Category Archives: Action

Air Force One-1997

Air Force One-1997

Director Wolfgang Petersen

Starring Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman, Glenn Close

Scott’s Review #1,085

Reviewed November 21, 2020

Grade: B+

If ever a straight-ahead, summer blockbuster, popcorn flick existed, Air Force One (1997) is it. Surprisingly, this is not a bad thing. It’s not cerebral, but it’s never dull.

The film has hooks and muscle and assembles a thrill ride, edge-of-your-seat action fest. Some would say this is just what the doctor ordered, and they’d be right, provided the mood is for a mind-escaping, meat-and-potatoes affair.

Air Force One is pure Americana. With a patriotic musical score and a clear hero and villain, it’s easy to know who to root for. Suspension of disbelief is mandatory since some scenes are as implausible as Santa Claus shimmying down a chimney on Christmas Eve, but the film is entertaining.

The action is non-stop.

At the tail end of his prime action star years (the 1980s and 1990s), Harrison Ford stars as the president of the United States of America, James Marshall.

After making a bombastic speech in Moscow vowing never to negotiate with terrorists, a group of them led by the dastardly Ivan (Gary Oldman) hijacked Air Force One with the president and his family on board.

Marshall, a former soldier, hides in the cabin of the plane and races against time to save his family and those aboard the flight from the terrorists.

The plot is implausible and hokey and reeks of plot points to carry the story along, but surprisingly, the film works. There is no way a president would ever race around performing stunts aboard an airplane, conquering the villains like clockwork.

But Ford has the charisma to make us believe it could happen, and his character is a family man, a Vietnam veteran, and a Medal of Honor recipient. Can this guy be any more perfect?

Oldman, always reliable as a villain, is perfectly cast. His character’s motivations are simplistic and nationalistic. Ivan believes that the collapse of the Soviet Union has ruined his country and somehow it’s the fault of the United States.

The reasoning is silly, but it’s in keeping with the patriotic nature of Air Force One- the ‘us versus them’ mentality. The United States is good; Russia is bad. It’s what middle America wants, and the target audience of this film is clear. Back to the Cold War.

Wolfgang Petersen, who directs the film, knows his way around the action genre. After all, he crafted the memorable Das Boot (1981) and Outbreak (1995). The film has a Tom Clancy-Patriot Games meets Die Hard (1988) style.

Petersen meshes the score with the quick editing style to layer the film with more action than slowed-down conversational scenes. We know how it’s going to end but enjoy the ride.

Looking closely, the film is not just for the guys.

Glenn Close is cast as a female Vice President and a strong gender-twisting presence. Kathryn Bennett is a bold, careful woman and the implication is that she is more than capable of taking over should anything happen to the president.

Her scenes mostly take place in the White House Situation Room and provide a nice calm as she is pressured by the Defense Secretary (Dean Stockwell) to declare the president incapable.

The scenes between Stockwell and Close are very strong.

Air Force One (1997) is a cliché-riddled and mainstream Hollywood creation to the max. Both the pacing and the pulsating style make the film a guilty pleasure and quite enjoyable.

When the mood strikes to kick back and relax with a fun, action-packed affair, this one is your choice. Just don’t dissect the details too much or expect real-life to mimic art.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound, Best Film Editing

Mad Max-1979

Mad Max-1979

Director George Miller

Starring Mel Gibson

Scott’s Review #1,070

Reviewed October 15, 2020

Grade: A-

Mad Max (1979) is a gritty and dirty film that is nothing like any other film coming before it. There are an edginess and an “off the beaten track” quality that sucks you in and pummels you into submission with its energy and ferocity.

The film is raw and not slick and hats off for that. This is all done with fun intentions and it’s meant to be enjoyed, but the film has brutality and power that must be experienced to be believed.

The plot is not the most important quality, nor is it the most believable, but it’s the trimmings that make Mad Max unforgettable.

I haven’t seen the two follow-up sequels, Mad Max 2 (1981) or Beyond Thunderdome (1985), but my understanding is they are more family-friendly films, disappointing to hear after viewing the raw power of the original.

The undesirable Fury Road (2015), is an enormous critical and commercial success, but the appeal lost on me, is to be skipped in favor of the first.

I disliked that film.

But alas, a treasure such as the original can never be duplicated. The revenge-themed, fast car-driving, lewd masterpiece, is a must-see cult classic.

It stands the test of time.

In a post-apocalyptic future, an angry cop Max Rockatansky (Mel Gibson) is looking forward to retiring, having had enough of the derelicts that populate his region. One day, his world is shattered when a malicious gang murders his family as an act of retaliation, forcing a devastated Max to hit the open road seeking vengeance.

As he travels the Australian outback’s empty stretches of highway, he tours the bloodstained battlegrounds ruled by low-life bikers who feed on violence.

Mad Max made Mel Gibson a star. His breakthrough role, led to future work in the action and buddy genres, specifically the Lethal Weapon franchise (1987-1998) with tepid success from any artistic standpoint until he bravely took on more creative and challenging roles.

Max is his finest action character and most authentic feeling. He mixes a blend of rage, sentimentality, and humanity, perfectly, never missing a beat.

And his youthful looks are enchanting to see.

The multitude of scenes featuring super fast-cars, motorbike gangs, and leather-clad creatures with colorful tattoos and missing teeth are just the icing on the cake of the fun that lies ahead.

Names like Toecutter and Bubba give you an idea here.

These are all great add-ons, but the revenge-seeking Max is the one to watch. The scene is immediately set when the grizzled Nightrider is killed by Max in a chaotic police chase. His gang goes rampant and loots and destroys shops and businesses, raping both women and men. All hell breaks loose.

The best sequence is also the most horrific.

Taking place on the open road, naturally, a sweet vacation by Max, wife Jessie (Joanne Samuel), and son Sprog begins with a pleasant drive, only to result in a chase scene climaxing with Sprog’s death and Jessie languishing in intensive care.

The image of Sprog and Jessie lying on the open road, tattered and torn, is memorable and sticks with you.

The film is intelligent if studied thoroughly enough, and a study in film school is recommended. Credit must be given to director George Miller who knows his way around a camera.

The cinematography lends much to the film and a feeling of being there is the desirous result. The editors deserve a special prize for their brilliant efforts.

Undoubtedly influencing countless action genre selections of the 1980s and 1990s, most running the gamut between only marginally fun (the Terminator franchise-1984-present) or downright atrocious (The Running Man-1987), Mad Max (1979) breathes life into the genre.

Action films are categorically known to be one-dimensional but by adding a cool Australian locale, characters who are filled with cartoon bombast and punky zest, and a futuristic mystique, Miller crafts well.

It’s a low-budget flick, destined for underground viewership and appreciation, that is somehow nearly flawless.

The Great Escape-1963

The Great Escape-1963

Director John Sturges

Starring Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough

Scott’s Review #1,053

Reviewed August 17, 2020

Grade: B

Often heralded as one of the great World War II action films of all time, there is little great about the first half of the interminable two-hour and fifty-three-minute running time.

With enough military silliness to make television’s Hogan’s Heroes seem like high drama, the first half of The Great Escape (1963) would be graded a mediocre C or a C- and that’s being generous.

The final hour is an entirely different matter and when the actual “great escape” is launched the film kicks into high gear. Not only does the action kick off, but the characters become more layered, emotional, and compelling.

There are also killer location shots of Germany and Switzerland occurring at a zooming pace and the comedy soon turns to tragedy.

Why the decision to save all the goodies for the final act instead of dispersing them around is beyond me, but I am glad this film took off as it did.

Directed by John Sturges, known for creating a similarly masculine and muscular offering from 1960, The Magnificent Seven,  he once again is lucky to cast several of Hollywood’s then hot, young stars like Steve McQueen and James Garner, and more relatable character actors like Donald Pleasence and Richard Attenborough who provide the acting grit.

While not on my list of great World War II films (Schindler’s List (1993) gets top honors), the film is recommended for the gutsy and enthralling finale alone.

The film is based on Paul Brickhill’s 1950 nonfiction book of the same name, a firsthand account of the mass escape by British Commonwealth prisoners of war from German POW camp Stalag Luft III in Nazi Germany.

Unsurprisingly, and rather shockingly, the real events are significantly modified from the historical record, depicting a starkly fictionalized version of the escape, including Americans among the escapees.

Let’s discuss both portions, warts and all.

The changes are most irritating and done to make it more “Americanized” and therefore more appealing to mainstream audiences. This manipulation gnawed at me during most of the film since it’s factually incorrect.

To be fair, there is a brief disclaimer at the beginning of the film with a note saying the story is a work of fiction save for the escape portion, but this will inevitably be unnoticed or forgotten by the casual viewer.

Most of the first arc action is spent within the confinement of a massive, high-security, prisoner-of-war camp where the group of men is huddled, having escaped other camps or prisons. You would think the camp would be the equivalent of Alcatraz but besides some barbed wire and not-so-threatening German soldiers with guns they rarely use, it’s not so intimidating.

Nonetheless, shortly upon arrival, the group begins to plot their elaborate, mostly underground escape.

Whoever composed the musical score for the first section was going for a campy, situational comedy-style tone with brassy, patriotic tunes worthy of Gilligan’s Island.

This does nothing to create tension or danger nor do the Nazi soldiers.

The men would be terrifying and rely on torture, but there is none of that to be found. Safe, but trying to be stern, this does not work as the German soldiers are played more like foils than those to be feared.

When the “great escape” is upon us, The Great Escape gets an A-plus for its thrills, action, and emotion.

A harrowing plane ride taken by Robert Hendley (Garner) and Colin Blythe (Pleasence) is juicy with tension and atmosphere. As the duo flies low across the German terrain heading over the Swiss Alps for safety the plane exhibits trouble.

Meanwhile, Hilts (McQueen) steals a motorcycle and traverses the Germany/Switzerland border in a frantic chase scene while the Germans are in hot pursuit.

In a third sequence, other men flee via train in a cat-and-mouse pursuit.

Seventy-six POWs flee the camp and a startling fifty are killed. Twenty-three are returned to the camp and only three successfully escape.

If Sturges had built around the final hour and reduced the silly comedy style, probably attempting a contrasting theme to make the drama more imbalanced, he might have had a masterpiece on hand.

Instead, The Great Escape (1963) is a twofold experience.

A comedy that develops into a nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat thriller, but suffers from too much historical inaccuracy to reach the depths of cinematic greatness.

Oscar Nominations: Best Film Editing

Ford v Ferrari-2019

Ford v Ferrari-2019

Director-James Mangold

Starring Matt Damon, Christian Bale

Scott’s Review #1,041

Reviewed July 18, 2020

Grade: B-

Ford v Ferrari (2019) is a film based on a real-life situation in the world of race car driving featuring two of Hollywood’s most recognizable leading men, Matt Damon and Christian Bale.

Co-leads, they share equal screen time and independent storylines that merge nicely. Bale gives the better performance and is the best part of an otherwise mediocre film. The rest is quite formulaic and traditional in plot and filmmaking sensibilities.

Receiving several Academy Award nominations, I expected more from the experience. Granted, car racing isn’t the subject I’m most intrigued by.

Carroll Shelby (Damon) is an American car designer and entrepreneur, who is hired by the Ford motor company to build a car that will beat the Italian-owned Ferrari after a feud erupts between the two owners. Shelby is tasked with building the car to debut at the upcoming 1966 24 Hours of Le Man’s car race in France.

The rebellious race car driver, Ken Miles (Bale) who has no fear, is chosen to drive the new car. He and his wife have money troubles and need the payday.

Director, James Mangold, certainly adds his share of pomp and circumstance making this a testosterone-fueled guy’s film. Traditional styles ensue as the climactic race fills the last act of the way too long production. There is a story of loyalty and brotherhood between Carroll and Ken that feels forced and dated.

Ford v Ferrari is formulaic to a tee with a clear modus operandi of providing entertainment and action.

The pieces are all in play. The Ford corporation is pissed at being tricked into a deal by a foreign country (Italy). They vow revenge with a big boy American car that can defeat the foreign car. There is a climactic finish with the American car the clear victor.

But first, there are hurdles to face to increase the tension and drama. Ken’s driver door malfunctions causing him to have to gain laps to catch up to Ferrari.

Ford is written as the underdog which is a tough sell.

Since the real-life events took place during the Cold War, Mangold spins a definitive Americana, good old boys’ creation that feels too patriotic to be genuine.

So many other films have a similar vibe- Apollo 13 (1995), The Martian (2015), and especially the similar themed Rush (2013). The Ford guys, though cagey and gruff, are meant to be the characters the audience roots for and the Italian characters are not.

And is there a need to still show the cliched scene of a dedicated wife obediently watching television at home and cheering on her husband as he races?

The gripes are not to say the film is a bad experience- it’s not. It’s just that it’s on par with good Mexican takeout from your favorite restaurant.

You know exactly what you are going to get and there is some comfort and satisfaction in that. Ford v Ferrari is an easy watch and one can sink into his or her lazy-boy and enjoy the revving engines, squealing tires, and smoking mufflers.

The film is machismo at its finest. Think of a better version of The Fast and the Furious (2001-present) franchise.

Let’s talk Oscar nominations.

There is no way Ford v Ferrari should have received a Best Picture nomination. Either Us (2019), Hustlers (2019), or A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) could have deservedly taken its spot.

Warranted are nominations for Film Editing, Sound Editing, and Sound Mixing in which it won the first two. More realistic is for Christian Bale to have been awarded a Best Supporting Actor nomination, which he did not receive.

Sometimes the Academy gets it right, sometimes they don’t.

Being a non-race car-driving aficionado might have hindered my enjoyment of the film over a more passionate viewer. For those seeking a standard rev ’em up, male-driven race car film, kick up your heels and enjoy the ride- you’ll love it. Ford v Ferrari (2019) will only marginally please those seeking deeper meaning in film or film as art.

The film will certainly be remembered as one as mainstream and Hollywood produced as humanly possible.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing (won)

A History of Violence-2005

A History of Violence-2005

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Mario Bello, Ed Harris

Scott’s Review #1,016

Reviewed April 28, 2020

Grade: B+

David Cronenberg has directed films such as Videodrome (1983), The Fly (1986), and Crash (1996), stories safely classified as “off the beaten path”.

With A History of Violence (2005), he creates a film that on the surface appears conventional and even wholesome at the onset, a family drama or thriller, that turns sinister and bloody as it lumbers along.

The Christian-like small Indiana town is the perfect backdrop to quietly inflict mayhem and terror on its characters. Stars Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris give tremendous portrayals.

Tom Stall (Mortensen) lives a quiet mid-western life and owns a quaint, little diner nestled in the center of town. He is a popular man and quite neighborly, befriending the many patrons who visit his lovely eatery. At his side are his adoring wife Edie (Maria Bello), and children, Jack and Sarah.

If they owned a golden retriever and resided in a house with a white picket fence, they would define the all-American family.

Late one night, two men attempt to rob the restaurant and when they attack a waitress, Tom kills both robbers with surprising ease and skill barely blinking at his violent tendencies. He is professed a hero by the townspeople and the incident makes him a local celebrity.

Tom is then visited by the frightening scarred gangster Carl Fogarty (Harris), who insists that Tom is a notorious gangster from Philadelphia named Joey Cusack. Tom is perplexed and vehemently denies the claims, but Fogarty begins to stalk the Stall family.

Because of the pressure, Tom’s family life hits crisis mode.

As the film ticks along the plot becomes thicker and thicker as the puzzle pieces are rife with mystery. Is Fogarty merely a liar, holding a vendetta against the person who killed his men? Does Tom suffer from amnesia, having forgotten his past life due to an accident?

Has Tom fled the criminal life seeking refuge and a new life in middle America, safely leaving his troubles behind? Does the truth lie somewhere in the middle of these possibilities?

Bello is cast in the role of Edie, Tom’s loyal wife. Bello is a stellar actor and does a wonderful job in the complicated role. Far too often, especially in thrillers, the wife role is as lacking in the challenge as it is in glamour. The ever-supportive wife must be a drag to play but pays the bills.

Edie is different, and as soon as the viewer has her figured out, she acts out of the blue which will surprise this type of character. This has a lot to do with Bello’s pizzazz and acting chops.

I adore the setting of the film. A far cry from the bustling City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, when the action eventually flows to the city, the rural setting of Indiana becomes even more important.

The quiet mornings, the imagined smell of fresh-brewed coffee, the crackling of sizzling bacon on the grill at Tom’s Diner, and finally, crickets chirping in the distance, all provoke the potent atmosphere and surroundings that work in this film.

A History of Violence (2005) is a superior film that contains excellent writing, the best aspect of the rich experience. A top-notch screenplay written by Josh Olson leaves the viewer not only with mounting tension but the mysterious unknown as to what will happen next and what the truth is.

Mortensen, commonplace in recent Cronenberg films, has found his niche playing complex yet humanistic characters, which must be a challenge for the actor and a splendid reward for the audience.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-William Hurt, Best Adapted Screenplay

10,000 B.C.- 2008

10,000 B.C.- 2008

Director Roland Emmerich

Starring Steven Strait, Camilla Belle

Scott’s Review #988

Reviewed February 11, 2020

Grade: F

10,000 B.C. (2008) is a by-the-numbers adventure/action hybrid film that attempts to be slick and modern with catchy visual elements and instead bottoms out resulting in an example of terrible filmmaking.

The CGI usurps all other qualities providing no historical accuracy, with a ridiculous 2008 feel rather than the time at hand. Those involved only had maximum box office returns in mind when the film was created.

An irritating formulaic quality and poor acting across the board leave this one dead on arrival.

Fierce, masculine mammoth hunter D’Leh (Steven Strait) sets out on an impossible journey to rescue the woman he loves, Evolet, (Camilla Belle) from an evil warlord and save the people of his village.

While venturing into the unknown and frightening territories, D’Leh and his fellow warriors discover an amazing civilization rife with possibilities.

Predictably, the warriors are attacked and slaughtered, leaving the young man to protect the remaining group while winning the heart of a princess, well above his station in life.

The story is complete schmaltz and easy to predict from nearly the very beginning of the film.

Powerful invaders force the hunters of D’Leh’s tribe into slavery and accost the princess in such a fashion that the setup is all put neatly in place for the viewer, providing nothing out of the ordinary. When the young and naive boy has an epiphany and realizes he is the only one who can save his tribe from extinction, it is all too much.

The film is riddled with cliche after cliche after cliche.

A tough ask to lead a film with summer blockbuster written all over it, newcomers Strait and Belle do their best, which only enhances how poor their acting is.

Cast for their good looks, they can offer little else. For audience delight, Strait is costumed with a bad wig, dripping sweat, and bulging muscles. Belle is also victimized as she pouts and sulks while wearing skimpy clothing.

The result is a standard boy meets a girl, the boy loses the girl, and the boy becomes a man to save the girl’s mess. Inexplicable is how they meet and fall in love before ever speaking or getting to know each other.

If only the bad acting were the only negative the film might be fair to middling, but nothing good is ever offered. All the hunters and tribesmen look like modern people dressed to look from a different period.

The endless battle scenes borrow from the legions of action and adventure films that have come before it. The animals prance across the screen in obvious timed moments providing little in the way of authenticity.

Director, Roland Emmerich, known for films such as Independence Day (1996) and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) has a knack for creating large epic adventures to please mainstream audiences.

There is nothing wrong with a conventional film if it manages to teach the viewer something or offer something of merit. With a target audience of pubescent boys and girls yearning to learn, Emmerich misses a golden opportunity to present an imaginative prehistoric moment and provide a lesson.

Complete with a bad story and bad acting, the drivel conjured up is nearly too much.

10,000 B.C. (2008) cannot be saved by the over-stylish visuals because they are so phony one cannot even fathom any credibility. The good-looking main stars look straight out of a glossy magazine and hardly from the prehistoric era presented.

With a little attempt at giving audiences anything of substance, this film is an epic fail to be missed.

300-2007

300-2007

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Gerard Butler, Dominic West

Scott’s Review #977

Reviewed January 7, 2020

Grade: D

On paper 300 (2007) could have been a good or even a great film under different circumstances, if a historical realism or a message of some kind had existed.

Unfortunately, what sounds like an interesting premise is met with a cartoon quality, over-acting, and cheesy testosterone-laden bombast.

Little more than drivel, the film is saved slightly by a charismatic lead, male flesh, and potent homo-eroticism, but this is no Magic Mike (2012), and the content fails because it is intended to be taken seriously.

The result is a silly affair, with predictability, and cliches for miles.

The story is based on a 1998 comic series of the same name that is a fictionalized retelling of a battle within the Persian War.

The flimsy plot revolves around King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), who leads 300 Spartans into battle against the Persian “God-King” Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his invading army of more than 300,000 soldiers (hence the title).

As the battle rages on, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support in Sparta for her husband (Leonidas) and conquer the army.

Butler is the only slight positive worth mentioning as he preens and prances in little more than a loin-cloth with chiseled abs during the battle scenes, ferociously bellowing at his enemy.

A fine-looking man, he is unarguably charismatic and poised, so the audience is strongly encouraged to root for him, and naturally for the Spartans. Leonidas makes for a powerful leader and is great to look at, but that is where any positives to this film end.

The scantily clad gimmick is not intended to draw female viewers to the film, or at least the intent doesn’t seem to be there unless the marketing is botched. There is enough male nudity to go around and the beefcake and machismo are clear in most of the characters.

Laughable is how the Spartans all have washboard abs and appear to be freshly waxed. Did they have access to state-of-the-art fitness centers in 479 BC?

The Persians are mostly face-pierced and sneering, the clear enemy, which does nothing to diminish racist overtones. Spartan-good, Persian-bad.

Zack Snyder’s (Dawn of the Dead-2004) motivation seems to be to market this film to pubescent teenage males or the low-IQ crowd so the stereotypes are not the best thing to witness nor will they cause anyone to feel very liberated or united.

The characters are either cookie-cutter or grizzled and violent, which is in tune with most of the film- bloody, but without reason, substance, or merit. One-note character after one-note character appears through each scene.

Most bothersome is the intent to stir a pro-war stance, not helpful given the target audience.

300 was filmed mostly with a superimposition chroma key technique, to help replicate the imagery of the original comic book which does nothing but make the film look like a high-energy video game.

The product is quite stylized with gloomy battleground scenes and dire bleakness and derives a graphic novel or comic book approach but lacks any subtle qualities or pretty much anything else interesting from a cinematography perspective.

The battle scene finale is by the numbers and should come as no surprise who the inevitable victor is. The film requires little thought or attention span and one can simply immerse themselves onto a cushion and absorb the nonsense couch-potato style.

Battle after battle erupts with cliched earnestness and a bevy of blood-spurting wounds and kills. This would be okay if there existed any point or good plot twist.

Any character development is missing.

300 (2007) is a weak offering and decidedly boring, a surprise since much of the events take place on the battleground where the action is produced a mile a minute. The experience is forgettable, and a legion of other action-fueled films exist with more meat and potatoes on their plate.

The sinister and stereotypical aspects make the resulting film less than fun and the big, loud, dumb product is only marginally cinematic.

We can do better.

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames

Scott’s Review #956

Reviewed November 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a remake of the original horror-comedy-satire film by legendary George Romero. What the original provided in intrigue and concept is lacking in the much bloodier remake- the freshness is not there.

The film was made pre-television phenomenon The Walking Dead but watching it now with the zombie obsession in a steady decline, the film, while entertaining, feels tired and dated.

The film feels patterned after the successful and fresh 28 Days Later (2002).

Now set in Wisconsin (the original was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Ana (Sarah Polley), returns from a shift at the local hospital, where she works as a nurse. She soon learns that massive bulletins alert sudden zombie plague, where former human beings have turned into cannibalistic corpses.

Her husband a victim, Ana joins a small group of survivors at the local shopping mall and attempts to stay alive while being encircled by the creatures, and other not-so-nice people.

The main group includes a grizzled police sergeant, Kenneth (Ving Rhames), electronics salesman Michael, petty criminal Andre and his pregnant wife, Luda, and three guards, C.J., Bart, and Terry.  They are later joined by others who arrive via delivery truck.

The large group befriends another survivor, Andy, who is stranded in his gun store across the zombie-infested parking lot.

The rest of the film offs the characters one by one in traditional horror style, while the remaining few try to figure out an escape route.

The main problem with Dawn of the Dead is that the characters are not written well, making them either one-note or not particularly interesting, and quite stereotypical. Examples of this are the angry and defiant guards, who make trouble for the rest of the group for no other reason than as a weak plot device to create drama other than from the zombies.

Kenneth is an angry cop, a lone wolf type of character, who frequently postures and preaches. Again, there is no interesting reason behind his personality.

Finally, Steve is an oversexed playboy who keeps recordings of his sexual shenanigans for repeated viewings.

The character meant to root for is Ana. We sympathize with her for her husband’s gruesome death and her struggle to stay alive, so she is the film’s hero. Her character is likable and Polley is a worthy actress, but I wonder if a name star would have been better in this circumstance.

Polley did not last very long in the Hollywood world and this only makes the film feel more dated than it already does. Many viewers will not know who the actress is.

Another irritant is the decision to make the zombies move faster. Part of the beauty of the zombies is that they are slow and brooding, unable to think, just existing in a mummy-like haze. Suddenly, they are fast, making them tougher to flee from. This attempt at a modern approach by changing things up too much does not work at all.

Dawn of the Dead is not all dour.

Props must be given to the mall setting, updated for 2004 shopping inclusiveness. Trendy and timely stores are added, and it feels like a mall of its time. This is one aspect of the film that works and feels interesting.

Eagle-eyed viewers may spot some of their favorite stores from this decade.

The strongest part of an otherwise mediocre film is the brilliant incorporation of the heavy-metal band Disturbed’s aggressive song “Down with the Sickness” from 1999. The song is incorporated over the stylistic end credits and a summary of what happens to the survivors is provided over the lyrically brutal song.

Unfortunately, it is at the very ending of the film where it finally hits a home run.

Since this is a remake it is impossible not to compare it to the 1978 version in many ways. The characters in the original had more salt and a romance added a bit of complexity. The original also felt fun whereas the 2004 version seems hardened and angry.

The originality that made the original fresh is lacking in this retread, which limits the unique social context and thought provocation that the original contained.

With little reason to watch Dawn of the Dead (2004), unless it was still 2004, the original 1978 Romero version is far superior. A fun tip might be to watch them in sequence (I did!) to notice differences in style and pacing and for general comparison sake.

The final musical score is a win, but much of the rest is dull and dated.

Atomic Blonde-2017

Atomic Blonde-2017

Director-David Leitch

Starring Charlize Theron, James McAvoy

Scott’s Review #857

Reviewed January 19, 2019

Grade: B+

Atomic Blonde (2017) is a female-empowering action/spy film directed by David Leitch, a former stuntman. The film plays similarly to a James Bond film only with the genders reversed.

Featuring dynamic music and cold, crisp location sequences of Europe, the film is visually stylish. The story is not the main appeal and cannot always be followed, but thanks to a great performance by Charlize Theron in the title role the film is pleasant and recommended for fans of either the spy or the action genres.

Based on the 2012 graphic novel The Coldest City, the film is set in Berlin during 1989 and its major theme is the collapse of the Berlin Wall amid a spy story and the Cold War backdrop.

A grizzled female MI6 agent, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron), is quizzed about events that occurred during her recent time spent in the German city investigating the death of a fellow spy.

She recounts her mission via flashbacks and the whereabouts of a mysterious list that reveals the names of MI6 and KGB Russian agents. Lorraine deals frequently with David Percival (James McAvoy), an odd colleague who may or may not be trusted.

The plot and subsequent story are hardly the finer points of Atomic Blonde and the title- a play on words of “atomic bomb” is too cute to take seriously.

Given that the novice director is a former stuntman one should not expect high art or exceptional writing material. The largest issue besides the plot holes and implausibility of the story is that it is not that engaging. After thirty minutes of trying to ascertain who had “the list” I gave up and tried not to follow too closely instead enjoying the other qualities the film offers.

Theron is well cast as bleached blonde vixen Lorraine- tough as nails and bad-ass to the core. With icy eyes and a sneer to make the toughest opponents cringe the actress contains the charisma to make the role her own.

The number of fight scenes that the tall and fit woman endures is too plentiful to count, but her pizzazz and wherewithal make the character believable. Her toned and physicality is not dissimilar from her character in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015).

Bisexual, Lorraine has a brief romantic escapade with Delphine Lasalle (Sofia Boutella), a young French agent, until the woman is murdered.

Any adventurer of Europe will be enamored from a logistical perspective with the exciting locales featured heartily in Atomic Blonde.

Sleek and modern, the photography and cinematography departments do a fantastic job of giving the film authenticity and audacity daring to reveal the terrific nooks and crannies the best cities have to offer.

Given the number of high-speed car chase scenes and a fantastic underwater sequence, London, Paris, and Berlin are all given their just due.

The feminist overview that Atomic Blonde possesses is worthy of praise. Able to tangle with the best of them, Lorraine takes no prisoners and is determined to battle until the end or until she is too bloody to battle back. She is tough yet sensitive and puts up with no-nonsense.

Still, she has a heart as evidenced by not only the violent death of her girlfriend and her subsequent reaction but her calm despair at being unable to save a drowning man’s life. Lorraine’s calm and resilience instead of over-dramatic emotional outrage make her a character developed very well and a role model for young women everywhere.

McAvoy is cute as a button as David adds comic relief and sly witticisms to many scenes. He often appears shirtless exposing his lean and muscular physique. As a fan of sexual dalliances, he is both combative and flirtatious with Lorraine though he never beds her.

A yin to her yang and sparring partners throughout, David is a nice addition to a cast containing mostly serious characters.

The 1980’s themed musical score features a helping of nostalgic songs peppered throughout the film seemingly every few moments.

Atomic Blonde plays like a bold music video with intelligently penned songs, not disposable crap. The inclusion adds a genuine celebration of the decade of decadence crafted thoughtfully.

Treats such as the masterful “Voices Carry” by ‘Til Tuesday, “London Calling” by The Clash, and “Der Kommissar” by After the Fire is placed perfectly during relevant scenes.

With a ballsy lead character and enough action to envelope a nearly two-hour action thriller Atomic Blonde (2017) is a gift in the atmosphere and great ambiance. Forget bothering to deep-dive into the complex story too much- it isn’t worth it.

Admittedly coveting style over substance can be forgiven because the nice elements overshadow the negatives.

Atomic Blonde is best served as a kick-back and enjoy the ride experience.

Moonraker-1979

Moonraker-1979

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Roger Moore, Lois Chiles

Scott’s Review #770

Reviewed June 8, 2018

Grade: A-

Moonraker (1979) is an installment of the James Bond film franchise not usually well regarded and rarely appearing on critic’s top ten lists.

Perhaps a reason for this is the timing of the film, hot on the heels of the late 1970’s Star Wars craze. Plans for a different Bond film were scrapped in favor of an outer space story.

Regardless, I adore most of Moonraker, save for the final thirty minutes when the plot gets way too far-fetched for anyone’s good.

The rest of the film is a superior entry and holds up quite well in the modern age of all things Bond.

Many of the familiar elements remain intact following the successful and lavish The Spy Who Loved Me (1975). An even heftier budget featuring gorgeous locales like Venice, Rio de Janeiro, and the Amazon rain forest is featured as well as a capable, intelligently written “Bond girl”.

The villains, compelling and suave, including the return appearance of Jaws (Richard Kiel), and handy, dandy gadgets make Moonraker a treat for fans.

Therefore, I find the non-love for the film rather mystifying.

The action starts when a jumbo airplane carrying a Drax Industries Moonraker space shuttle is hijacked in midair causing the plane to crash and the shuttle to disappear.

Since the space shuttle was on loan to the United Kingdom from the wealthy and powerful Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), 007 (Roger Moore) is tasked with finding its whereabouts. He visits the grand shuttle-manufacturing plant in California where he learns that Drax and his bodyguard Chang are sinister and plotting global destruction.

Bond befriends the gorgeous and highly intelligent Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), an astronaut who works at the facility, and Corinne Dufour (Corinne Clery), the beautiful personal pilot of Drax.

As events roll along Jaws returns to the story seeking revenge on Bond and subsequently serving as Drax’s new bodyguard.

Of course, treasured favorites like M (Bernard Lee), Q (Desmond Llewelyn), and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell), return to the fold.

To explain the weakest portion of the film first, producers were attempting to capitalize on the tremendous success of 1977’s Star Wars by featuring a space exploration theme.

Only in the final half-hour does this come into play as Bond and Goodhead, and nearly all the cast, don bright yellow spacesuits. Drax’s evil plan is to eradicate all humankind and begin a new world with only beautiful people existing and reproducing.

The inevitable final battle scenes take place in a sprawling space station amid laser guns shooting bright beams- a direct rip-off from Star Wars.

The entire sequence is too long and quite reminiscent of my criticism of the tedious finale from the otherwise brilliant The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker’s predecessor.

Otherwise, the film is top-notch.

Fantastic sequences involve Bond’s mid-air fight with a bad guy and a dangerous struggle for a parachute, a fight scene high atop a Cable Car during Rio Carnival, vicious sparring in a Venice museum, and a female character chased and torn to bits by Drax’s carnivorous dogs, all make for great action sequences.

The highlight though may very well be Bond’s harrowing ordeal inside an out-of-control centrifuge chamber.

The return of Jaws is certainly a highlight to Moonraker especially as the popular villain turns “good” and finds a love interest! When he sees the cute blonde girl with pigtails and glasses, both character’s eyes light up in a “love at first sight” moment.

As Jaws realizes Drax’s plans for both of them to exterminate his alliances suddenly switch resulting in a touching scene between the two over champagne.

Moore and Chiles have tremendous chemistry as the MI-6 agent teams with the capable female CIA agent. Holly Goodhead is portrayed exceptionally well: female, intelligent, gorgeous, and savvy.

Impressive (and progressive) is how Goodhead takes charge as she and 007 make a harrowing journey back to planet Earth and then work nicely together to destroy Drax’s deadly missiles.

Sure the romance is there, but also the mutual respect between the two.

Fondly recalling childhood memories of watching this film numerous times, Moonraker (1979) holds good memories for me.

More importantly, it possesses wonderful Bond qualities that will enchant many Bond fans seeking fun and entertainment.

The film contains a ludicrous plot attempting to fit the times, but thanks to lavish sets and a competent main Bond girl, the film is quite memorable.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

GoldenEye-1995

GoldenEye-1995

Director Martin Campbell

Starring Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco

Scott’s Review #717

Reviewed January 19, 2018

Grade: B

By 1995, after a record six years between films, the James Bond franchise re-emerged energetically with Pierce Brosnan assuming the role of the MI6 agent-, and breathing some fresh life into the character.

The charming and suave Irish actor gave a new direction to the role last played by Timothy Dalton-an an actor who gave Bond more of a brooding quality. The resulting GoldenEye offers mixed results, though the casting is a vast improvement over its predecessor.

GoldenEye sees other monumental roles recast- that of Judi Dench as M and Samantha Bond as Miss Moneypenny.

The film has a slick look, and a compelling story, but at times is tough to follow, and overall- despite containing all the elements- something seems missing.

Or maybe I just prefer the other Bonds more? Still, the offering is far from a bad watch.

GoldenEye kicks off with, in hindsight, a major clue to the story as Bond  (Brosnan) and fellow 00 agents, Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean), infiltrate a Soviet facility in northern Russia in 1986, searching for chemical weapons.

Alec is tragically killed by sinister Soviet General Ourumov and Bond mourns the loss of his friend.

The action resumes in present times (1995) as, now in gorgeous Monte Carlo, Bond follows the beautiful and sadistic Xenia Onatopp, a  crime syndicate member known for crushing men with her thighs. Xenia and Ourumov travel to Siberia where they destroy a bunker holding GoldenEye satellites and kill everyone except the computer programmer, Boris (Alan Cumming), and the lone survivor, Natalya  (Izabella Scorupco).

In a clever twist, it is revealed that Alec has betrayed British Intelligence and is himself leading the crime syndicate.

In one of the quietest, and best scenes, Bond and M have an interesting exchange in her office as M (a woman) calls Bond out on his arrogance and chauvinism, and states that it is a new day.

Dench adds a ton of female modernism into the role (about time in 1995) as Bond now reports to a woman. The scene is important as it leads the two characters to achieve mutual respect and arguably parlays the franchise into a new, more female-empowering direction.

A great positive to GoldenEye is the setting, which I think does wonders for the film as a whole- the bitter, blustery, Siberian set gives a soothing feeling, especially while watching the film during the ravages of winter, snug with a warm blanket and heaters.

Regardless, the sets are realistic, never cheesy, and loaded with atmosphere- so the film itself looks wonderful.

Issues abound with the frenetic pacing of the film- at times I found myself losing track of the action or the sequence of events.

Understandably, as in many Bond films, events circle the globe and, surely London, Russia, and Monte Carlo are great locations, but especially within the film’s final climax, I suffered from sensory overload.

Furthermore, Brosnan is not one of my favorite Bonds. Sure, he has the charisma, the looks, and the charm to pull off the role, but something about him does not measure up to Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, or Daniel Craig- certainly he supersedes Timothy Dalton.

Don’t get me wrong- I do not despise him as Bond, but nothing stands him out against the others either.

The villains in GoldenEye are perfectly adequate if not spectacular. Sean Bean gives Alec a sly, aww shucks appeal and defines good-looking, but his motivations for switching sides are not very exciting- something about Nazis in World War II, the Cossacks, and revenge are quickly mentioned, but it doesn’t much matter.

General  Ourumov is effective- with his sinister look, he is the perfect Bond villain. Xenia is little more than a cartoon character (with the name to boot) and her gimmick quickly wears thin.

Finally, Cummings as the programmer is played only for laughs, and his final chant of “I am invincible!” as he freezes into solid ice is mildly humorous.

The title theme song, “GoldenEye”, performed by Tina Turner is forgettable at best and one of the most lackluster in the illustrious musical catalog.

GoldenEye has many of the standard Bond elements within its frames and is a decent entry in the franchise. With the debut of a new Bond, the film has a fresh and very modern and technical feel to it that, along with a fantastic setting, overlooks some flaws in the storytelling.

Filled with bombast and a crowd-pleasing method, GoldenEye (1995) is hardly the best Bond film, but not the worst.

Octopussy-1983

Octopussy-1983

Director John Glen

Starring Roger Moore, Maud Adams

Scott’s Review #716

Reviewed January 17, 2018

Grade: A-

Hardly regarded as one of the most stellar of entries in the James Bond franchise, 1983’s Octopussy is nonetheless a guilty pleasure of mine.

This is undoubtedly due to the film being the first installment that I was allowed to see in the movie theater and is filled with exciting memories.

As the film stands in current days it is perfectly fine, containing all of the enjoyable elements necessary for a good Bond film- interesting villains, solid action, and gorgeous women. Perhaps at times suffering from a bit of silliness, Octopussy is still quite the fantastic watch.

Roger Moore, admittedly looking slightly aged and sagging, returns to the fold as 007, the shaken, but not stirred action hero known as James Bond. However, he is, true to form, as witty and suave as he always is with witty one-liners and a mischievous smirk.

Moore ritualistically infuses the character with a measure of comedy- a wink of the eye or a raised eyebrow adds humor to the character so than any other actor who has portrayed Bond.

In this installment, Faberge eggs, clowns, and gorilla suits are featured. Attempting to escape from East Berlin to West Berlin, 009- dressed as a circus clown, is murdered on the estate of a British Ambassador while attempting to deliver a fake Faberge egg.

Assuming the Soviets are involved, MI6 instructs Bond to investigate the matter, and a complex smuggling ring is uncovered- featuring a gorgeous female smuggler named Octopussy (Maud Adams), along with sinister Afghan exiled prince Kamal Kahn (Louis Jourdan), and his bodyguard, Gobinda.

Watching the film in 2018, and even though it was made in 1983, Octopussy does not suffer from the dreaded “1980s look” that so many other films do and seems surprisingly clean and fresh.

The colors are vibrant- especially in the prevalent circus and clown scenes, and the best two scenes- the airplane and train scenes- still bristle and crackle with good action.

As the climax to Octopussy culminates, the inevitable heroine and main Bond girl- Adams’s “Octopussy”, has been bound and gagged and taken hostage by the baddies in a fleeing airplane, Bond grabs hold of the fuselage, and begins a harried flight over the mountains of remote India, clinging for dear life.

The scene climaxes with an exciting fight scene atop the rooftop of the speeding plane as Bond and Gobinda fight to the death as Kamal unsuccessfully attempts to twist and turn the plane and rid themselves of pesky Bond.

The scene is still compelling and loses none of its appeal over the years, never appearing dated.

The train sequence is still relevant but does suffer from a small dose of silliness. The action is plentiful as Bond races against time to prevent a Russian missile from detonating and killing thousands of American citizens, and worthy of note is the timely Cold War subject matter of the Russians versus the Americans- plentiful in American cinema during this time.

As Bond dons a phony-looking gorilla outfit- embarrassing even for the comical Roger Moore- he can successfully take off the costume and sneak out of a train car, all before the three seconds that it takes for Gobinda to turn around and slice the head off of the gorilla thinking it is Bond.

Suspension of disbelief is required.

Impressive is the female empowerment slant that is evident. From the strong businesswoman character that Adams portrays- she is decisive, intelligent, and savvy, she is neither cowering nor impressionable and cannot be bullied or pushed around.

Albeit her name, “Octopussy”, does teeter on male chauvinism. Be that as it may, her gang of feminist followers, all wielding assault rifles, are quite inspiring and, at this point, unusual for a Bond film- typically masculine leaning.

Octopussy (1983) is an overlooked, under-appreciated, too easily dismissed slice of goodness served up with a bit of comedy, plenty of action, and good solid villains- everything that makes a Bond film a Bond film.

The film is worthy of a viewing.

Dr. No-1962

Dr. No-1962

Director Terence Young

Starring Sean Connery, Ursula Andress

Scott’s Review #667

Reviewed July 27, 2017

Grade: A-

Watching the 1962 film that launched the James Bond franchise into the legendary status that it has since become, Dr. No is rich in history and is a blueprint of what the Bond films would encompass in the decades to follow.

Admittedly more basic in comparison to the more sophisticated and fleshed-out chapters to come, the film is nonetheless a superb entry in the franchise and a chapter to be cherished on its own merits.

Charismatic Sean Connery, soon to forever be identified in the role of James Bond, fills the role with a suave, masculine, confidence oozing from the screen in every scene. Hiss’s performance in the role is so seamless, that one might assume he had been playing Bond for years, rather than being a novice.

And who can forget the character’s first entrance- in a casino, confidently gambling, and introducing himself to Sylvia Trench, a character originally slated to be his steady girlfriend?

The film version of Dr. No is adapted from the first Ian Fleming spy novel of the same name, which is clever. As the years have gone by, the Bond films were modified a great deal from the originally written pages, so it is cool and original to have the film closely mirror the book.

Lacking a hefty budget, the action mainly takes place in both London and Jamaica and at Crab Key, a fictional island off of Jamaica.

When Strangways, a British Intelligence Chief, is killed and his body taken by assassins known as “the Three Blind Mice”, who also steal files related to Crab Key island, and a mysterious man named “Dr. No”, Bond is summoned to his superior’s (M) office in London and tasked with determining whether the incident has anything to do with radio interference of missiles launching in Cape Canaveral.

Naturally, it does and the adventure sets off a series of dramatic events involving henchmen, scrapes with death, and  Bond’s bedding of more than one beautiful woman, before facing the ultimate showdown with the creepy title character., who is missing both hands.

Notable and distinguishable to the film are the fabulous, chirpy, child-like songs featured in the film. From the tuneful, harmonic, nursery rhyme, “Three Blind Mice”, sung calypso style, to the sexy and playful, “Under the Mango Tree”, both are light, yet filled with necessary mystery too.

The fact that the former is featured at the beginning of the film and implies that the same villains are joyfully singing the happy tune, is a good indicator.

Dr. No is also inspired by the introduction of the crime organization, SPECTRE, which any Bond aficionado knows very well is a staple of the franchise.

Joseph Wiseman, like Dr. No, is well cast, though sadly, we only see him in the latter part of the film. Much more character potential is left untouched, though the mystique of knowing the man exists, but not what he looks like is worth mentioning.

Admittedly, rather silly is the assumption that the audience will not be witty enough to realize that both the characters of Dr. No and Miss Taro (a villainous secretary) are Caucasian actors wearing unconvincing makeup.

Why the choice was made not to cast authentically ethnic actors is unclear. My guess is the powers that be wanted to go a safer route due to the uncertainty of the franchise at that time.

Still, for a first try, Dr. No gets it just about right.

What woman in 1962 was sexier or cast more perfectly than Ursula Andress as the gorgeous and fiery sex kitten, Honey Ryder? This casting was spot on and who can forget her sultry introduction to the film as she emerges from the roaring waves on the beach in a scantily clad bathing suit?

The set designs and locales also work well in the film. Contemporary is the set pieces, specifically the spacious prison apartment Bond and Honey briefly reside in. Sleek and sophisticated, the sofa, rug, and tables all exude luxury and class.

Dr. No (1962) is a worthy film on its own merits and a fantastic introduction to the world of James Bond and the many trademark elements and nuances that the films contain.

Dunkirk-2017

Dunkirk-2017

Director-Christopher Nolan

Starring-Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #666

Reviewed July 24, 2017

Grade: A

Of the hundreds of war films that have been made over the years, most have a similar style with either a clear patriotic slant or, of a questioning/message type nature.

Regardless, most have a certain blueprint from the story to the visuals to the direction- and rarely stray from this. The genre is not my particular favorite as the machismo is usually overdone and too many of the films turn into standard “guy films”, or the “good guys versus the bad guys”.

Finally, along comes a film like Dunkirk that gives the stale genre a good, swift, kicks in the ass.

The story is both simple, and historical.

In 1940, Nazi Germany, having successfully invaded France, pushes thousands of French and British soldiers to a seaside town named Dunkirk.

With slim hopes of rescue or survival, the soldiers are sitting ducks for the raid of German fighter planes, which drop bombs both on the soldiers and rescue ships. In parallel stories, a kindly British civilian (Mark Rylance) and his son sail to Dunkirk to help rescue the soldiers, and two British fighter pilots chase the German fighter planes, attempting to thwart their deadly intentions.

One will immediately be struck by the pacing of the film as it is non-stop action from start to close. The action, combined with very little dialogue, and an eerie musical score, are what make the film feel so unique and fresh.

Directed by Christopher Nolan, (The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception) critics are heralding this film as his greatest work yet- I tend to agree.  Scenes involving such differing musical scores as screechy violins mixed with thunderous, heavy beats, really shake up the film and keep the audience on their toes as to what is coming next.

An interesting facet to the film, and certainly done on purpose, is that the backstories of the characters are not revealed- we know very little about any of them.  Do they have families? Are they married? This is a beautiful decision by the screenwriters and by Nolan.

For instance, the very first scenes involve a disheveled private, named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead).  Panicked, he runs through the streets in pursuit of the beach, where he meets a fellow soldier named Gibson, who is burying another soldier in the sand.

Together, they find a wounded soldier and carry him to a departing ship- the men never speak, but communicate through their eyes and gestures-it is a powerful series of scenes.

Another positive to Dunkirk is the anonymity of the enemy. The German soldiers are never shown. Certainly, we see many scenes of the fighter planes overhead, pummeling the soldiers with bombs, and pulsating gunfire in various scenes, but the mystique of the enemy troops is a constant throughout the film.

The faceless component to the villains adds terror and haunting uncertainty.  In this way, the film adds to the confusion of the audience about where the enemy may be, at any given moment.

The visuals and the vastness of the ocean side beach, forefront throughout the entire film, at one hour and forty-six minutes relatively brief for a war film, elicits both beauty and a terrible gloominess.

Scenes of the vastness of the beach peppered with thousands of cold and hungry men are both pathetic and powerful.

The best scenes take place on Mr. Dawson’s  (Rylance) mariner boat. Aided by his son Peter, and Peter’s frightened schoolmate, the trio head for dangerous Dunkirk to help rescue, but en-route pick up a shell-shocked soldier determined to stay as far away from Dunkirk as possible.

This leads to compelling drama and deep characterization of all the central characters.

Many list 1998’s Saving Private Ryan as tops in the modern war genre, but Dunkirk may very well rival that film in intensity and musical effectiveness. Dunkirk also contains shockingly little bloodshed or dismembered soldiers- it does not need this to tell a powerful story.

At times emotional,  the film is always intense and never lets go of its audience from the very first frame. A war film for the history books and a lesson in film creativity and thoughtfulness.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Christopher Nolan, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

Bullitt-1968

Bullitt-1968

Director Peter Yates

Starring Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn

Scott’s Review #660

Reviewed July 7, 2017

Grade: B+

Bullitt (1968) is one of the ultimate “guy movies”, hardly a stretch considering it stars the “regular guy” hero of the time, Steve McQueen.

With his macho, tough-guy persona and his cool, confident swagger, he was a marquee hero during the late 1960s and into the 1970s.

While the film is rife with machismo stereotypes and is not exactly a women’s lib film, it is also a good old-fashioned action thriller with plenty of chase and fight scenes to make most guys  (and some girls) happy.

The story is not too thought-provoking, but the film works as escapist fare and is an example of good late 1960s cinema.

Set in San Francisco, Lieutenant Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is assigned to watch a Chicago gangster, Johnny Ross, over a long weekend, before the criminal is set to testify against his brother on Monday morning.

Robert Vaughn plays ambitious politician, Walter Chalmers, who is determined to see the case go off without a hitch and see convictions in the organized crime syndicate.

Predictably, the weekend does not go as planned and  Ross is attacked by hitmen. This, in turn,  sets off a cat-and-mouse game of deception and intrigue. As expected, the action is virtually non-stop with many action sequences lighting up the screen.

The plot of Bullitt does not matter and, one does not need to completely understand what is going on to enjoy the film for what it is. The intent of a film like Bullitt is not good story-telling, but rather good action.

This is not meant as a put-down, but rather good, honest critiquing. One can simply sit back, relax, and enjoy the testosterone-laden affair.

Bullitt contains some riveting scenes that raise it above an average, middling, action flick. The muscle car chase involving a then state-of-the-art and flashy Ford Mustang and Dodge Charger is fantastic and one of the high points of the film.

The quick and edgy camera angles as the cars zip down the windy and narrow San Francisco roads make for compelling tension.

Will one of the cars careen off the side of the road or blow up in an explosion? Since one of the cars holds Frank Bullitt and the other car is the bad guy, it is not tough to guess how the sequence will end.

But it’s good fun all the same and well filmed.

The other spectacular sequence is the finale- as Frank and company overtake a busy San Francisco airport in pursuit of a baddie about to board a transcontinental flight, the chase sequence leads them throughout the airport, onto a taxiing plane, and finally onto the runway, as a plane is about to take off.

It is action at its finest and also a treat for the viewer in that it brings us back to airport days, pre-9/11 when airports were just different. The luxurious flight crew, the innocence, and the glamour- all a distant memory.

The scene is such that it shows all of the airport elements- the people, the employees, the airport, and the planes, giving it a slice-of-life feel, circa late 1960’s airport days.

Appealing is the period in which the film is made. 1968, was a great time for film, Bullitt capitalized on the newly liberal use of blood that films were able to show, so in this way, Bullitt is an influential action film.

Dozens of imitators (some admittedly with superior writing) followed, including classics Dirty Harry and The French Connection. These contain the same basic blueprint that Bullitt has.

A negative to Bullitt is the trite way in which women are portrayed. Female characters are written as dutiful nurses, gasping in fear and helplessly running away when an assailant runs rampant in the hospital, praying for a man to save the day.

Or, they are written, in the case of Bullitt’s girlfriend, as a gorgeous yet insignificant character, given a laughable scene in which she questions whether or not she knows Frank after witnessing the violence in his job- hello?

He is in the San Francisco Police Department after all.

Bullitt is a meat-and-potatoes kind of film-making. An early entry into what would become the raw 1970s and the slick formulaic 1980s action genre, the film deserves credit for being at the front of the pack in style and influence.

The story and character development are secondary to other aspects of the film and Bullitt (1968) is just fine as escapism fare.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound, Best Film Editing (won)

Live and Let Die-1973

Live and Let Die-1973

Director Guy Hamilton

Starring Roger Moore, Jane Seymour

Scott’s Review #646

Reviewed May 25, 2017

Grade: A-

When Live and Let Die was released in 1973, it began a new chapter in the James Bond film franchise with the introduction of a new Bond.

Sean Connery refused to do any more Bond pictures, and Roger Moore was crowned the new film hero and successfully made the role his own during his tenure.

My personal favorite Bond from top to bottom- I enjoyed the wry humor Moore added- he makes Live and Let Die more than it otherwise might have been with a less charismatic actor.

The story and the subsequent elements of the film have issues, but this installment holds a soft spot for me as it was one of my first exposures to the mountainous franchise that is Bond, and I adore the period of the mid-1970s.

Bond (Moore) is summoned to duty by his leader, M after three MI6 agents are simultaneously killed in the Caribbean, New Orleans, and at the United Nations in New York City. Bond is then tasked with figuring out who killed these agents and how the deaths are connected.

The adventure takes Bond from Harlem to an unnamed island in the Caribbean, and back to the bayous of southern Louisiana as he tangles with a heroin drug lord, Dr. Kananda.

Bond’s main love interest in the film is the virginal tarot card reader, Solitaire, played by Jane Seymour.

Live and Let Die is a breakthrough in some ways, though the film admittedly contains both positives and negatives worthy of discussion.

Since the film was made in 1973, following a successful run of “Blaxploitation” films like 1971’s Shaft and 1972’s Super Fly, the film is influenced by those in style (for better or worse).

This means that all of the villains are black, from the main villain, Kananga, to various henchmen and even background criminals growing the massive amounts of heroin shipped to the United States for distribution.

Having such representation among a minority group is fantastic and feels cutting edge, but stereotypes such as derogatory racial epithets, a pimpmobile, and the addition of weird voodoo, exist.

Another major flaw to the film, and despite my overall warmth for Live and Let Die, is the goofiness that the film turns into towards the end of the film.

At a certain point, the film feels like a different film from what it starts as, which becomes quite jarring-the introduction of Sheriff J.W. Pepper during a Louisiana chase scene turns the film into more of a cheesy Dukes of Hazzard episode, with bumbling law enforcement officials, rather than a quality film, and the southern stereotypes run rampant.

Why does a throwaway scene of a speedboat racing through an outdoor wedding feature all high society white folks with nary a black character existing other than as servants?

Some diversity in this scene would have been nice considering the film goes out of its way to feature black characters.

Still, many positives do exist. Live and Let Die has the honor of containing the first-ever black Bond girl- the CIA double agent, Rosie Carver, who sadly meets a grisly ending far too soon.

Gloria Hendry’s chemistry with Roger Moore is readily apparent, though the film chooses to make the character inept rather than a true equal. The smoldering sex scenes between the duo are wonderful and groundbreaking to watch so the film gets major props for pushing the envelope in this way.

Memorable is the terrific title theme song, “Live and Let Die”, by Paul McCartney and Wings. The success of this hit song, especially decades later, does wonders to elevate the film and keep it relevant in pop culture.

Also great to see are the location sequences and good action car chase scenes along the West Side Highway in New York City and into Harlem.

A treat for this retro fan is the inclusion of early 1970s Chevrolet Impalas and Chevy Novas throughout the entire feature film- was Chevy a financial backer?

Classic cars are a major inclusion in Live and Let Die, which as a current-day viewer is a cool treat and quite retro.

In the way of the primary villain and primary Bond girl, the film misses. Jane Seymour is a dud as Solitaire, a character that really should have been played by a black actress. Seymour and Moore have zero chemistry and her character is weak and simpering, lacking any sort of backbone.

Similarly, Yaphet Kotto as Dr. Kananga seems miscast and lacks any real qualities that make him neither devious nor dangerous, and his inevitable swan song underwhelms.

Live and Let Die (1973) is not the greatest in the Bond collection and suffers from some problematic, now-dated aspects, racial issues, and a silly overtone, but, perhaps more so as a terrific childhood memory, I hold a particular fondness toward this film despite many negatives.

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Live and Let Die”

The Spy Who Loved Me-1977

The Spy Who Loved Me-1977

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Roger Moore, Barbara Bach

Scott’s Review #637

Reviewed April 27, 2017

Grade: A-

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) is pure James Bond- an installment of the franchise that successfully contains all of the elements of an exceptional Bond film- and then some.

By this time Roger Moore was firing on all cylinders and had made the character of James Bond his own- Sean Connery who?

With his third appearance in the role, Bond exudes charisma and wry wit, combined with a fabulous story, sexy Bond girls, and a villain worthy of his role, The Spy Who Loved Me achieves near perfection, save for too drawn out of an ending- otherwise, an excellent, memorable film that does not feel dated in the least.

When Soviet and British submarines begin to vanish, the two sides team up and send their best agents forward to uncover the circumstances surrounding the disappearances.

Barbara Bach plays Major Anya Amasova, also known as Agent Triple X, a Soviet agent, and naturally Bond becomes enamored with her beauty and intelligence.

Together they face off against a megalomaniac named Karl Stromberg, who is intent on destroying the world with nuclear missiles and creating his underwater world. Stromberg’s sidekicks are Jaws, a giant with steel teeth, and a deadly vixen named Naomi.

Interestingly, if watched as a companion piece to a Bond film of the 1960s, as I did this time around (You Only Live Twice), the viewer will notice the change in how Bond female characters are treated.

No longer servile and obedient to the male characters (Bond specifically) Bond women are now his equals in every way, matching him in career success and intelligence.

The main “Bond girl”, (Anya), is a shining example of this, which the film immediately offers. In one of my favorite scenes, Anya is in bed with a handsome man- when “Agent Triple X” is paged, we assume the agent is the man until Anya slyly responds to the message- it is nonchalant, yet a brazen way to make the point that women have emerged as powerful and sexy figures in the modern Bond world.

The chemistry between Moore and Bach is immeasurably important to the success of the film and their romance is dynamic- they simply have “it” and their scenes smolder with sensuality. To complicate matters, Bond has killed an agent whom Anya was in love with and she plans to kill Bond as soon as their mission is victorious.

Director, Gilbert, also adds a slice of Bond’s back story- giving truth and rich history to the story and mentioning Bond’s deceased wife (married and killed in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), a subject Bond deems off-limits.

This ode to the past only enhances the connection between these two characters.

Villains play an important part in the success of The Spy Who Loved Me.

Take Stromberg- he is sophisticated, mature, worldly, and rich- and quietly insane. He also has a lavish dining room in his underwater submarine with exotic fish swimming about through visible tanks- a gorgeous element to this film.

Through a trap door,  victims meet their demise by a vicious killer shark swimming about. One unlucky female assistant, who has double-crossed Stromberg, meets her maker in bloody fashion. Later, Bond sees a severed hand floating about in one of the tanks.

This is great creative writing and adds nuances to the film.

Hulking henchman, Jaws, who would return in the next installment, Moonraker, dazzles and impresses with his deadly, steel teeth.

A great scene, aboard a high-speed train, and a throwback to 1963’s From Russia With Love, is action-packed.

Naomi meets her demise after an ill-fated helicopter chase scene. I would have liked to have gotten more screen time and gotten to know this character. Her brief, but obvious flirtation with Bond is all too short- and he never even gets to share a bed with her!

Not to be outdone, the locales in the film are lavish and gorgeous- Egypt and Italy are countries explored, and scenes are shot on location in each country in grand fashion.

The Egyptian pyramids are featured as a chase and a murder occur during a nighttime exhibit- also fantastic are the gorgeous shots of Sardinia- a beautiful region in Italy, where Stromberg’s hideout is set.

A mini gripe is a lengthy conclusion to the film. As Bond struggles to recalculate the two nuclear missiles set to destroy New York and Moscow, Bond must rush to make sure they do not hit their intended target.

The “final act” of the film just goes on too long with way too many soldiers and men running around in a panic. The action is great, but enough is enough by the end.

Roger Moore once commented that The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) was his favorite of all the Bond films to make- it is easy to see why he felt this way.

The film contains all of the necessary elements to make it one of the top entries in all of the film franchises and has a magnificent feel to it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“Nobody Does It Better”, Best Art Direction

You Only Live Twice-1967

You Only Live Twice-1967

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Sean Connery, Akiko Wakabayashi

Scott’s Review #636

Reviewed April 23, 2017

Grade: B+

You Only Live Twice (1967) is the fifth in the James Bond film series franchise and also the fifth to star iconic Bond, Sean Connery, in the starring role.

Reportedly growing bored with the role and eager to move on to meatier acting challenges, Sean Connery is not quite as mesmerizing in the role this time around but is still indisputably charismatic and sexy with his delivery of one-liners and various affairs with women.

You Only Live Twice is the last to feature Connery until he would be coaxed into returning to the role four years later with 1971’s Diamond Are Forever.

The film is not tops on my favorite Bond films of all time nor is it even top ten for that matter, but still quite an enjoyable watch, and certainly, the Japanese locales are the highlight.

The film as a whole suffers from a silly story, dated special effects, and a completely lackluster villain, but it does have Connery to rescue it and a nice little romance between Bond and the main girl, Aki, played by Japanese actress, Akiko Wakabayashi- that is until she is unceremoniously poisoned.

The plot involves the hijacking of an American NASA spacecraft by another mysterious spacecraft. The Americans suspect the Russians of the action and the British suspect the Japanese since the aircraft landed in the Sea of Japan.

MI6 (Bond) fakes his death in Hong Kong and subsequently begins to investigate who is responsible. His search brings him to Tokyo where he investigates Osato Chemicals and stumbles upon evidence.

He is aided by both Aki and Tiger Tanaka, Japanese Secret Service leaders. Soon it is revealed that the mastermind is SPECTRE villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld-in this installment played by Donald Pleasence.

Mr. Bond must destroy his enemy and inevitably save the world from a global nuclear war.

Though a timely storyline since 1967 was in the midst of the Cold War, the plot seems somewhat forced and a bit uninteresting. The countries blame each other for the hijacked ship, but this comes across as extremely plot-driven and secondary.

The “swallowing” of the aircraft seems cheesy and preposterous even considering the year that the film was made and the writing is not as rich as some of the proceeding Bond films like From Russia With Love or Thunderball.

The film also has an overall “cheap” look to it. However, the film does have plenty of positives worth mentioning.

The gadgets that James Bond fixture, Q (the MI6 technical wizard) creates are state-of-the-art and fun. The mini-flying helicopter that Bond uses is creative and allows for even more views to enjoy.

Bond faking his death in the opening sequence is a treat (albeit having been done before) and ceremoniously being cast off into the sea in a coffin only to be wearing a suit and an oxygen mask inside the casket is clever and light.

Donald Pleasence, a storied, fantastic actor, is not well cast in the role of the main villain Stavros and I am not entirely sure why. The fact that his face is not shown until the last act is not helpful and the character (though seen in other Bond films) is not compelling and is underutilized.

I would have liked to have the character be a bit more visible, though surprisingly the character was highly influential in the 1990s spoof Austin Powers films. Adorable yet creepy is Stavros only being seen clutching and stroking a gorgeous white cat.

As for the Bond women, the aforementioned Aki is the best of the bunch. Gone too soon in the story, she is replaced by Kissy Suzuki, who is rather unappealing. Mostly clad in a skimpy white bikini and heels, and appearing to wear a black wig, the character is forgettable and serves no purpose.

Conversely, villainous Helga Brandt, SPECTRE assassin, is very well cast and shares good chemistry with Connery. After an unsuccessful attempt to kill Bond, she is fated with a date with killer Piranhas as payment for her failure.

You Only Live Twice has a myriad of ups and downs, but is worth watching for fans of the franchise, and specifically, fans of the classic Bond films featuring Sean Connery.

Some will argue that the film feels dated and is chauvinistic, and to some degree they are correct, but the film is a large part of a treasured franchise and a fun experience.

From Russia with Love-1963

From Russia with Love-1963

Director Terence Young

Starring Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi

Scott’s Review #615

Reviewed February 5, 2017

Grade: A

From Russia with Love (1963), only the second in the storied James Bond film franchise is a sequel to the debut installment, Dr. No, and received twice the budget that its predecessor did.

This is evident as the cinematography and the look of the film are exquisite with chase and battle scenes galore.

The film is lavish and grand and what a Bond film ought to be consisting of adventures through countries, gorgeous location sequences, and a nice romance between Bond (Sean Connery) and Bond girl, Tatiana (Daniela Bianchi), though she is not in my top Bond girls of all time.

Terence Young returned to direct the film with successful results.

Vowing revenge on James Bond for killing villainous Dr. No, SPECTRE’s Number 1 (seen only speaking and holding a cat) recruits evil Number 3, Rosa Klebb, a Russian director and defector, and Kronsteen, SPECTRE’s expert planner, to devise a plot to steal a Lektor cryptographic device from the Soviets and kill Bond in the process.

Klebb recruits expert killer Donald “Red” Grant and manipulates Tatiana into assisting. The story takes Bond mostly through Istanbul, Turkey, into a gypsy camp, and via the Orient Express through Yugoslavia to the ultimate climax.

The villains in From Russia with Love are outstanding and a major draw to the film.

Both Klebb (Lotte Lenya) and Grant (Robert Shaw) are perfectly cast. Klebb, militant and severe with her short-cropped red hair, has a penchant for deadly footwear (she has a spike that shoots out from her boot containing venom that kills in seconds) and casually flaunts her lesbianism in front of Tatiana.

I admire this level of diversity in early Bond films from a sexual perspective- it was 1963 and this was extremely rare to see in the film.

Grant, on the other hand, is handsome and charismatic and has a chest of steel. With his good looks and bleached blonde hair, he is a perfect opponent for Bond as the final battle between him and Bond aboard the Orient Express is a spectacular fight scene and a satisfactory conclusion to the film.

The action sequences are aplenty and compelling especially the aforementioned, and lengthy Orient Express train sequence finale, which is grand. As Bond and Tatiana, along with their ally Ali Kerim Bey, a British Intelligence chief from Istanbul, embark on a journey, they are stalked by Grant, who waits for an opportunity to pounce on his foes.

This sequence is the best part of the film for me- Grant, posing as a sophisticated British agent, has a cat-and-mouse style conversation with Bond and Tatiana over a delicious dinner of Sole.

Grant drugs Tatiana by placing capsules in her white wine- the fact that he orders Chianti with Sole- a culinary faux pas- gives him away.

Other notable aspects of From Russia with Love are the soon-to-be familiar cohorts of Bond who will be featured in Bond films for years to come: M, Q, and Miss Moneypenny become treasured supporting characters that audiences know and love.

Mere novices in this film, it is fun to see their scenes- especially lovelorn Moneypenny.

An odd scene of sparring female gypsies is both erotic and comical as the two women wrestle and fight over a gypsy chief, only to soon forget their rivalry and both bed Bond- falling madly in love with him as the two women suddenly become the best of friends.

The chemistry between Connery and Bianchi is good, but nothing spectacular and not the real highlight of this Bond entry. Don’t get me wrong- they make a gorgeous couple- his dark, suave looks and her statuesque blonde figure look great, but I found the pairing just decent rather than spectacular.

The action sequences, especially the Orient Express scenes are a spectacle and the many location shots in and around Istanbul are ravishing.

From Russia with Love (1963) is a top entry in the Bond series and a film that got the ball rolling with fantastic Bond features- it is an expensively produced film and this shows.

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

London Has Fallen-2016

London Has Fallen-2016

Director-Babak Najafi

Starring-Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart

Scott’s Review #608

Reviewed January 13, 2017

Grade: D

Save for plenty of very interesting, cool London shots- mostly aerial views- London Has Fallen is complete drivel.

The film’s attempt at being a red-blooded, patriotic film, comes across as insulting and racist, with a machismo that is cringe-worthy.

The dialogue is bad and the “us against them” mantra has been done to death in film- mostly the 1980s and 1990s. To quote one reviewer, “London Has Fallen is Donald Trump in film form”.

How the film convinced such a talented cast to appear is beyond me (must have been money), and several’s parts are so small (Robert Forster, Melissa Leo, Jackie Earle Haley) they are nearly glorified extras.

The plot is painfully contrived to say nothing of the ludicrous nature of the entire story.

To retaliate against a drone strike killing a Pakistani leader, terrorists take advantage of the death of the UK Prime Minister to assassinate several world leaders who have gravitated to London to attend the funeral services.

The President of the United States (played by Aaron Eckhart) is naturally in attendance and his murder is thwarted by top Secret Service official, Mike Banning (Gerard Butler)-our films hero.

The rest of the film involves the President and Mike running throughout London attempting to catch the terrorists and bring them to justice while avoiding death.

The London locales are superb, but sadly, mainly appear at the beginning and the end of the film. The London Eye, the Thames river, the Underground, and various metro stations are featured. The numerous London bridges also get some exposure.

The best part is the way the film showcases the vastness of London and not just the up-close shots of historic places like Westminster Abbey or Buckingham Palace.

Certainly, London is known for those gems, but the aerial views give the viewer an appreciation of all that London has to offer- I loved only this aspect of the film.

The supporting roles are abysmal and one imagines the actors cringing as they read the scripts for some of these roles, given the more artistic parts they’ve received in the past.

I hesitate to think what possessed Leo, Forster, and Haley to accept meaningless roles save for a hefty paycheck. Each played members of the President’s staff and were largely reduced to reactionary shots.

Getting more screen time, but being treated to equally uninteresting roles are Angela Bassett as an ill-fated Secret Service Director and Radha Mitchell as Banning’s weary-looking, pregnant wife.

The performances overall are forgettable. Respectable actors Butler and Eckhart merely phone in their vapid, dull lines, failing to make any of it believable.

The film never bothers with character development or anything beyond basic good and bad roles- every character is either 100% good or 100% bad. It is made crystal clear that the Americans are the good guys, and the foreigners (all Middle eastern or Asian actors, of course) are simply the bad guys.

There is never an explanation of what the “bad guys” motivations are and one cheesy line after another is written for the “good guys”.

During the finale Banning professes that “we have been here for thousands of years and always will be”, as he beats a bad guy senseless. Good grief. I’ve seen better dialogue on a network television drama.

And there is never any doubt how the film will end there is an American mole who has used his power to enable all of the assassinations, but when the mole is revealed, it is a character we have never seen before, so who cares?

Surely a film soon to be forgotten for the poor story, cliche-riddled script, and stereotypes galore, but the fantastic London shots were inspiring and lovely to see.

I would have been happy with one hour and forty minutes of those.

Snakes on a Plane-2006

Snakes On A Plane-2006

Director David R. Ellis

Starring Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #607

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B

Snakes on a Plane, the surprise internet bruhaha sensation of 2006 has much to criticize.

The plot is inane, the acting way over the top, and the subject portrayed in such a dumb manner, I could see the results being horrific, but there is just something I enjoyed about the film too, as admittedly stupid as it is.

I simply could not help but sit back and enjoy it.

I enjoyed the setting of an airplane- trapped at 35, 000 feet, in peril, has always enamored me (think Airport disaster films of the 1970s).

The story involves a plot to release hundreds of deadly snakes on a passenger flight, to kill a witness to a murder trial.

Of course, innocent passengers are met with their dire fates as the cartoon-like characters are offed one by one, horror film style.

Sadly, the film did not live up to anticipated expectations, commercially or critically, and was considered somewhat of a dud after all of the hype, but I rather enjoyed it for what it was.

Hardly high art, it entertained me.

Tropic Thunder-2008

Tropic Thunder-2008

Director Ben Stiller

Starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr.

Scott’s Review #593

Reviewed January 8, 2017

Grade: D-

Tropic Thunder (2008) was a ridiculous film that I found to be harsh, tedious, and very loud. Attempting to be a satire of sorts, it fails on almost every level.

The main issue was with the characters, who are abrasive and unlikable.

The only redeeming qualities are Robert Downey Jr.’s and Tom Cruise’s portrayals, though they both play idiotic characters.

The plot is something of an ode to 1979’s Apocalypse Now, in that the plot throws back to the Vietnam war.

A group of narcissistic actors is filming a Vietnam memoir on location in the jungles of Southeast Asia when they are abandoned and forced to fend for themselves amid a group of drug lords.

The film’s attempt at humor fell flat for me. It just seemed like a group of crazed guys running around the jungle acting wild and the film held little point for me.

Cruise’s part was interesting but way too small.

Directed by, and starring Ben Stiller, who should stick to acting (if that).

How Downey, Jr. scored an Oscar nomination for this drivel is beyond me- despite his acting being one of the better efforts in the film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Robert Downey Jr.

Inglourious Basterds-2009

Inglourious Basterds-2009

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #589

Reviewed January 7, 2017

Grade: A

Inglorious Basterds (2009) is simply a great movie. Blending many film genres, it is hard to categorize, but that is because it is a Quentin Tarantino film, and that says it all.

The film as a whole contains excellent acting, is wonderfully shot, and is extremely detail-oriented, plus it has the familiar “Tarantino” style of music and sound, the chapter breakdown, and the heavy violence.

Set mainly in German-occupied France during the early 1940s, during World War II, the action centers around two stories- Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), a teenage girl whose entire family is killed after being discovered hidden by a dairy farmer.

He is a Jewish sympathizer, and Shosanna barely escapes with her life when an SS Colonel, brilliantly played by Christoph Waltz, interrogates the man.

Three years later, now living in Paris and owning a cinema, she plots her revenge. The other story is also of a revenge plot by a group of Jewish-American soldiers to kill as many Nazis as possible.

Both stories eventually intersect with a grand finale inside a cinema.

The story itself is richly nuanced and unlike many generic films of today. The fantastic set design and the perfection of every last set-piece are amazing. Long scenes play out slowly but bristle with authenticity and good dialogue.

Take the first scene for example- as the SS Colonel, aptly nicknamed the “Jew Hunter” plays cat and mouse with the dairy farmer, politely asking for two glasses of milk, the audience knows the payoff will be huge, but the conversation crackles with good dialogue.

What strikes me most about the film is the intelligent writing. The many scenes of conversations between characters- a chat over strudel and cream, a trivia game at a bar, and the aforementioned scene at the farmhouse, bristle with unique, clever written dialogue so that the scenes are far from mere filler.

Of course, this is also a characteristic of Tarantino.

At over two and a half hours Inglourious Basterds (2009) is long but satisfying.

My only criticism is of Brad Pitt. I didn’t buy him as a Tarantino guy and found his character the only weak point of the film. His southern drawl just did not draw me in like I thought it might.

He was touted as the main character (perhaps because he was the biggest star), but he plays a supporting role.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Quentin Tarantino, Best Supporting Actor-Christoph Waltz (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Sherlock Holmes-2009

Sherlock Holmes-2009

Director Guy Ritchie

Starring Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law

Scott’s Review #575

Reviewed December 31, 2016

Grade: B-

From a technical perspective. Sherlock Holmes, a 2009 attempt at revitalizing the famous detective story into something of a modern franchise for the masses, achieves a measure of success in style and editing but ultimately fails in character development or story.

Traditionalist fans of the detective and his partner will undoubtedly be displeased with this film.

This film is very well made, with snappy editing, fast-paced wit, and attempts at humor, but it does not work all so well when put together as a film.

The re-birth of Sherlock Holmes was made to entice modern audiences.

Director Guy Ritchie even brings in superhero elements to Sherlock Holmes- suddenly he can kick ass as well as solve a complex mystery, which is so far removed from the original character.

Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Sherlock Holmes and his partner Watson, have some humorous moments, but the chemistry is not wholly there-it appears they are both trying too hard to create some magic where there is none.

All in all, though a well-made, entertaining two hours well spent, the story and characterization ultimately do not work.

Downey Jr. gives a great performance and shows why he is one of today’s most versatile actors, but this cannot ultimately make the entire film a success.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Art Direction