, secretly dresses in Wanda’s dresses and makeup and is transformed. When she meets a handsome saxophone player, her desires begin to brim over and her conflict increases especially as the truth about her heritage unfolds.

As interesting a character study as Ida is, the character of Wanda is equally, if not more so, interesting. Damaged, hurt, and depressed she needs men to feel good about herself.

An alcoholic she has not gotten over the death of her young son and has become a bitter woman. In a way, Ida is about loss.

Visually and creatively enticing, Ida is as good as they get. It deserves the many awards that were bestowed upon it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film (won), Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film (won)

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Only Lovers Left Alive-2014

Director-Jim Jarmusch

Starring-Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston

Scott’s Review #237

Only_Lovers_Left_Alive_English_film_poster

Reviewed April 24, 2015

Grade: B

Only Lovers Left Alive is a bizarre trip into the strange and unusual world of vampires.

The film, moving slowly, becomes hypnotic, grabbing me into the plot, though the plot itself seems almost secondary to the gothic mood and dark ambiance of the film.

Thanks in large part to the wonderful Tilda Swinton, who I find mesmerizing in every film role she appears in, the methodical film never completely bored me and, at times, even fascinated me.

Set in present times, Swinton and Tom Hiddleston play vampires named Adam and Eve, who are lovers separated geographically. Adam is a musician living in a vast Victorian house in Detroit and Eve resides in Tangier.

Realizing that Adam is lonely and suicidal, Eve makes the international trek to the United States to be with her love. While they begin enjoying a quiet existence immersed in music and thoughts, Eve’s rebellious sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska) shows up from Los Angeles and adds havoc to their lives.

Also, cast in the film is John Hurt, who plays Marlowe, an ancient vampire assisting Adam and Eve, but who succumbs to sickness due to tainted blood.

The film is a creative, atmospheric offering from edgy independent film director Jim Jarmusch, known for such left-of-center fare as Broken Flowers and Coffee and Cigarettes, which are visual and visceral achievements.

While not completely loving this film, feeling that the actual story is the weakest area, the magical and beautiful arrangements almost make up for any shortcomings.

Set entirely at night (when vampires are awake) and featuring several shots of Adam and Eve posed naked or almost naked in lovely, artistic angles, I think the film is going for a “look” as much as for storytelling and not completely centering on the plot.

It is also a lovely romantic film, though not in the typical sense of silly misunderstandings, comical moments, but rather in romantic artistry, as Adam and Eve connect spiritually.

Married hundreds of years ago, Adam and Eve have been inexplicably separated by thousands of miles and coasts, though the reason is not explained.

Why are they the few remaining vampires alive? Does the human race know they are vampires or simply think they are odd-looking people? They both have money to burn and pay a high cost for being vampires as they either pay a contact to steal blood from hospitals to survive or obtain the blood elsewhere.

They are tempted to bite humans but resist those urges. The film does not explain why they are two of the very few vampires left in the world nor other questions. Adam, supposedly a famous musician, is wealthy beyond words and lives in a haunted-looking mansion surrounded by music and musical instruments.

The plot holes, of course, are secondary to me. None of them matter.

The film has beautiful moments- it is musically centered and Adam and Eve on more than one occasion engage in beautiful, tender dances and the film is a pure love story, but a very left-of-center one.

I admire the film’s creativity and going where most filmmakers do not dare to go- Jarmusch dares to be different and that deserves much praise.

The negative for me was the extremely slow pacing of the film- the story almost does not matter as the film feels more like an experience in art than a “mainstream” film containing strong plot points and focus.

Only Lovers Left Alive is a different type of film and one worth admiring.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Tilda Swinton, Best Screenplay

The Captive-2014

The Captive-2014

Director-Atom Egoyan

Starring-Ryan Reynolds

Scott’s Review #235

80013547

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: C-

The Captive is a 2014 thriller that reminds me quite a bit of a 2013 thriller, Prisoners, which certainly must have been an influence.

A similar plot involving a blue-collar, working-class family attempting to track down a missing child as the father takes matters into his own hands and is also considered a prime suspect in the crime by detectives, is used.

Set in snowy upstate New York, the film tells the tale of Matthew (Ryan Reynolds) and Tina Lane (Mireille Enos), a struggling young couple whose 9-year-old daughter, Cassandra, is snatched out of Matthew’s truck while he runs into a store to buy her a pie.

Told using flashbacks, the story picks up several years later as the defeated couple is periodically taunted by Cassandra’s abductors, who leave clues to indicate she may still be alive. Via video cameras, the abductors watch the parent’s emotional reactions to the clues and sell this “entertainment” to subscribers.

As the film moves along we learn of a major crime syndicate involved in the kidnapping of Cassandra and other similar-aged girls.

At times the plot of The Captive is compelling with a few nice twists and turns and surprises- other times the plot moves quite slowly and plods too much.

The film sets the story in a cold, wintry season which successfully emits a tone of darkness, loss, and harshness. The cinematography is beautiful and deserves major recognition for the mood.

The major problem with the film, though, is the extreme plot holes throughout and the ludicrous nature of the story- I still do not understand the pivotal childhood ice-skating message at the end.

As the film progresses the plot becomes tough to follow and many questions resonate. Who is paying to watch parents emotionally tortured? How can Cassandra seemingly come and go as she pleases and remain a prisoner? Why, years later, is Matthew still a suspect?

These points seem way too plot-driven for my taste and seem to be simply created to further the plot. The main villain- Mika- is a weird guy for sure, but what is his motivation? Why is he part of the kidnapping syndicate? What is anyone’s motivation besides Matthew and Tina striving to get their daughter back? This is not explained.

The casting of some of the actors is problematic- I had difficulty buying Enos working as a maid in a small town- she is way too glamorous a woman for that to be believed.

Similarly, the casting of Rosario Dawson and Scott Speedman as central detectives in the case seems unrealistic. The film is pure fantasy- these actors are too good-looking to be believable as upstate New York, small-town, detectives.

While very handsome, Ryan Reynolds is the only actor I bought as a grizzled, broken father with a glimmer of hope that his daughter is still alive.

All in all, besides some interesting turns, The Captive is too unrealistic and convoluted to follow closely. A bit of a mess.

For this type of film (kidnapping thriller?), I would recommend the superior Prisoners, though the plot holes are prevalent in that film too.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Director-Matt Reeves

Starring-Andy Serkis, Gary Oldman

Scott’s Review #232

70300076

Reviewed March 29, 2015

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a summer blockbuster hit that knocks it out of the park from a visual perspective- it is magnificent to look at with creative sets and realistic images, but the story is mediocre and predictable.

I think the filmmaker’s true intent was to focus on the look of this film, which is a splendid feature. The film is a slightly better than average big-screen adventure with more style than substance.

Set in San Francisco- or what was once San Francisco- the film is set in futuristic times and the apes have forged a new civilization after the deadly virus has eliminated 90% of the human population.

The apes are highly intelligent and manage a happy, unified existence. Then, one day, a human is encountered and, scared, shoots one of the apes. This leads to a peaceful resolution between Caesar- leader of the apes- and the humans, to each stay in their respective territories.

However, humans need access to a dam in the Apes area to provide electricity for themselves. Mutual distrust leads to tension, but the civilized apes and humans reach a truce. Naturally, there is further conflict as sinister humans and apes vow revenge on each other. This leads to a waging war while the peaceful apes and humans strive to work things out.

A further angle of the story is the hunger for power within the ranks of the Apes which is reminiscent of Lord of the Flies. The human protagonists of the film- Malcolm and Ellie- played by Jason Clarke and Keri Russell- are a wholesome, decent couple.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a far cry from the original 1968 masterpiece, Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston. To compare the two is unfair since, sadly, this one has nothing to do with the original. It is simply the same franchise tag.

However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is weaker than its predecessor- 2010’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. In that one, we have a charismatic star- James Franco- and an interesting story- the apes are experimented on and their intelligence is a strong angle.

With the sequel, the story is rather one-note and has a machismo, us against them angle, that is not unique.

The main drawback to this film is the story limitations. All of the characters are portrayed as a) the good and sympathetic humans, b) the evil and destructive humans, c) the good and heroic apes, or finally, d) the evil, bad apes.

Everyone is clearly defined for the audience and there is no ambiguity or complexities within the characters. This is a bit limiting. The evil ape Koba is purely bad and the drunken, gun-happy, humans are also purely bad.

This is not to say that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not enjoyable- it is. It is a fun, entertaining flick. For what it is, it is fine and there is a somewhat message in the film, that there is a way to find peace and love between different species and types of people.

Hopefully, the audience gets that message.

The film is a summer blockbuster action/sci-fi flick that many will enjoy, however, it is a plot-driven extravaganza that could have been superior had it contained more layers to the story and more shape to some of the characters.

It is worth seeing as a visual cinema treat, but scarcely more than that.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

Annie-2014

Annie-2014

Director-Will Gluck

Starring-Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx

Scott’s Review #231

220px-Annie2014Poster

Reviewed March 25, 2015

Grade: D-

The latest remake of the film version of Annie- the last film production having taken place in 1982- though at least one variation in television exists- and all based on the Broadway hit of the same name- is a saccharin-laden mess of a film.

Annie stars Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx, and Cameron Diaz as Annie, William Sparks (changed from Daddy Warbucks), and Miss Hannigan, respectively, and features Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale in supporting roles.

Let me begin with the one redeeming quality of the film- though admittedly a bit of a stretch, I found the musical numbers okay- not great, but certainly far from the worst parts of the film.

The numbers are remixed into hip-hop-type songs with a trendy approach- presumably to add a modern element. While not great, some songs are catchy and not dreadful, especially “It’s A Hard Knock Life” over the closing credits.

Whether the actors sing their songs is another question, which I might not want to know the answer to.

The rest of Annie is terrible.

The casting is poor. Wallis, very believable in Beasts of the Southern Wild, portrays Annie as a precocious, social-climbing child and I sensed awkwardness to the part- regardless it did not work for me.

I did not buy her in the role and how she was awarded a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical Comedy speaks volumes for the limited choices that year.

Jamie Foxx completely phones in his performance as Cell-phone technical mogul, running for mayor, William Sparks. Why the film felt the need to change the character from Daddy Warbucks is a mystery. He is unbelievable as a germaphobe, aggressive yet sensitive, powerful man who amazingly develops a soft spot for Annie.

Cameron Diaz completely overacts and turns Miss Hannigan into an obnoxious, hysterical shrew, who towards the end of the movie somehow “turns good”, with no real motivation for doing so.

Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale give uninteresting, very one-note performances in their respective roles of Sparks’s assistant and love interest, and his right-hand man.

The film chose to change so many aspects of the original stage version of Annie, that it is barely recognizable.

It takes place in present times rather than the Depression-era 1930s, Annie is no longer an orphan but is in foster care. Miss Hannigan’s first name is changed to Colleen instead of Agatha and is now a former pop performer whose career subsequently died. Hannigan’s brother Rooster and his girlfriend Lily are not featured in this film version.

The story has zero interest and zero believability.

But the worst part of the film is the over-sentimental, corniness to it. It is so overwrought with contrived scenes that it is tough to take seriously.

At a Mayoral function, Annie (an untrained singer) suddenly leaps onstage and belts out a perfectly sung, choreographed number suddenly melting the hearts of the wealthy powerhouses in attendance.

The film is pure fantasy with no realism to speak of.

Take for example the fact that Miss Hannigan fosters an apartment full of children whom she hates, to collect $150 a week, but her apartment is pretty damned spacious and beautiful for Manhattan standards.

The film contains one inconsistency after another and is a horrendous modern take of a long-loved treasure, the 2014 version of Annie should be seen once, snarled at, and put back on the shelf, and forgotten for good.

Neighbors-2014

Neighbors-2014

Director-Nicholas Stoller

Starring-Zac Efron, Seth Rogan

Scott’s Review #229

70297085

Reviewed March 15, 2015

Grade: F

By far one of the worst movies I have seen in some time, Neighbors is a silly, redundant, nonsensical, and plain old bad film. Whoever thought this film was a good idea and green-lit it must have their head examined.

Successful comedies- even raunchy, slapstick comedy, contain perfect comic timing and likable characters that the audience roots for, and at least a shred of creativity and originality- Neighbors has none of these qualities.

Bridesmaids is an example of a modern raunchy comedy that works and is hysterical- sadly, Neighbors is a far cry from Bridesmaids.

Neighbors star Seth Rogan, a familiar face in the slapstick comedy genre, along with Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a married couple in their thirties with a newborn baby named Stella.

Former party animals in their college days, the two live in a college town and attempt to peacefully bring up their daughter in a great neighborhood.

One day, Delta Psi Beta, a fraternity known to be one of the rowdiest of frats, moves into the house next door to the Radner’s and immediately begins causing chaos with their never-ending, rambunctious parties. The frat is led by Teddy, played by Zac Efron.

Initially striking up mutual respect, the Radner’s relationship with Teddy is ruined due to a misunderstanding involving the police being called one night. The remainder of the film focuses on Mac and Kelly’s attempts at getting the fraternity to move out of their house by sabotaging parties and pitting various frat brothers against each other, causing hijinks to ensue and war to develop between parents and college kids.

If Neighbors is an attempt to harken back to the days of delicious college comedies such as Animal House or American Pie, the film fails on every level- it is simply not funny.

It contains a plot that is so unoriginal and the jokes featured to death in similar films (bathroom humor, frat jokes, drug jokes, male and female anatomy jokes) and by this point, if you have seen one Seth Rogan film you have seen them all- he is a one-trick pony and has become what Adam Sandler became- tired and dull.

Rose Byrne’s annoying character had me believing the actress was using a poor Australian accent only to realize that the actress is Australian. This is not a testament to Ms. Byrne’s acting ability by the way.

The protagonists are quite irritating and not likable at all. What is the rooting value? Mac and Kelly are irresponsible parents. They presumably leave Stella at home to visit the frat house and wind up getting drunk and high, stay out late, wake up early the next day when Kelly attempts to feed Stella using tainted breast milk, which leads us to an unfunny scene between Mac and Kelly focusing on Kelly’s vein-popping breasts, which makes no sense anyway.

Other suspensions of disbelief and logic pop up left and right- Why would the police reveal to the fraternity the names of who had called to complain about them and after catching the Radner’s in a lie, tell them never to call the police again?

How unrealistic. Mac and Kelly live in a college town, the risk of a fraternity or sorority being close by never occurred to them? They acted surprised that college students existed at all.

The wonderful Lisa Kudrow is cast in a ridiculous role as the college Dean but is completely wasted in a hysterical, bubble-headed, dumb role.

If I had to give a positive to Neighbors, it would be that Zac Efron does a halfway decent job portraying his character Teddy and Efron does possess a good deal of acting talent (think-The Paperboy), but I am being quite generous and looking for a bright side to a train wreck.

The film is poor.

Nightcrawler-2014

Nightcrawler-2014

Director-Dan Gilroy

Starring-Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo

Scott’s Review #225

70295182

Reviewed March 1, 2015

Grade: B+

Nightcrawler is best described as an intense crime-thriller set in Los Angeles featuring a wonderful performance by Jake Gyllenhaal as an unstable thief named Lou, who cons and manipulates his way to success videotaping accident scenes and selling them to news stations.

The film is the directorial debut of Dan Gilroy, who could become a household name in the future. Nightcrawler was deservedly awarded the Best Screenplay and the Best First Feature Independent Spirit award honors.

The film is set mainly at night as Lou courses the city in search of accidents, crimes, and violence- the bloodier the better. Later, he is told by Nina Romina, successfully played by Rene Russo that violent crimes in affluent neighborhoods are the best, as they garner the highest ratings.

Lou sells his video footage of the crimes to the highest bidder and Nina becomes his main customer. Lou is eventually assisted by Rick Carey, a desperate accomplice in need of money, played by Riz Ahmed.

The interesting thing for me about Nightcrawler is its moody setting and dim lighting. It reminds me of the 2004 film Collateral, starring Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise, also set in Los Angeles.

Mostly set at night time and heavily set on the actual streets of L.A., I found this mood excellent and a compelling aspect of the film.

It makes Nightcrawler look great.

Gyllenhaal deserves heaps of praise for his role of Lou and is largely responsible for the success of the film- he was co-producer.

From an acting standpoint, he is excellent and reminiscent of the frightening performance that Robert DeNiro gave in Taxi Driver. With an angular face and eyes that seemingly never blink, the character is intense and driven on every level- he is a sociopath.

When he quietly threatens Nina and Rick on separate occasions one can tell he means business. Why Lou has become a thief desperate for money is never explained- does he have a family? Is he a convict? He seems highly educated, but is he? How did he land in this predicament and resorts to the life that he does?

As Lou becomes more manipulative and resorts to adjusting crime scenes to make them all the more shocking, he seems to teeter over the edge of sanity. In one scene he sneaks into a victim’s home and videotapes photos of the victims from their refrigerator to promote an empathetic angle and therefore make more money from them.

This is a brilliant performance by Gyllenhaal.

Another fascinating performance I admired is that of Rene Russo- absent from films for what seems like years, Nightcrawler is a nice return for her. Her character also has a little backstory.

We know that she is a driven newswoman who has trouble maintaining success at individual news stations and moves around a lot. Nina is a cut-throat news director eager for violent stories and determined to keep her existing job. She also becomes begrudgingly fascinated and enamored with Lou. Does she like bad boys or does she admire his talent?

The third major character is Riz Ahmed’s Rick. Rick comes across as a sweet, yet gullible guy strapped for cash. Like Lou, we do not know why he is broke, but it is hinted at that he may do or have done some male prostitution- he is desperate.

As the film goes along the character develops tough skin and inquisitiveness takes over he is attracted to this new lifestyle and excitement, but will not be bullied by Lou.

On a social level, the film presents an interesting, albeit disturbing take on the relationship between the media and the viewers. What will news channels do for a good story? How bloodthirsty are news audiences? How often is a positive news story presented? It makes the audience reflect and ponder.

Nightcrawler is a dark thriller, independently made, which deservedly garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and a slew of Independent Spirit Awards. Intense, rich, visually appealing, it is one of the success stories of 2014 cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Jake Gyllenhaal, Best Supporting Male-Riz Ahmed, Best Screenplay (won), Best First Feature (won), Best Editing

Still Alice-2014

Still Alice-2014

Director-Richard Glatzer, Wash Westmoreland

Starring-Julianne Moore, Alec Baldwin

Scott’s Review #224

untitled

Reviewed February 26, 2015

Grade: B+

Still Alice tells the story of a highly educated college professor who, at the young age of 50, is afflicted with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. She wrestles with, not only the gloomy diagnosis but also the emotional effects of the disease and what effects they will have on her husband and three grown children.

Also explored are the hereditary aspects of the illness and the effects on the offspring of the inflicted person.

In a nutshell, the film has a calm demeanor but is heartbreaking and a bit of a downer.

Alice Howland has always achieved success- she is a linguistics professor at the esteemed Columbia University in Manhattan and has a seemingly idyllic life. She lives an affluent lifestyle and has three grown, well-adjusted children.

Alec Baldwin plays John Howland and Kristen Stewart plays the most predominantly featured daughter, Lydia.

These points of perfection make the story and her gradual decline all the more tragic to watch. We root for Alice because she is an ideal character- kind, loving, the perfect mother and wife. How could a thing like this happen to her? When she goes for a jog near her campus and suddenly does not recognize her surroundings or where she is, the audience shares in Alice’s confusion.

The primary reason to watch the film is for the astounding performance that Julianne Moore gives, as Alice. The film borders on a very good Lifetime television movie, albeit, much better than that and arguably in the same vein, but the acting sets this one above the mediocre and that is largely due to Moore- with a lesser actress I ponder how the film would have succeeded.

The tender scenes are wonderful- when Alice wets her pants, the audience also feels her humiliation. When she breaks down in fear and anxiety we do the same with her.

The supporting cast also deserves praise- specifically Baldwin and Stewart. While not entirely fleshed out characters, their lending of support to their wife and mother respectively makes the characters themselves sympathetic and likable. An important scene in an ice-cream parlor late in the film when John asks Alice if she “really wants to be here” is misunderstood by Alice making the importance of what he is asking even more profound.

A scene where a coherent Alice, early in her diagnosis, leaves instructions for herself via video, to be seen when she is further along in her illness, is suspenseful and left me rooting for the result to be one way, which could be interpreted as drastic, and left me conflicted- a scene masterfully done.

My only criticism of the film is that despite the subject matter of Alzheimer’s disease which is devastating and life-altering not only for the victim but for the family, the film has a safe feel to it.

I would have liked to have seen some darker, grittier moments throughout the film to make it even more effective.

Certainly not a happily ever after story, bleaker moments might have prevailed. For sure a story centered on Moore, it also might have been interesting to further explore more of the effects the family have and will go through, especially Baldwin’s John. His character and Lydia could have been explored deeper instead of merely supporting and comforting Alice.

Still Alice is worth seeing if only for the performance of Julianne Moore- a talented actress doing a brilliant job in the title role.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Julianne Moore (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Julianne Moore (won)

American Sniper-2014

American Sniper-2014

Director-Clint Eastwood

Starring-Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller

Scott’s Review #223

American_Sniper_poster

Reviewed February 22, 2015

Grade: A-

American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood, is a war film that is told from the viewpoint of the soldier- or in this case a sniper.

A character study if you will.

Starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, deemed the deadliest marksman in U.S. military history, he has 255 kills to his name. The film begins pre-9/11 as Kyle views coverage from the 1998 U.S. Embassy attacks and enlists in a grueling training program to become a Navy Seal sniper.

Flashbacks reveal Kyle as a child being taught to hunt deer and shoot a rifle by his demanding father. He is eventually sent to Iraq following the 9/11 terror attacks and the film continues to showcase Kyle’s military career and multiple tours of duty ending years later. His loyal wife Taya is played by Sienna Miller.

I am personally not sure the bevy of controversy that American Sniper has stirred is entirely warranted- I looked at the film simply as a very good mainstream, action movie. Yes, it does have the overdone Americana machismo and Texas swagger, but it is an Eastwood film! This masculinity is at the heart of many of his films.

I do not view the film as politically charged.

The film leans neither Republican nor Democratic and seems to take a middle-of-the-road viewpoint.

It is a tale of a war hero, but it questions the wars fought and the casualties involved both American and otherwise. Sure, Kyle is a good ole, red-blooded American, but as he and Taya watch the 9/11 attacks on television, they are watching CNN, not Fox News. His close military buddy asks “why are we here?” referring to Afghanistan- there is a clear inference by Eastwood to question what this is all about.

I hope audiences keep this in mind.

One concern I do face as I ponder the film is whether American Sniper will send some audience members back to a time when the world was fearful of Muslims and at risk by the recent ISIS terror situations, I hope that people are smart enough to realize that NOT all Muslims are terrorists- it is only a minuscule portion that is evilly inspired.

Certainly, the major terrorist in American Sniper, known simply as The Butcher, is despicable, but plenty of other Muslims are innocent and victims of The Butcher’s brutality.

I love how the film has depth to it- Cooper is resilient as the troubled sniper. He is portrayed as human- a nice, all-American guy. He wrestles with the choice of shooting a woman and a young boy died at the risk of them carrying a bomb and killing members of his squad- he does not want to kill them, but rather is excellent at his job.

He is a perfect shot.

In the heat of the moment, under extreme pressure, he must ask himself, “should I pull the trigger and end their lives”? “what if they are innocent pedestrians?”. He becomes, in a sense, addicted to his duty of going overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan and justifies his service as “protecting Americans”.

This leads to his personal life being affected as Taya becomes frustrated with his frequent tours of duty, which he readily chooses to do. He suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress disorder but refuses to acknowledge this fact. He almost kills the family dog in a fit of uncontrolled rage; he temporarily confuses sounds from an auto shop as military warfare.

My admiration for the acting ability of Bradley Cooper increases with each role I see him in he is a marvel. From recent dynamic performances in American Hustle and The Place Beyond the Pines to this role, I am convinced he can play any part successfully and convincingly.

He has sure come a long way from The Hangover films.

American Sniper is an enormously creative and commercial success and deserves to be. Layered, character-driven, it is worlds above the typical male-driven action film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Bradley Cooper, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing

The One I Love-2014

The One I Love-2014

Director-Charlie McDowell

Starring-Mark Duplass, Elisabeth Moss

Scott’s Review #221

70299863

Reviewed February 18, 2015

Grade: C+

Reminiscent of a modern-day Twilight Zone episode, The One I Love tells the story of a young married couple (Ethan and Sophie), played by Mark Duplass and Elisabeth Moss respectively, who seek the assistance of a therapist, played by Ted Danson.

The therapist realizes the couple is out of sync with each other and recommends a weekend away. The therapist has an excellent reputation for rekindling faltering marriages and turning them into successful ones. He sends them to a sunny, beachfront house complete with a guest house, pool, and various trails along the water- it is simply a paradise.

I admire the creativity of the screenplay.

In a nutshell, the couple meets their ideal, perfect versions of each other while they are basking at the vacation house-just the two of them. Ethan’s alter-ego is suave, athletic, and sensitive to Sophie’s needs- while Sophie’s is sexy, flirtatious, and invested in Ethan’s life. The real versions are bored, lazy, and a bit disheveled.

The flaws they once saw in each other are replaced with the perfect spouses. It is fantasy-like. As one half of the couple slowly begins to fall in love with the fantasy version, the other half begins to get jealous and the film dives into a tale of who winds up with whom? But is it a fantasy? Are the perfect versions real people or something reminiscent of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

It is tough to know what the intentions of the film are- if any.

A weakness I felt the film has is it plods along a bit too much. At a brief 90 minutes, the film somehow has a sleepy, slow-moving undertone and could have easily been a short film or wrapped up within 45 or 50 minutes.

I did not feel the chemistry between Duplass and Moss as strongly as I would have liked. Individually fine actors, the spark did not ignite for me.

I wish Ted Danson had a larger role. The focal point was obviously the young couple, but the mysteriousness surrounding the paradise was never really explained and Danson’s character could have been the key to the entire story. Did he contrive the entire situation? Was it fantasy? His brief part left many plot holes unexplained.

The One I Love is a creative effort and has an imaginative angle, but left me wanting a bit more clarity than I was served up. The film is mysterious, yes, but also confusing and slightly dull and uneven.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

The Guest-2014

The Guest-2014

Director-Adam Wingard

Starring-Dan Stevens

Scott’s Review #220

70300664

Reviewed February 7, 2015

Grade: C-

The Guest is a thriller from 2014 that can, perhaps, be classified under the adage “it’s so bad that it’s good”, though as I pondered writing this review, that could be a bit of a stretch.

As poor as the film is, there is something that I slightly enjoyed about it.

The premise is simple- a Midwestern family- the Peterson’s, is suddenly visited by a veteran soldier, named David, who claims to be a friend of the parent’s deceased son Caleb. David easily insinuates himself into their lives and the Peterson’s extend an invitation for him to stay a few days to rehash details about Caleb.

The family is a middle-class one, yet struggling financially, and consisting of a mother and father, a college-aged daughter named Anna- the actress eerily resembling a young Gwen Stefani, and a bullied, timid, high school-aged son named Luke.

From the get-go, something is off with David, but his motives are unclear to the audience.

The issues with the film are aplenty.

For starters, the acting is rather poor. The most notable actors in the film are Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) and Sheila Kelley (L.A. Law) and a collection of unknowns. Stevens and Kelley give better performances, and I particularly thought Stevens very believable in a role opposite of his Downton Abbey alter ego, but the rest of the cast is wooden and un-compelling.

The weakest parts of The Guest, though, are the inane plot points and the 1980’s style soundtrack- were the filmmakers going for a retro throwback? The film is set in present times so this aspect remains a mystery.

To be fair, the story does start as interesting- I wondered, Is it a Fatal Attraction type of film? What is David’s motive? What was his relationship with the deceased Caleb? Does he intend to help or harm the family?

The reveal towards the end of the film is as much implausible as it is ridiculous and an enormous disappointment. Without giving too much away, the government plays a large role in the meat of the film and it does little to provoke sympathy for any of the characters, but rather, only elicits further confusion.

The attempted (and botched) love story between David and Anna does not work. They have little chemistry and the rooting value is not there especially as he picks up her drunken best friend at a party. Is the audience supposed to root for David and Anna or is it merely a weak sub-plot to the thrill aspect of the film? I suspect the latter.

Despite all of these negatives, I did not find myself despising the film as it trucked along- rather, I found the film to be more of a muddled mess than anything else.

It is not a good film, but there is something slightly appealing about it. Some of the death scenes are well done and the budding friendship between David and the bullied son is rather sweet.

The son is enamored with the strong, masculine David, and David, in turn, serves as protector of the boy, humiliating the bullies who gave the kid a black eye. The film does not delve into a sexual angle regarding this, but rather it is a bond that is nice to see in the film. It has a nice, warm element.

Another impressive point to The Guest is that it ends with a surprise that leaves room for a sequel. However, due to the success that the film did not achieve, I doubt a sequel will ever see the light of day.

A poorly written, weak acted film, The Guest has moments of interest but fails miserably at providing a strong film viewing experience.

By the end of the film, I still had no idea of the main character’s motivations and that is a huge problem.

Confusing and convoluted are adjectives best to describe this film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Editing

Boyhood-2014

Boyhood-2014

Director-Richard Linklater

Starring-Ellar Coltrane, Ethan Hawke

Scott’s Review #217

70301281

Reviewed January 19, 2015

Grade: A

Boyhood is a family drama directed by Richard Linklater that tells the story of a family’s trials and tribulations over twelve years, ranging from approximately 2002-2013.

The film uses the same actors over the entire period which enables the viewer to see the characters change over that period. What a novel idea? In this day and age of special effects, super-heroes, and animated animals, how refreshing to see a simple tale of a family told over a while.

The film’s main character is Mason Evans, Jr. played by Ellar Coltrane. We are introduced to Mason when he is six years old and in the first grade. He lives with his older sister Samantha, played by the director’s daughter Lorelei Linklater, and his mother Olivia, played by Patricia Arquette, in Texas. Mason’s father (Mason Sr.) is played by Ethan Hawke, who is divorced from Olivia.

As the years go by we see situations arise and the characters grow and develop over time similar to real-life.

After the film, Mason Jr. is headed off to college following years of life experience including his first relationship. The other characters develop as well as we see Olivia and Mason Sr. delve into relationships with other partners, some successful, others less successful.

Where Boyhood succeeds is that it is a film about real-life that feels like a slice of Americana.

It’s a wonderful film.

The audience invests in the characters because we grow to love and care about their lives. It is comparable to seeing cousins or friends once a year and seeing what becomes of their lives over time.

This film fascinates me because it is so basic and so real that it does not need contrived dramatic situations to warrant attention. It is simply authentic and that is what makes a great film.

The film is certainly left-leaning politically speaking and I just love the current events that are brought up throughout the years by the family members.

As the film progresses we are treated to Mason Sr. commenting on his distaste of the Iraq war, the children’s anticipation of the new Harry Potter film, Mason Sr. taking the kids to a Houston Astros game, and The Beatles and Star Wars are mentioned.

Another scene sadly focuses on a returning soldier from Iraq who suffers from Post-traumatic stress disorder. These nuances make the film seem so authentic and rich.

As wonderful a job as Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke did neither of them had a huge, bombastic, emotional scene which would have been splendid given the talents of each, but this is a small criticism. Both are superb as struggling parents trying to do the right thing for their children as well as carve out a life for themselves.

Boyhood re-defines realism in the film as we see a family unit hope, struggle, and dream as it’s played out before our eyes.

The film does not need any overwrought dramatics as it is simply a slice of life of a group of people we come to know and love.

Everyone can relate to Boyhood.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Richard Linklater, Best Supporting Actor-Ethan Hawke, Best Supporting Actress-Patricia Arquette (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Richard Linklater (won), Best Supporting Male-Ethan Hawke, Best Supporting Female-Patricia Arquette (won), Best Editing

Big Eyes-2014

Big Eyes-2014

Director-Tim Burton

Starring-Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #216

70095129

Reviewed January 18, 2015

Grade: B

Big Eyes tells the true story of Margaret Keane, a talented artist, famous for the “big eyes” waif collection, whose husband manipulated her and took credit for her works during the 1950s and 1960s.

A con artist, he passed himself off as a talented artist, but in truth, he scammed other artists and had no artistic talent of his own. He was also mentally unstable.

Due to his charisma and ability to wine and dine, influential people, combined with his marketing talents, he was able to make millions in profits from his wife’s art.

Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz portray Margaret and Walter Keane.

Tim Burton directs the film.

Adams and Waltz are the main appeals in this film. They share tremendous chemistry, both when they are courting one another and subsequently when they despise each other and fight a bitter divorce battle in court over the rights to Margaret’s paintings.

I just love Christoph Waltz in whatever he appears in as his charisma and acting ability astound me. Adams is quite effective and believable as the passive, loyal, and talented Margaret Keane.

As compelling performance as Adams gives, one issue I have with the film is that I do not feel as sympathetic towards Margaret Keane as the film probably intended.

Certainly, I like the character very much and was rooting for her in the courthouse scenes to be awarded rights to her paintings and cheered when she escaped to Hawaii with her daughter to begin a new life.

But, she willingly went along with her husband’s plot, as they both decided a female artist would not sell like a man could (it was the 1950’s), and they were able to make millions from her art. They lived in a gorgeous house, had wonderful dinners, and were able to maintain an extravagant lifestyle- not so bad.

It was not as if Walter stole all of her money and left her homeless. She enjoyed a nice lifestyle.

So, my sympathy for her was affected.

A positive of Big Eyes is how Margaret continues to uncover Walter’s deceptions one by one. She first learns he has taken credit for her work- she then finds out that he is not even an artist and has conned another painter into giving Walter credit for their work. The buildup to these reveals is excellent.

The film is a change of pace for Tim Burton. Big Eyes is not a dark film and is quite bright and colorful. Some of the interesting sets and art direction are similar to some of his other works- Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice.

Big Eyes is an enjoyable film largely made successful by the talents and appeal of its two stars.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Screenplay

Pride-2014

Pride-2014

Director-Matthew Warchus

Starring-Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton

Scott’s Review #215

80013480

Reviewed January 17, 2015

Grade: B-

Pride, based on a true story, deserves props for delivering a nice message about inclusion and groups of vastly different people coming together as human beings, but while it is a nice film, the filmmakers play it a bit too safe and it has a definite formulaic feel to it.

Surely, the real story of Pride was not as simplistic as this film felt at times.

The setting is 1984 England where a group of British miners goes on strike in a dispute over wages. A group named Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners made up of gay men and women develop an interest in the strike and decide to help the miners and families.

Why they decide to take on this cause is not fully explained- they just do. The National Union of Mineworkers is hesitant to accept funds as they worry about the publicity caused by a group thought to be perverts.

The film is certainly riddled with clichés- the macho miners resist the help from the gays- many of whom are portrayed as effeminate. The characters who are lesbians look as though the filmmakers wanted to “butch them up”, thereby overdoing the stereotype.

There is a subplot of one gay young man who has not come out to his parents- a well-to-do, pretentious couple. When inevitably the truth is revealed, the parents are angry and turn their backs on the teen. He leaves home to join the gays and lesbians who accept him into their lives with open arms.

The prudish, female head of the committee is homophobic and vows to do everything in her power to make sure the gay and lesbian group does not succeed in aligning with the miners.

These clichés seemed way overdone for the sake of making the film more dramatic. Some of the characters, therefore, come across as one-dimensional.

Even the story revolving around a character with AIDS seems watered down and soft.

On the plus side, the casting of the brilliant Imelda Staunton as the sympathetic, maternal, Hefina is a plus.

A huge supporter of gays and lesbians she comically befriends all of them and is curious about their lifestyles. Bill Nighy is also excellent as Cliff, the older miner who turns out to be gay himself.

Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister at the time, is presented as greedy and selfish with little regard or use for the miners or labor unions.

Pride is an earnest, sentimental, feel-good film that deserves adoration for the coming together of different communities.

I would have liked to see more risks taken by the film to perhaps obtain a darker edge to it.

The Imitation Game-2014

The Imitation Game-2014

Director-Morten Tyldum

Starring-Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley

Scott’s Review #213

70295172

Reviewed January 15, 2015

Grade: A

The Imitation Game tells the story of Alan Turing, a confident and brilliant British mathematician who was responsible for cracking Nazi Germany’s Enigma code, which led to the Allied forces winning World War II.

The film also delves into Turing’s complex and sad personal life and the audience grows to know his upbringing largely told via flashbacks as a small boy at boarding school.

The film is tragic yet wonderfully made and is a powerful viewing experience in human storytelling.

The film has two aspects going on. The first is the hiring of Turing by the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park to crack the code and the numerous struggles faced in accomplishing this feat.

Turing is not an easy-going man- he is arrogant, quick-witted, and even smug. However, through his friendship with Joan (Keira Knightley), an intelligent woman on the team of scholars, we see a human side to him as they forge a lifelong bond.

The other is of his personal life which is a bit more mysterious and comes more into play during the second half of the film. Keeping a secret about his personal life- he is homosexual, which in the time the film is set (1940’s England), is illegal. Alan and Joan agree to marry, in large part to appease her parents, but circumstances change these plans.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who portrays Turning, deserves heaps of praise for his impressive portrayal. He successfully gives depth and a wide range of emotions to the character. He begins as a self-centered man, but becomes layered, guarded, and protective due to his private life of which he is forced to hide a great deal.

Keira Knightley’s character gives support to Cumberbatch’s character of Alan as she becomes engaged to him and later in life becomes his biggest champion. Her character, besides being quite intelligent, is also kind and giving.

The ending of the film will give the viewer many tears and cause to think of the enormity of World War II in terms of the vast amount of casualties. The facts listed just before the credits roll are awe-inspiring and gut-wrenching.

The Imitation Game is not a war movie per se as it does not deal with battle scenes. It is more of a drama dealing with the effects of war and many figures are presented and some of the characters are affected in a second-hand way.

For instance, in one scene, the group (led by Turing) must make a heartbreaking decision not to stop an impending attack, which will cause many deaths- including a character’s brother- instead of choosing to keep mum to save thousands more. It is a powerful scene.

The film successfully and heartbreakingly tells a story of a heroic figure who received no accolades while he was living, instead of being ostracized, and not until posthumously, did he receive his due.

Sadly, this was too little too late.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Morten Tyldum, Best Actor-Benedict Cumberbatch, Best Supporting Actress-Keira Knightley, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Production Design, Best Film Editing

Foxcatcher-2014

Foxcatcher-2014

Director-Bennett Miller

Starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum

Scott’s Review #210

220px-Foxcatcher_First_Teaser_Poster

Reviewed January 2, 2015

Grade: A

Foxcatcher is a dark, disturbing, psychological thriller that achieves greatness based on its bleak look and great acting.

It is a superb character-driven story, based on true events, led by the talents of actors Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum, and Mark Ruffalo, each of whom gives an excellent performance. It is a sports film, but hardly predictable as many in this genre typically are.

The film is set in 1987. Brothers Mark and Dave Schultz (Tatum and Ruffalo respectively) are former Olympic gold medal-winning wrestlers attempting to compete in the upcoming 1988 Olympic competitions.

Despite having won a gold medal, Mark lives in squalor and is reduced to giving pep rallies at elementary schools- meant to be done by Dave- for very little money. Dave is the more successful brother- a family man living a happy existence. He is more talented than Mark and very driven. One day Mark is contacted by wealthy philanthropist John du Pont (Carrell) and invited to live with him at his expansive estate in Pennsylvania and train in his facility with other aspiring Olympic wrestlers.

John’s attempts at wooing Dave as well initially fail. From this point in the story, the film delves into psychologically dark territory, mainly the controlling, disturbing behavior of John, as he attempts to control Mark and woo Dave. John has a damaged relationship with his mother, Jean, wonderfully played by Vanessa Redgrave, in a small yet crucial role. Jean feels that John’s obsession with the wrestling world is far beneath him and their relationship is tense and unloving.

The three principal actors involved in the film are worthy of discussion as without these performances the film would not be as complex or compelling. Let’s begin with Channing Tatum- known primarily as a hunky movie star with questionable acting ability, he proves the naysayers wrong.

I cannot help but compare him to a younger Brad Pitt- it took years and many films for him to be recognized as more than a pretty face and abs to die for.

His performance is understated and calm, but nuanced in his laid-back demeanor. Sometimes anger bubbles under the surface.

Carrell is downright creepy as the affluent yet insecure Du Pont.

Throughout the film, the character just seems off somehow. Known mostly for silly comedies he is a breakout performance that, I hope, leads to similar meaty roles. Carrell shows he has what it takes to appear in quality films.

Lastly, Mark Ruffalo, who always plays interesting, everyman type characters, again emits much emotion from his character of Dave Schultz, a successful, driven, athlete who is also a dedicated husband and father.

With lesser casting, Foxcatcher would not have been as interesting.

Questions at the end of the film will arise- What were John du Pont’s motivations? What effect did his mother have on his actions? How could a man with all his power and wealth end up this sad? Were there inappropriate sexual overtures made towards the wrestlers by John?

Foxcatcher excels at portraying a dark, layered, moody, true story and teaches that wealth does not equate to happiness and in many instances, quite the contrary occurs. Foxcatcher is an immense success.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Bennett Miller, Best Actor-Steve Carell, Best Supporting Actor-Mark Ruffalo, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Special Distinction Award (won)

The Theory of Everything-2014

The Theory of Everything-2014

Director-James Marsh

Starring-Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones

Scott’s Review #199

80000644

Reviewed December 2, 2014

Grade: A-

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

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

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

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

Redmayne rises to the occasion with both believability and conviction making his portrayal as real as possible. The performance fondly reminded me of another great physical performance- that of Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot from 1989. Redmayne is certainly a rising star in Hollywood.

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

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

I get the sense that the filmmakers had Oscar on the mind as the film certainly is geared towards mainstream audiences with a wholesome slant to it.

The film skims past the complex theories and mathematical aspects-sure to confuse most- and focuses more on the inspirational tale of a person overcoming an immense challenge. Furthermore, the subsequent quadrangle between Hawking, Jane, Jane’s choir leader (Jonathan), and Hawking’s nurse (Elaine) is very toned down and safe from what transpired- Hawking’s family accused his nurse of abusing him which is never mentioned in the film.

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

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

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

A few thoughts I was left pondering- the pairing of Jane and Jonathan seemed inevitable to me from the moment they laid eyes on each other- they had much in common (religion), whereas Stephen and Jane were complete opposites- she catholic, he atheist.

The sexual chemistry between Stephen and Elaine was evident from the moment they laid eyes on each other. Elaine’s energetic sexiness perfectly contrasted with Jane’s at that point in the film- haggardness and weariness.

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

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

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

The Normal Heart-2014

The Normal Heart-2014

Director-Ryan Murphy

Starring-Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer

Scott’s Review #198

70302186

Reviewed December 1, 2014

Grade: B+

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

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

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

The film was produced by Brad Pitt- wonderful to know as films with this content (AIDS) are often tough to produce- nice that Pitt’s wealth and influence were used effectively.

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

The talented cast makes this film what it is. Matt Bomer plays Ned’s closeted gay lover, Felix Turner, one of the many casualties of the deadly disease. Bomer lost 40 pounds in preparation for the role.

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

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

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

The film shows the discrimination faced by the AIDS victims- from an airline pilot refusing to fly a plane carrying a sick patient, to an electrician refusing to enter a sick patient’s hospital room to fix a television set- sad when one realizes how ridiculous these unfounded fears proved to be.

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

And why exactly is Reagan considered a great President?

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

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

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

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