Category Archives: Adventure

The Polar Express-2004

The Polar Express-2004

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #800

Reviewed August 8, 2018

Grade: B+

The Polar Express (2004) is a modern entry into the annals of holiday film history. Along with treasures like Rudolph, Frosty, the Grinch, and all the other standards, this film has become a popular one to watch throughout the season.

The film is not exactly like the others, since it is the first of its kind to incorporate live human characters animated using live-action motion capture animation.

The mood of the film is mysterious, edgy, and with a dark tint, so jolly it isn’t, but compelling it is, and visually is a marvel.

The story is as follows- on a snowy (naturally!) Christmas Eve, a young boy living in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is doubtful of the existence of Santa Claus. When a steam locomotive suddenly appears outside of his house, he curiously boards the train to find a mysterious conductor (Tom Hanks) manning the train.

As the train rolls away the boy meets two other children on board and stops for another one, also reluctant to get on. They begin a dazzling, frozen adventure to the North Pole with the promise of receiving the first gift of Christmas from Santa Claus himself.

The main reason to recommend The Polar Express is simply for the gorgeous visual treats offered. In 2004 the film was a unique experience and I fondly recall sitting in a dark movie theater observing the film for the first time.

There was a magical element to the surroundings, combining intrigue and fantasy that still holds up well.

For adults, I do not think the film is at all scary, but I have heard some reviewers complain that the moody ingredients are a bit frightening for children so there is that concern. 

A major component is the mixture of human beings and animated tools. The familiar actor who everybody knows is Tom Hanks as the conductor. Therefore, to sit back and observe the character is a wonderful thing- is it Tom Hanks or is it an animation?

It is ultimately both, but the fun is in the observation and wondering how the filmmakers created this experience.

And listen for Hanks in other voice performances throughout the film. 

The story (or fable) itself is warm and fairly predictable. But, of course, being largely made with kids in mind, this is to be expected. There is never a doubt that the boy (interestingly never given a name) will ultimately believe in Santa after all and live happily ever after.

The magic is in the details, though- the boy’s journey to this realization is peppered with fun and creative richness- the little girl’s floating ticket and an ornament falling off a Christmas tree are good particulars. 

Director, Robert Zemeckis, and Hanks worked closely together in Forrest Gump (1994) so the pair are familiar with each other, creatively speaking. Hanks undoubtedly had much input into the decision making and it shows. 

I do not personally rank The Polar Express (2004) among the best of the best holiday film offerings, but I support an occasional dusting off of this work for viewing pleasure.

Perhaps over time the animations may become dated or seem less dazzling, but the film is still to be appreciated for its creative elements. The story is nothing spectacular (in a way Scrooge for kids) but makes for a pleasant family viewing experience. 

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Believe”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

A Wrinkle in Time-2018

A Wrinkle in Time-2018

Director-Ava DuVernay

Starring-Storm Reid, Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon

Scott’s Review #788

Reviewed July 16, 2018

Grade: C

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) is a film that I had high hopes for given the enormous marketing push, first-rate cast, and especially the acclaimed female director involved with the project, Ava DuVernay (Selma, 13th).

Additionally, having admired the 1962 novel I expected a rich, earthy, and mysterious experience. Sadly, whether it be a “too many cooks in the kitchen” situation given the star power involved, or some other factors leading to disconnect, this film disappointed me.

It’s not terrible but suffers from miscasting way too much CGI, and a story that is not very compelling.

Thirteen-year-old Meg Murry (Storm Reid) is having a tough time of it in school. Smack dab in the “awkward phase”, she is picked on by schoolmates because her father (Chris Pine) has disappeared- presumably having ditched the family. In reality, he is a scientist who has been transported to another world after solving the question of humanity’s existence.

After Meg and her family are visited by a strange woman named Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), Meg, little brother Charles Wallace, and Meg’s crush, Calvin, time travel to find a way to save her father.

Fans who have read the wonderful novel written by Madeleine L’Engle will most certainly be disappointed since many details of the film are vastly different from the written page.

DuVernay certainly attempts to take the film out of the 1960s and into 2018 (I have no issue with that), but the film feels so slick and modern with the visual elements and heavy use of CGI, that the story suffers enormously.

To be clear, the film is gorgeous to look at, especially in the sweeping outdoors scenes, but in this case, too many bells and whistles spoil A Wrinkle in Time.

The three strange women characters: Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), and Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey) are completely butchered. In the novel, each is portrayed as peculiar, mysterious, and similar to witches: frumpy, awkward, yet lovable. In the film, however, they are colorful, glamorous, empowered, but lack any real uniqueness or intrigue.

I am all for female empowerment, but the characters just felt wrong.

Kaling is fine in the smallest role, but in the case of Witherspoon and Winfrey, appears a case of “we have big stars, let’s find roles for them.” A tough sell with Mrs. Which is to think of Oprah as anyone other than….well, Oprah! Witherspoon’s attempts to be goofy and the comic relief of the film do not work.

The casting of newcomer Storm Reid is lackluster. I have no issue with the character of Meg being changed to bi-racial I feel that’s a plus in the modern age. However, the actress is not the greatest, appearing both sullen and wooden in various scenes. Nor does she have any chemistry with her love interest, Calvin.

This is a shame since the theme of young love would have been a nice addition to the film and was a coming-of-age element in the novel.

At the risk of being overly critical, A Wrinkle in Time is not a total disaster either. The progressive and heroic message of the overall film is quite inspired. If kids watch the film (and since it is Disney produced and heavily advertised I can see no reason why they wouldn’t) they will be exposed to a nice message of good conquering evil.

And on a side note, the villain is safe and hardly conjures up much fright, so no worries by parents of the film being too scary.

With heaps of buzz and anticipation regarding A Wrinkle in Time (2018), the film seemed poised to become a blockbuster hit and a great spring flick. Instead, the film has largely been derided by critics and audiences alike.

With creative genius, star power, and a huge budget involved, something ran amiss as the final product is fair to middling.

Let’s hope director Ava DuVernay gets her groove back with her next project- I expected more.

Twister-1996

Twister-1996

Director Jan de Bont

Starring Bill Pullman, Helen Hunt

Scott’s Review #763

Reviewed May 25, 2018

Grade: B+

Twister (1996) is a film that contains amazing and groundbreaking special effects- that blew people away (pun intended!) when released to the masses over twenty years ago.

Moviegoers flocked to theaters everywhere to partake in the escapist summer feel-good hit starring popular movie stars of the time.

The film spawned amusement park rides and lots of other fun things during its run.

The visuals are what truly are to be enjoyed here and not the generic, tried, and true subplots of romance, childhood trauma, and corporate greed that are mixed in.

The film does not hold up well in present times as the dazzling effects now look rather dated when lined up against modern blockbusters. This results in Twister being reduced to “one of those 1990’s films”.

Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt star as American storm chasers, Bill and Jo, obsessed with their craft of tracking tornadoes throughout the United States mid-western region. Adding drama to the plot is that Bill and Jo are an estranged married couple amid a divorce.

Bill brings his new fiancee Melissa (Jami Gertz) along as numerous meteorologists converge to track storms using newly invented devices.

Predictably, a series of vicious storms commence while Bill, Jo, and Melissa play out a love triangle.

Twister gets off to a fantastic start as a wicked storm kills the five-year-old Jo’s father, prompting her to pursue her career of choice. Jo has never gotten over her father’s death becoming fascinated by deadly storms.

The effects of this initial storm are very well done as Jo’s father’s death scene is riveting- the poor man being sucked into the deadly cyclone is memorable. Regardless, this scene sets the tone for the ample effects to follow- most notably the terrifying sound of the swirling storm as farm tools and animals fly around onscreen.

After the initial introduction, the rest of the film is mainly of the group driving around and encountering storms, with Bill and Jo taking center stage.

As a child having spent many summers in the mid-west, sans tornadoes thankfully, I felt a sense of nostalgia watching the film.

Assumptions are being made that Twister was indeed filmed on location (with studio help), but the authenticity is apparent. From the vastness of the plains to the dusty roads, cornfields, and the small-town U.S.A. I enjoyed the down-home, slice-of-life feel.

The action and effects are lightning-quick and quite realistic. As mentioned the sound effects are as strong as the visual effects and I never doubted for a second that the twisters had a realism to them.

This successfully merges into the summer blockbuster that Twister’s producers undoubtedly were going for. Making a ton of money, the result was successful and inspired by Hollywood.

Despite the superlative special effects, though, this is the only reason to watch Twister, and seeing the film once is enough excitement.

The writers (Michael Crichton and Anne-Marie Martin) attempt to incorporate a romance into the story and this does nobody any good. This negative aspect is even more apparent since the chemistry between Paxton and Hunt is non-existent and Gertz’s Melissa is meant to be the odd woman out all along.

A large amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary to “buy” various scenes. Ludicrous are countless scenes where characters either outrun the monstrous twisters or somehow the storms encircle them, but miraculously never touch them.

When Jo, Bill, and Melissa’s truck are captured inside the funnel cloud the vehicle and its passengers somehow remain unharmed.  Tornadoes do not simply come out of nowhere to attack without any indication on the radar.

But alas this is a disaster film and liberties must be taken.

The famous “cow scene”, notoriously used twice in the film seemed groundbreaking and cutting edge in 1996, but in 2018 now seems hokey and unnecessary.

Times sure do change in cinema, especially with technical effects and CGI growing each year.

Admittedly, the film does contain a good, all-American rockin’ summer tune by Van Halen named “Humans Being”, which always makes me think of summertime when I hear it. The entire Twister soundtrack was an enormous success with radio airplay given and led to further successes for the film.

Perhaps now watched as a blast from the past or a revisit to some sort of nostalgic time for folks, Twister (1996) is a great example of a once-popular popcorn movie falling into semi-obscurity. Given another twenty years, the film will undoubtedly fall all the way.

A nice film for the time it was, but not much more.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound, Best Visual Effects

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-1984

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-1984

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Harrison Ford, Kate Capshaw

Scott’s Review #759

Reviewed May 17, 2018

Grade: A

The second in the trilogy (I refused to acknowledge the middling Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in 2008), Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is easily my favorite of the group.

Much darker than its predecessor, Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is also better, with more flair and pizzazz.  All three (1989’s The Last Crusade added) could be watched in sequence and easily enjoyed as companion pieces for a slice of 1980’s nostalgia.

A prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, the action picks up a few years prior as our hero narrowly escapes the clutches of a crime boss in Shanghai, China.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), along with sidekick eleven-year-old Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) and nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), embark on an adventure to retrieve a stolen sacred stone.

The poor villagers have also lost their children to a lavish palace where they are forced to work as slaves.

Wisely in keeping with the continuity of the first story, director Steven Spielberg and writer George Lucas return to the fold. This enriches the experience as both men are in touch with the character of Indiana Jones and do not try to change him.

His familiar wittiness and charismatic nature return and the dashing hero show more skin this time around with more than one shirtless scene.

To cement the good character, Harrison Ford returns to the role he created and made famous.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is layered with positive aspects and holds special childhood memories for me. I vividly recollect going to the movie theater and excitedly watching the film on the big screen clutching a tub of buttery popcorn.

For a young boy, this is the best- an adventure story for the ages with thrills and edge-of-your-seat sequences.

The film is perfect for the entire family.

Many gorgeous exterior sequences abound throughout the film. A prime example is when the trio encounters deadly assassins on a precarious rope bridge high atop a crocodile-infested murky river.

This scene is fraught with tension and “how will he ever get out of this?” thinking when dear Indie is cornered by the killers.

With lightning-quick thinking, he severs the bridge resulting in a dangling escapade. As numerous bodies fall into the river they are chopped to bits by the hungry reptiles. The fact that the action is all shot outdoors in lush scenery only adds to the enjoyment.

The film is admittedly filled with dark and scary aspects necessitating a PG-13 rating versus a PG one. As Indie, Willie, and Short Round are held hostage in the evil palace, a dangerous sacrifice occurs.

One poor man is chosen to give his life by way of being burned alive in a roaring fire. Indie is then forced to drink potion and presumably suffer the same fate.  Other bloody moments occur as a bad guy meets his fate after being flattened like a pancake by a steamroller.

The tone of the film is much darker than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

To offset the blood, guts, and voodoo, the film occasionally parlays into humor mostly at the expense of Willie- the comic relief of the film.

Accustomed to the glamour of costumes and luxurious hotels, the singer is forced to fend for herself amid snakes, elephants, and other creatures. As she hungrily sits down for what she thinks is a scrumptious dinner, she is treated to monkey brains and bulging eyeballs in soup- deemed Indian delicacies.

Readily apparent watching the film now are glaring negative stereotypes associated with the Indian culture. As I am sure the intent was not to insult, some stereotypes do abound with the hokey cuisines and the severe poverty.

The underlying image of tribal Indians as being weird or out of touch is prevalent to say nothing of the odd religious overtones.

Kate Capshaw as Willie is the complete opposite of the central female character of Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whereas Marion is intelligent and serious, Willie is pampered, rich, and gullible.

I find the camaraderie between Indie and Willie much more palpable than between Indie and Marion and the romantic overtures appealing.

Who can forget the famous “bug scene” in the palace?

Conjuring up wonderful and exciting childhood memories, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is a treasure for the eyes and the strongest entry in the bunch.

If you are in the mood for a good, fun-filled experience with a healthy dose of Indian culture and adventurous antics with a slice of darkness this one is a must-see.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects (won)

Raiders of the Lost Ark-1981

Raiders of the Lost Ark-1981

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Harrison Ford, Karen Allen

Scott’s Review #757

Reviewed May 15, 2018

Grade: A

A film that kicked off the tremendously successful and ever-so-fun 1980s trilogy, Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) is a treasure in the adventure genre time capsule.

Director Steven Spielberg embarks on the journey of one of the most highly visible film heroes in of Indiana “Indie” Jones, a swashbuckling, aww shucks kind of guy.

Harrison Ford is perfectly cast in a role that perfectly fits him and, besides Han Solo, defined him during the decade- the best role of his career if you ask me.

Wonderful to watch in sequence with the even more superb Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), these two films are a pure pleasure as our hero faces dangerous obstacles at every turn while either chased by or pursuing sinister robbers or other undesirables.

All the while Indie keeps his familiar sly grin and numerous jokes to entertain audiences.

Raiders of the Lost Ark has it all with superior writing, editing, cinematography, art direction, sound, and visual effects.

They reaped many Oscar nominations, quite uncommon for an adventure tale, but the merits were warranted. Atypical compared to other films of this type, the film is not overly saturated with phony machismo or unnecessary “guy” stuff, but rather appealing and genuine.

The time is 1936 and archaeologist Indiana Jones works as a professor at a University. Known for retrieving ancient artifacts he is contacted by Army intelligence officers who ask him to help stop the Nazis from acquiring the Ark of the Covenant which they believe will make their armies invincible, allowing them to conquer the world in a sinister fashion.

Events lead Indie to Marion (Karen Allen), who harbors resentment towards him for a failed past romance.

The rest of the film follows the pair throughout Nepal and Cairo in an attempt to recover the Ark before the Nazis do.

Raiders of the Lost Ark contains all of the elements of a successful “hit” movie and has blockbuster written all over it. This is not a slight against the film, but rather a testament to all involved.

Led by the successful Spielberg who knows how to connect all the dots, first and foremost Ford infuses charisma into his character so that the audience enjoys his sensibilities and desire for the truth.

Indie is intent on protecting humankind so Spielberg carves a “good versus bad” approach- making the villainous Nazis the antithesis of Jones which creates a clear rooting value.

My favorite scene in the film is nicknamed the “face-melting scene” and contains state-of-the-art special effects that compelled and mesmerized me and also led to light nightmares for any kid under the age of twelve.

The way that the bad guys see swirling, benevolent ghosts- first beautiful and peaceful, but soon turning deadly- cause their faces to melt off or shrivel-the scene is both inventive and dramatic.

Not to be dismissed as trite or fluff are the exciting and memorable scenes dubbed “the snake scene” and “the rolling boulder scene”.  In the former Indie wryly admits his fear and trepidation of snakes as he must traverse a huge pit filled with thousands of them and he comes face to face with a deadly King Cobra.

In the latter scene, Indie must outrun a speeding boulder as he takes an ancient artifact from a sacred spot inside a cave, causing boulders to collapse around him.

Both scenes are enormous fun and the immeasurable edge-of-your-seat sequences.

I never sensed much chemistry between actors Ford and Allen, but writing the characters of Indie and Marion as former lovers adds a good bit of tension and sparring between the characters- this provides some good fodder and humorous situations.

Thankfully the romance between the two is neither the focal point of the film nor all too important, but rather, in the safety that the 1980’s cinema was- merely a necessity.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) is a superb adventure film holding up better than it should decades beyond release. The film is rich with good old-fashioned action, a charismatic hero, thrills, intrigue, and a good history lesson for those interested in the build-up to World War II.

The accounts are fictional of course, but Spielberg offers a fine 1980s cinematic experience that’s got it all.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg, Best Original Score, Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

Stand By Me-1986

Stand By Me-1986

Director Rob Reiner

Starring Will Wheaton, River Phoenix

Scott’s Review #752

Reviewed May 2, 2018

Grade: A

Stand By Me (1986), is a sweet, coming-of-age story that every male  (or female for that matter) who grew up in small-town America will undoubtedly relate to.

Set mostly outdoors in the remote Pacific Northwest, the film successfully shows the deep bonds of friendships over the course of a Labor Day weekend as four youths set out on an adventure of discovery.

In 1986 I was able to completely relate to the film and in present-day Stand By Me holds up quite well.

Stephen King, a tremendous author known mostly for horror novels, created a short story named The Body in 1982- Stand By Me is based on this story.

Instead of traditional horror, however, the story is more of a straight-up adventure, though in pure King style- a dead body is front and center (naturally).

Stand By Me is directed by Rob Reiner, and its success led to other mainstream achievements for Reiner (1989’s When Harry Met Sally and 1990’s Misery- also a King novel). The legendary theme song by Ben E. King plays over the closing credits and became a smash hit again in 1986.

The film starts intriguingly as the main character, Gordie, as an adult, learns that his childhood friend Chris Chambers has tragically been stabbed to death. Gordie then narrates a flashback to the summer of 1959 when he and three other boys embarked on a childhood adventure on Labor Day weekend.

Along with Gordie (Will Wheaton), we meet Chris (River Phoenix) a rebellious boy with a troubled home life, Teddy (Corey Feldman), who is scarred as a result of being burned by his mentally ill father, and Vern (Jerry O’Connell)  an overweight kid insecure about his looks.

The wonderful aspect of Stand By Me is that each of the four central characters is flawed either physically or by some other insecurity-giving depth to each character. Each character is highly empathetic to an audience member who may see him or herself in these characters.

This point carries through for the entire length of the film. Through conversational scenes with one another, each weakness is exposed and dissected- Teddy becomes vulnerable about his relationship with his father when a character refers to him as “loony”.

Vern’s weight bothers him, and Chris aspires to be so much more than people anticipate he will ever become.

Not to be weighed down by too many dramatic elements, Stand By Me incorporates much-needed humor into its story. My favorite sequence is the delightful story in which Godie regales the other boys one night as they camp outdoors.

Town legend has it that a rotund picked on a boy nicknamed “Lard-Ass” enacts the perfect revenge on the townspeople one summer as he enters a pie-eating contest resulting in a torrent of vomiting.

This scene is very well shot by Reiner and brilliantly balances the differing tones of the film all the while nestled in a connecting package.

The film belongs to the young actors each of whom is cast extremely well. Of course, Corey Feldman and River Phoenix went on to major success in the 1980s.

Phoenix who tragically died in 1993, and Feldman, who suffered through numerous problems in his short career, are forever youthful with promise and poise in this film.

In Phoenix’s case, he seemed most on course for leading man status with his dashing youthful looks and clean-cut appearance. Watching in later years it is bittersweet to watch both actors and recollect the promise of each.

Mixing both drama and comedy but at its core, a true adventure story best watched on a summer evening, Stand By Me (1985) is memorable and poignant. The setting of late summer, outdoorsy camping, and green scenery is resilient and stands the test of time.

Anyone who has embarked on a good journey as a kid or formulated everlasting memories of those from their youth (which should be all of us) can appreciate this timeless gem.

Oscar Nominations: Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Rob Reiner, Best Screenplay

Wonder Woman-2017

Wonder Woman-2017

Director-Patty Jenkins

Starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine

Scott’s Review #696

Reviewed November 20, 2017

Grade: B

Wonder Woman is a 2017 summer offering (and a mega success) that is firmly nestled in the comfort of the superhero, adventure genre but is unique in that it is directed by a woman in what is typically a male-dominated field.

This must be championed, and the film has a palpable, female-empowering quality that I adore since it is still lacking in most mainstream films.

However, at times, the film teeters too much around predictability and possesses many traditional superhero elements, such as good versus evil, climactic fights scenes, and stock villains. But liberties must be taken and overall I saw the film as a female-driven work.

The fact that Wonder Woman was celebrated by the masses is wonderful news.

Director Patty Jenkins, notable for having previously tackled weighty subject matter in films such as 2003’s Monster, is at the helm of this project and embodies her lead character with a good blend of earnestness, pizzazz, and heart.

“Wonder Woman” is a likable character and newcomer Gal Gadot, an unknown to me, is interesting casting. Certainly, there are a myriad of young Hollywood “names” who could have championed the part- Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence may have been palpable in the role.

Seemingly a brave choice, Gadot takes command of the character and fills her with substance.

We meet “Princess Diana” as a young girl, living on the protected Amazon island of Themyscira- inhabited only by females. The time is around 1918, amid the harsh reality of World War I, though the members of the tribe know nothing about the war or any other current events- nor do any males live on the island.

Most of the women are trained warriors, presumably to protect the island from potential dangers. It is soon revealed that Diana has special powers, and after meeting a lost American soldier, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), she embarks on a mission to save the world from the ravages of war.

Mixed in with the main story is a briefly mentioned ancient legend of Zeus’s son Ares plotting to return and destroy the Amazons, whom Zeus created.

My only issue with Wonder Woman as a whole is with the story.  The plot is not weak, but simply put- it is nestled in Hollywood predictability rather than containing any surprises along the way.

Despite deserved kudos for the characterization of Diana, the story ultimately turns ho-hum like many superhero films do- peppered with the inevitable battle scenes.

The genre-specific “save the world” is played to the hilt as Diana takes it upon herself to stop the war with the belief that people are not entirely bad. With this thought, Diana finally learns a valuable lesson about the complexities of human beings- in this way Wonder Woman contains a moralistic tale- but then come more battle scenes.

The villains are mainly cartoon-like and what one might expect for a film of this kind.  Chemist Isabel Maru/Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya), dons a mask to hide a disfigured face (intentionally to test the poison gas), and General Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston) plans to destroy all of mankind.

These characters are straight out of comic books and contain no redeeming qualities.

Contrary to where the main story may be a tad lacking, the romantic element is nicely done and the scenes involving Diana and Steve are sweet and romantic making them fun to watch and a good balance against the action sequences.

Gadot and Pine have great chemistry, adding humor, so the scenes are not forced. As Diana sees Steve naked for the first time a clever sexual flirtation develops and a sly lesbian backstory is briefly hinted at.

Diana remarks with a smirk that men are only needed for procreation and that the women on the island “can satisfy themselves”. The duo also has a play of words about his “manhood”.

Due to the success of Wonder Woman, a sequel, again directed by Jenkins is in the works. My hope is that because of the box office performance many more liberties can be taken by the talented director and she can further push the envelope as she did with Monster.

Wonder Woman is a good film, let’s hope the next installment is a great film.

King Kong-1933

King Kong-1933

Director Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack

Starring Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong

Scott’s Review #624

Reviewed March 11, 2017

Grade: A

The original, black and white, 1933 version of King Kong (a few other remakes or reboots followed) is a masterful achievement in special effects never before done in film and is also a great horror/adventure film that is timeless in its look and feel, capturing 1930’s New York City, especially, in majestic fashion.

Some of the dialogue and scenes are now dated or slightly racist, but it still holds up well as an overall lesson in film exploration and is a treasure to watch time and time again.

The film is a take on the classic tale, Beauty and the Beast, sans the happy ending.

In the watery harbors of New York City, filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) prepares to embark, via ship, on a journey to film his latest picture.

Known for films about exotic wildlife, he has a film to end all films in mind, and reluctantly, is talked into casting a female lead in the part. He scours the streets of New York City, finding broke and hungry Ann (Fay Wray)- a struggling actress unable to find work. She agrees to the role and off they go headed towards a destination unknown.

Weeks later, he reveals to the crew that they are headed for Skull Island, a secret island known for pre-historic creatures and a beast only known as “Kong”.

Amid the voyage to the island, Ann and First Mate Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) fall madly in love with each other giving the film a nice romantic slant along with the male-driven adventure story.

The adventure begins when the crew arrives at Skull Island to find a weird, ancient ritual marriage occurring by the tribal people and all hell breaks loose when the dangerous “King Kong” escapes from captivity and falls in love with Ann.

Mixed in with the story are enormous dinosaurs who destroy everything in their paths including many of the men from the island and the film crew.

As I watched the film in 2017, not too far out from 100 years past the film’s incarnation, I oftentimes sat in wonderment, amazed at how the filmmakers were able to achieve the luminous special effects throughout the second half of the film.

Given the film is in black and white, the contrast of the dark, enormous ape (Kong) and the bright New York City, and the majestic Empire State Building, prominently featured in the final, climactic, act.

Scenes of a struggling Ann in the hand of King Kong seem flawless and believable and I marvel at how these scenes were shot and the enormous amount of effort to make them dramatic and not hokey looking.

Since the film was made “pre-code”, several shocking scenes exist- when Kong rips off Ann’s clothes as she struggles in his palm and Kong’s stepping on and squashing men are featured sparing no graphic details.

In addition to the great adventure story that is King Kong, lies a tender love story and a bit of melancholy. King Kong is not so much a dangerous creature, rather, has fallen in love with Ann and serves as her protector.

He is a scared animal, chained and confined, and subsequently shown to a stuffy Broadway crowd as entertainment- he becomes angry. I find Kong to be a sympathetic, misunderstood character, and because the human beings in the story are frightened, he becomes their enemy. He adores Ann and would not harm her in any way, but he is perceived as vicious, which he is not.

It can be argued who the real villain of the story is. Would it not be filmmaker Carl, intent on exploiting King Kong and gaining profit from it? Is it the tribe people who keep Kong locked up or is it for their protection?

My favorite scene is the climax of the film. After taking Ann from a hotel room, he scales the Empire State building and is pursued by four military airplanes.

When he sets Ann down on the rooftop ledge, he battles the planes, only to sadly topple down to the ground- dead. As he swipes at the planes and succumbs to gunshot wounds, it is a sad and powerful scene.

King Kong (1933) is a legendary film.  A film where audiences will empathize with the “villain” of the story and be impressed by the nuances on the technical side as well as enjoy the conventional and the unconventional love stories presented.

One thing is for sure, King Kong is one of the most influential films ever made.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest-2006

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest-2006

Director Gore Verbinski

Starring Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom

Scott’s Review #606

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B-

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest is the follow-up to the original Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, from 2003.

The sequel is decent but inferior to Curse of the Black Pearl.

The visual effects are spectacular, and the budget is very high, but the story isn’t there. The film drags along at times as well as being a bit confusing.

Johnny Depp gives his all to his role of Jack Sparrow, performing with gusto, and is the highlight of the franchise.

The supporting characters, Bloom as Will Turner, and Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Swann, are fine, but not on the level of Depp.

Otherwise, the performances are all okay, but just a carbon copy of the first film.

Story-wise, Will and Elizabeth are arrested for aiding Jack Sparrow’s escape execution, and the plot involves the attempts at locating Sparrow along with the typical adventure aspects of a film like this and the stock character villains, with grimaces, heavy makeup, and over-acting, but I expected as much.

Not a bad sequel, certain to entertain the masses, and guaranteed to make a ton of money, inevitably ensuring another sequel will be made, with little doubt of being even less compelling.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects (won)

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

Clash of the Titans-2010

Clash of the Titans-2010

Director Louis Leterrier

Starring Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson

Scott’s Review #566

Reviewed December 27, 2016

Grade: B

Though I went to the theater begrudgingly to see Clash of the Titans-2010, (fantasy blockbusters are not typically my cup of tea), I have to confess to being moderately impressed by this film.

I had no real expectations other than it is a tale loosely based on the Greek myth of Perseus.

I have heard some people compare it to the original in an unfavorable way, but I have not seen the original- released in 1981 so any comparisons are a moot point.

At one hour and fifty minutes, the film is a perfect length and does not drag.

The plot is basic and focused. Perseus (Sam Worthington)  must save the life of the beautiful Princess Andromeda, as he leads a team of warriors into battle against vicious enemies.

Some of the creatures they meet along the way are fascinating.

Clash of the Titans (2010) is not fine cinema, and the acting is not spectacular, but the effects are worth mentioning and the look of the film is impressive.

My only real criticisms are the way Medusa is portrayed (said to be ugly, she really is a beautiful woman with snakes on her head) and the 3-D, which was pretty much unnecessary- this is probably an attempt by the studios to capitalize for profit.

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens-2015

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens-2015

Director-J.J. Abrams

Starring-Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher

Scott’s Review #540

Reviewed December 8, 2016

Grade: B

As a youngster who grew up exposed to the original three Star Wars films (admittedly, I cannot keep track nor care enough to learn the exact chronological order of the films in the franchise), the 2016 reincarnation is very nostalgic for me.

Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi were magical films for a kid to enjoy and be bedazzled by.

Sadly, The Phantom Menace in 1999 was a rather forgettable endeavor and did nothing to draw new fans to the franchise- nor keep existing fans engaged.

Taking center stage in this installment are beloved stalwart characters Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) in a nostalgic trip down memory lane.

A slight gripe is the shamefully under-use of one of these characters.

The visual effects are very impressive, the main villain is okay, and the action sequences adequate, but it is the ode to history that keeps the long-time viewer engaged the most.

In a way, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is aptly titled as it is a rebirth of sorts for the storied franchise.

Legendary actor Max von Sydow is shamefully under-utilized in a throwaway part in the film’s first sequence.

It’s ironic that he resembles deceased actor Alec Guinness, made famous all over again in the 1970s when he appeared in the first Star Wars. A coincidence?

It would seem that filmmakers are going for a modern reboot of Episode IV (the 1977 Star Wars).

The main character of Rey (Daisy Ridley) is meant to be the new Luke Skywalker, who is known as a Jedi hero in the land, and has been missing for years. Rey has special powers and is accompanied by her sidekick droid, BB-8, a similar character as R2-D2. The villain is Kylo-Ren, son of Han Solo and Princess (now General) Leia, and reminiscent of Darth Vader.

The film is a classic tale of good versus evil as the evil First Order battles the good Resistance.

I enjoyed the good storytelling most of all and prominent roles for Han Solo and Leia were good choices for the storied franchise. Newcomers Rey and her love interest, Finn, are appealing, as are fighter pilot, Poe, played by Oscar Isaac.

Reportedly, this film is the start of another trio of films so we will undoubtedly see more of these characters in the films ahead.

I could not help but notice the Nazi similarities of the First Order and their soldiers- the Stormtroopers. Possessing a red quality and a Nazi-like salute to their supreme leader, they even look German in appearance. Kylo-Ren, raven-haired, pale, and clad in a dark black cape, was derived from Darth Vader, especially when he appeared in mask attire.

He almost could have been his son.

Set thirty years since the original Star Wars, the plot is more or less similar, and I think this is a wise move in introducing the franchise to a new audience while staying true to the rich history of the central characters and their offspring.

Han Solo and Leia discuss their love affair, past adventures, and of course, their son, who has been hypnotized to the dark side. They struggle to concoct a way to rescue him and hope to persuade him that aligning with the Resistance is the only way to go.

Favorite scenes of mine include the ultimate showdown between Rey and Kylo-Ren. Set in a snowy, wintry forest, with their glistening and glowing lightsabers, the scene is gorgeous from a visual perspective, as are the many scenes in one battle station or another.

The re-appearance of comical C-3PO is darling.

As with the original Star Wars, humor is mixed in to lighten the mood. Han Solo and his dedicated side-kick Chewbacca, gently spar, and when Han Solo takes the group to a saloon filled with interesting creatures, the scene is light and fun. 

The real drawback for me is that the film is not all that compelling save for the nostalgia aspects. It is merely a classic battle of two wills, but otherwise, offers nothing very new and exciting. Sure there are a few new characters, but the plot is rather basic and what one would expect. 

I, personally, am not truly invested in the franchise, despite zillions of die-hard fans being fanatics of the films and their intricacies, so that is more of an opinion than a criticism of the merits of the film.

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens will undoubtedly please fans and introduce new ones to a world of galaxies, and the indelible “force”. Still, a satisfying trip down memory lane.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

Oz The Great and Powerful-2013

Oz The Great and Powerful-2013

Director Sam Raimi

Starring James Franco, Mila Kunis

Scott’s Review #433

70243359

Reviewed June 30, 2016

Grade: B

Being a huge fan of the original The Wizard of Oz epic classic in 1939, I was interested in seeing this extension of the original version.

While it has its moments of charm and good old-fashioned adventure, it is ultimately good, but nothing great.

James Franco is fantastic as the Wizard of Oz, the highest point of the film,  and has great charisma in the role. He brings a fun flair and is quite appealing.

The witch characters are okay, but not terribly interesting or deeply explored. Further character depth might have been helpful as I did not notice much-rooting value for either of them.

On a positive note, I loved the first sequence, which was in black and white, true to the original, and the twister scene is impressively done.

The set/art design in this sequence and once the setting was Oz were beautifully done.

Toward the end of the film, though, the story becomes more of a silly fantasy action series that draws away from the heart of the original.

The first half of Oz The Great and Powerful (2013) excels, while the second half disappoints.

Life of Pi-2012

Life Of Pi-2012

Director Ang Lee

Starring Suraj Sharma

Scott’s Review #412

70213509

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: B

Life of Pi (2012) is a visual masterpiece. It’s a beautiful piece of filmmaking and lovely to look at. There are several majestic scenes, mostly in the ocean sequences that one will marvel at.

I did not see this movie in 3-D so I am unsure what difference, if any, it would have made. A good portion of the film is CGI-laden, which I am typically not a fan of, but in this case, it works wonders.

What an adventure the main character has!

The actual story, and the acting, are nothing special and have been done before, and slightly stereotypical if truth be told, though I did enjoy the ending.

Life of Pi (2012) is based on a novel and is a wonderful adventure tale, one made very, very well.

The main reason to see it is for its Direction (Ang Lee) and the visual spectacle that it is.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Ang Lee (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“Pi’s Lullaby”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

Earthquake-1974

Earthquake-1974

Director Mark Robson

Starring Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner

Scott’s Review #407

60030175

Reviewed June 2, 2016

Grade: B+

One of the several disaster films to populate film screens in the early to mid-1970s, Earthquake is one of the “main four” blockbusters (The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno, and Airport being the others), that still resonate with viewers in modern times and are nostalgic to watch.

One might argue that the aforementioned few largely influenced Earthquake since it was the last of the group to be filmed.

Certainly, the influence is apparent.

Earthquake is a classic, traditional, disaster film containing many stock characters (or types) and is an ensemble piece- as disaster films always are- frequently containing stars of yesteryear attempting exposure in the modern cinema.

The gender roles in Earthquake are quite mainstream for the day as the females are all clearly  “damsels in distress” types and the men are portrayed as the heroes.

The action begins as we witness a Los Angeles-based middle-aged couple (the central couple if you will) engaging in a dispute.

Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner play Stewart and Remy Graff, an affluent couple, a former football star, she a boozy socialite. Her father is the wealthy Sam Royce, played by Lorne Greene. Stewart is carrying on an affair with a young actress, Denise Marshall, creating a soap opera-style romantic triangle, adding drama to the film.

We meet other characters who round out the character’s stories- LAPD Sgt. Slade (George Kennedy) shares a flirtation with Rosa (Victoria Principal), while drunkard Walter Matthau and evil kineval character Richard Roundtree provide comic relief.

These stories are merely filler until the inevitable earthquake arrives to ‘shake’ things up.

The earthquake is the main character in the film just like the tidal wave, the fire, and the airline peril are in the other same genre films.

The character’s trivial relationships soon take a back seat to the action as the earthquake shatters the city in subsequent onsets and aftershocks, destroying buildings and resulting in many deaths.

The very lengthy main earthquake sequence is second to none and hovers around the twenty-minute mark. We see many characters in peril. The scene goes on and on but is hardly redundant.

The scene is masterful and well done. The effects, cinematography, and visuals alone hold up well today and must have been breathtaking circa 1974.

In one particularly thrilling scene, a group of office workers on the thirtieth floor of a skyscraper desperately try to scramble to the elevator as the building shakes and shimmies. One businessman shoves a secretary out of the way and selfishly immerses himself in the crowded elevator as others desperately pound on the elevator door to escape.

Things do not end well for the folks on the elevator as bolts loosen and the car crashes to the ground. An animated blood splat fills the screen in a lighthearted, comical way.

The film wisely does not take itself too seriously.

As fantastic as the destruction sequence is, Earthquake is not a film without a few flaws, mostly from a character standpoint.

Unbelievable is Heston playing Greene’s son-in-law and Gardner are assumed to be young enough to be his daughter- they appear to be around the same age.

A strange character, Jody, a store clerk, suddenly dresses as a soldier, wearing a wig, following the destruction and, assumed to be gay by thugs, is teased, which prompts him to shoot them with a machine gun. He subsequently becomes obsessed with and nearly rapes Rosa.

The sub-plot seems uneven and very unnecessary.

With spectacular special effects, Earthquake is a must-see disaster film with a slightly downcast, hopeless tone. It does its job well- it entertains, thrills, and features an all-star cast of former Hollywood elite and a few rising stars.

A fun time will be had.

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

The Martian-2015

The Martian-2015

Director-Ridley Scott

Starring Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #379

80058399

Reviewed February 19, 2016

Grade: C-

The latest film from heralded director Ridley Scott (notable for classics Blade Runner and Alien), The Martian is a science-fiction/space adventure involving a believed dead astronaut (Matt Damon) trapped on Mars after being thought dead by his fellow team.

NASA and a crew of rescuers fervently attempt to save him as supplies run out. Extremely resourceful, Mark Watney cleverly avoids death by using his wits to survive and even prosper on the challenging planet.

Hot on the heels of several other modern science fictions, high profile offerings, such as Interstellar and Gravity, The Martian features a big Hollywood star in the lead role.

Much of the action is Watney on his own, attempting to grow to produce, ration food, and keep his sanity- think Tom Hanks in Castaway except on another planet, and with a “Hab”, an indoor operations station left by his abandoned crew.

The Martian has received lots of accolades- winning the Golden Globe for Best Musical or Comedy Film- though that is poor categorization in my opinion. The film has snippets of humor and a few songs in the background, but that is it. Unless some late 1970’s disco songs constitute a musical.

I found The Martian to be a Hollywood mainstream film in every sense- to some that may be a high compliment, but to me, I expect a bit more from a film.

It is not that The Martian is a bad film- it is not, but it is mediocre in my opinion and has all the elements of an average film. The film was going for an emotional experience that I did not experience- I had little doubt that the ending would be a sweet one, wrapped in a bow.

Mark Watney is the typical all-American character in a “guy film”. He hates disco and loves ketchup. The film makes him a guys guy, so therefore the average film-goer will relate to him. He is in good shape, cracks jokes, and is likable.

But that is also a problem with the character specifically and The Martian as a whole. He lacks substance. We know little about him except he has parents who never appear on-screen. The way that the film touts him as the hero and is cheered and praised, while in real-life would be warranted, in the film it just feels forced and contrived.

This is not a knock against Matt Damon, who does a decent job.

My beef is that the character is not fleshed out.  The well-built Damon at the beginning of the film versus a scrawny Damon at the conclusion is completely a facade as clearly a body double was used in the later scenes. This lack of authenticity disappointed me.

I expected more from the supporting cast given the talent involved- Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Kristen Wiig all play one-note types that any actor could have played. Why were big stars cast at all?

Chastain as a mission commander, Daniels as Director of NASA, Ejiofor as NASA mission commander, and Wiig as a Public Relations specialist. The casting, in particular, of Wiig in the straight-laced, stale was mysterious to me, and it was not a  particularly good portrayal….and I am a Wiig fan.

The humorous parts in The Martian border on contrived and not dissimilar to countless other films with the smart-ass remarks all containing a bland quality. Lines like “eat your heart out Neil Armstrong” seem silly and unnecessary. I expected more wit.

Let me be fair- the visual effects (it is space after all) are impressive, and it was fairly interesting to see what is supposed to be the planet of Mars, but really in this day and age of CGI effects the film is not that spectacular. I would much rather be given a compelling story than visual treats any day of the week.

My review of The Martian may seem a tad harsh, but that is only because I expected a great deal more from it than I was given.

With several Oscar nominations including for Best Picture, I anticipated a top-notch film, and The Martian did not come close. Mediocrity, straightforward, and predictable describe The Martian film. I have heard, however, that the novel is fantastic. I have added it to my reading list.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Matt Damon, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Visual Effects

Jurassic World-2015

Jurassic World-2015

Director-Colin Trevorrow

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard

Scott’s Review #307

80029196

Reviewed December 23, 2015

Grade: C

Jurassic World is a film that I expected to like much more than I did.

Sure, it is summer, blockbuster, popcorn flick, but based on the success of the earlier franchise efforts,  and, if memory serves, finding enjoyment in 1993 original, Jurassic Park, I expected a fun ride.

Unfortunately, I was treated to a formulaic, escapade with uninteresting characters and mediocre writing.

The premise is standard- a behemoth of an amusement park exists in Central America, on the island of Isla Nublar, where a dinosaur theme park has been running without incident for ten years.

A genetically modified dinosaur, created because a magnificent new attraction is needed, breaks loose and runs rampant.  A silly love story exists between the two leads Owen and Claire (Chris Pratt and Dallas Bryce Howard), as well as the inclusion of two young boys (Zach and Gray) sent by their divorcing parents to be with their Aunt Claire, who works as the Operations Manager at the park.

Owen is the dinosaur trainer. Predictably, there are “bad guys” who are greedy and/or desiring to advance science at the risk of human life.

The special effects are fine, albeit completely CGI-laden, which is to be expected- the main stars are dinosaurs after all. I did, however, expect better writing or, at least, more of a creative attempt at coming up with something a bit edgy.

The story was completely redundant. Where was the character development? There was none. We know very little about any of the principal characters except on a superficial level. One might argue that an adventure film does not necessitate this, but I disagree- I think it is important. We know that Claire is a workaholic and has none time for her nephews- why? What makes her tick?

Here is a slight complaint- Why kill off only extremely minor characters or villains? I could see this (and the ending) a mile away. The whole film just seemed forced and sloppy.

Jurassic World is also filled with clichés- Owen and Claire initially dislike each other having had one unsuccessful first day back in the day. The film tries to push the love/hate, opposites attract element and it seems contrived. How many times have we seen this in film history?

Also, Chris Pratt is perfect as the hunky, muscular “hero saves the day” type, and Dallas Bryce Howard running through the forest in a tight tank top is not unintentional.

This is not to say that the film is bad. It is a decent adventure film and the special effects are kind of cool. I did enjoy the homage to the original 1993 version as the boys stumble upon the original visitor station complete with the 1992 jeep from the original Jurassic Park film. I thought this was a neat little nod to history and I love that in a franchise film, but that is it for the positives.

Yes, this film was a blockbuster smash and made oodles of money. It, however, felt forced and clichéd and quite formulaic. I was hoping for much more and deeper, stronger, material.

Guardians of the Galaxy-2014

Guardians of the Galaxy-2014

Director-James Gunn

Starring-Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana

Scott’s Review #281

70301645

Reviewed October 9, 2015

Grade: C-

The summer blockbuster hit of 2014, Guardians of the Galaxy, a Marvel comics film popular among fans and critics alike, disappointed this viewer.

Too many superhero films are overly conventional, by the numbers fare, and this one certainly contained the aforementioned characteristics. Presumably targeted for teens (I would think), the film has cute jokes and decent special effects, but a bland, mediocre screenplay that lacks any edginess.

Handsome Chris Platt plays Peter Quill, a space pilot from Earth, who is abducted as a young boy by a pirate group named the Ravagers. Now a grown man, Peter attempts to steal a mysterious and powerful Orb known for special powers, for monetary gain. The Orb is desired by many, including the evil Ronan, and his daughter Gamora.

Predictably, events turn into a battle of good vs. evil as Peter and Gamora (who turns good) team up with misfits Drax (a strongman), Groot (a tree), and Rocket (a raccoon) to thwart intentions by Ronan of destroying a peaceful planet, Nova Empire.

The meat of the story involves the team’s journey from imprisonment and escape to their efforts saving the world.

As traditional with these types of films, there is inevitable romantic chemistry between Peter and Gamora, who at first are rivals, but slowly develop a fondness for each other when it is revealed that she is plotting against Ronan and his valiant efforts.

Strengths of the film are the 1970’s soundtrack and the incorporation of a cassette player and Walkman, unheard of in today’s modern world, to the story.

I loved how this was not simply backgrounded music, but referenced throughout the film in various situations. For example, when Peter comically explains to a clueless bad guy what his treasured cassette tape consists of and how he cannot bear to part with it, this impressed me.

The creative sets and bright colors are other high points of Guardians of the Galaxy. The Xander planet, specifically, is portrayed as clean, bright, and progressive, which counterbalanced the dark, dreary nature of where Ronan and his entourage live.

However, the film is too conventional and not the least bit edgy or out of the ordinary in any way story-wise. Let’s take the hero for example. He is clean-cut, all-American, and is humorous. But, why exactly is he the hero? He inevitably saves the world but makes him go from a pirate who is a thief to a golden boy leading a team to save a relatively unknown planet.

There is, of course, a scene involving a backstory of his mother dying of cancer and his regret over not taking her hand one final time. This is assumed to make him kind-hearted and one of the good guys.

This felt forced to me and what we have seen time after time in superhero films. The message I received from the film was basic- the powerful, strong, masculine guy with a sense of humor mixed in for good measure, saves the world from the bad guys while including a bunch of tag-along.

This is fine but albeit predictable.

I was left with some questions. What were Ronan’s and Tharos’s motivations? They were simply evil with not much explanation as to why. What led them down this path? Did they each want theirs to be the only planet remaining in the galaxy?

A tender moment towards the end of the film when one of the team members dies is done in a rushed way that was a missed opportunity for more emotion.

Guardians of the Galaxy is a mediocre superhero/action film, one that might have been better if further fleshed out. This film contains a blandness that left me forgetting about it soon after the credits rolled.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Visual Effects

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Director-Matt Reeves

Starring-Andy Serkis, Gary Oldman

Scott’s Review #232

70300076

Reviewed March 29, 2015

Grade: C+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, the audience gets that message.

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

The Poseidon Adventure-1972

The Poseidon Adventure-1972

Director Ronald Neame

Starring Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, Shelley Winters

Top 100 Films #12

Scott’s Review #214

867891

Reviewed January 17, 2015

Grade: A

The disaster genre, mainly encompassing the 1970s in film, includes some of my personal favorites and The Poseidon Adventure (1972) is easily at the top of the pile.

Set on a lavish ocean liner, the SS Poseidon, on New Year’s Eve, the doomed ship falls victim to a powerful tsunami while sailing from New York to Athens on its final voyage, causing it to topple over and leaving a handful of survivors to meander through the bowels of the ship in an attempt to find a way out and be rescued.

They are led by a stubborn preacher, played by Gene Hackman.

The appeal of The Poseidon Adventure is, of course, watching the cast of characters in peril and guessing which ones will meet their fates and how- think a slasher film without the horror component.

Featuring an ensemble cast of Hollywood celebs of the day, the characters are introduced to the audience before the tidal wave erupts, so, therefore, we care for them immensely.

There is the former hooker with the heart of gold married to a gruff cop (Stella Stevens and Ernest Borgnine as Mike and Linda Rogo).

Then there is the sweet-natured older couple on the cruise to see their grandchild (Shelley Winters and Jack Albertson as Manny and Belle Rosen).

Pamela Sue Martin plays the teen girl, Susan, who falls madly in love with the preacher- Reverend Scott. Along with her younger brother, Robin, they are traveling to see their parents, who await their arrival.

Roddy McDowall plays a waiter named Acres.

Lastly, Red Buttons plays James Martin, a health-conscious bachelor, and Carol Lynley plays shy singer Nonnie.

Reverend Scott is the moral focal point of the film and questions god several times throughout.

The sets are extraordinary- the colorful Christmas tree in the grand dining room is fantastic. The entire New Year’s Eve party scene is my favorite- it is festive, extravagant, and mixed in with a scene where the ominous tsunami is rapidly approaching.

The festive celebration quickly turns into confusion as the sirens begin to sound, and finally, panic as furniture begins to fly.

Visually this scene is the most intricate- the ship turns upside down after the crash, thus giving the illusion that the bottom of the ship is the top.

Tricky.

From this point on all of the sets to follow are intended to be upside down- a crafty and effective style, but none more than the dining room scene.

A victim toppling and crashing into a giant clock is a memorable scene.

As the group of survivors haggardly make their way throughout the ship they encounter underwater explosions, dead bodies, rushing water, and disputes, mainly between Reverend Scott and Rogo, as to how to proceed to safety.

One by one a handful of the group meets their fates in gruesome fashion- falling into a fire, a heart attack, and falling to one’s death.

Shelley Winters is the comic relief of the film with her humorous quips about her weight, and her death scene brings me to tears each time I experience it.

A heavyset older woman who at one time was a dynamite high school swimmer, she attempts to help the group by holding her breath and swimming underneath the engine room, which is blocked- she does inevitably save the Reverend Scott’s life but succumbs to a heart attack shortly thereafter.

It is a powerful, heartbreaking scene.

The film is a great adventure. What makes The Poseidon Adventure (1972) so timeless and continues to bring so much pleasure? Certainly not high-brow nor high art, but it does not need to be.

It is simply meant to be enjoyed for what it is- a thrilling, fun, entertaining ride.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Shelley Winters, Best Song Original for the Picture-“The Morning After” (won), Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

The Towering Inferno-1974

The Towering Inferno-1974

Director John Guillermin

Starring Paul Newman, Steve McQueen

Top 100 Films #43

Scott’s Review #194

1059232

Reviewed November 15, 2014

Grade: A

The Towering Inferno (1974) epitomizes the disaster film craze heaped on audiences throughout the 1970s (Airport, Airport ‘75 and ‘77, The Poseidon Adventure (1972), and Earthquake (1974) to name a few).

I am (guilt-free) a huge fan of this 1970s movie genre, though some certainly look down on it, I am not one of them and feel The Towering Inferno is one of the greatest.

The film is enormous and has such a sense of adventure and danger.

The grand film tells of the trials and tribulations of an enormous cast of characters trapped inside an inferno-flamed skyscraper – led by Paul Newman and Steve McQueen (fun fact- the two actors reportedly despised each other).

An incredible skyscraper is erected in San Francisco, at one hundred and thirty-eight floors it is professed to be the tallest building in the world and incredibly state-of-the-art. At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, an elaborate party is held atop the building overlooking the gorgeous Pacific Ocean.

Due to faulty electrical wiring, the building catches fire and the cast of characters faces one challenge after another to escape the grips of death.

The stellar cast features stars like William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Robert Wagner, Jennifer Jones, and O.J. Simpson in addition to Newman and McQueen.

The film is quite a soap opera style- numerous characters are introduced, many having affairs with each other or suffering some sort of conflict.

Wagner having a torrid office romance with his secretary played by then up-and-coming star Susan Flannery is deliciously sexy and I yearned to know more about both characters.

Holden’s son-in-law is responsible for the faulty electrical system yet blames his father-in-law for cutting budgets.

Another subplot involves Astaire’s character attempting to swindle Jones’s character but then falling in love with her. The plots are so melodramatic that, given the period of the film, it has a definite primetime television soap opera style to it- think Dallas or Dynasty in a state of peril.

I enjoyed the enormous cast and trying to guess who will be killed off next and in what elaborate way the film will burn them to death is a joy to watch- several victims fall or jump to their deaths, which eerily (and sadly) bring back morbid images of jumpers from the World Trade towers on 9/11.

The beginning of the film shows a dedication to firemen everywhere and the film has a definite moral and heroical quality to the firemen sent to rescue the people in the building. They are portrayed as heroes and intended not to be forgotten amid all the drama encompassing the story. This is admirable.

The special effects are elaborate and quite impressive- the glass elevator rescue scene is amazing! The beautiful set designs are a treat to watch as each lobby, apartment, or lounge in the skyscraper is exquisitely designed at the height of the 1970s style.

Every sofa or carpet featured is plush, colorful, and sophisticated. The skyscraper, made of glass, is an amazing element of the film, and the aerial views of the building, especially while ablaze are impressive, to say the least- remember- 1974 was long before CGI. I am assuming small replicas of the building were used, but what an achievement from a visual perspective.

The effects certainly champion the syrupy story elements.

My only small gripe with The Towering Inferno is, assumed to be 138 stories high, the action taking place at the top of the tower- the rooftop as well as the party scenes on the top floor- do not feel that high- The scenic outlook overlooking the water and some land feel about twenty-five stories high, not one hundred and thirty-eight.

Some find The Towering Inferno (1974) to be nothing more than schmaltzy drama- I say schmaltz was never done better.

Enjoy this feast of a big film.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Fred Astaire, Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Song-“We May Never Love Like This Again” (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Jack the Giant Slayer-2013

Jack the Giant Slayer-2013

Director-Bryan Singer

Starring-Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson

Scott’s Review #93

70213512

Reviewed July 4, 2014

Grade: C

Jack the Giant Slayer is a fantasy, CGI-laden film most likely targeted at a young audience. It tells the story of Jack, a farmhand who must rescue a beautiful princess from the world of giants after an accident causes a gateway to open to their world.

The film is loosely based on the fairy tale “Jack and the Beanstalk”. The special effects in the land of the Giants are the most impressive aspect of the film.

Otherwise, it is a love story mixed with adventure and the story is simply not very engaging and very predictable.

Heavyweights Ewan McGregor and Stanley Tucci appear in over-the-top performances and the acting of the princess (Eleanor Tomlinson) is shockingly wooden.

The finale is mildly entertaining as a chase through the castle occurs, but the film is so weighted down by the effects and the lack of a good story that overall it was a very middle-of-the-road film.

Kon-Tiki-2012

Kon-Tiki-2012

Director Joachim Ronning, Espen Sandberg

Starring Pal Sverre Valheim Hagen, Anders Baasmo Christiansen

Scott’s Review #78

70260989

Reviewed June 28, 2014

Grade: C+

I don’t know what has happened to the nominating process for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar (it has been controversial for years), but it used to be you could count on any of the five nominated films to be interesting, edgy, and even controversial.

These days, a few of the nominated films squeaking through barely rise above mediocrity and are such mainstream stories.

Kon-Tiki (2012) is one such film.

It tells the tale of a Norwegian scientist determined to sail, via raft, from Peru to the Polynesian islands to prove a Sun God, centuries ago, made the same voyage.

He forms a team and off they go.

Supposedly based on a true story, the team faces the typical challenges in an oceanic adventure- bad weather, sharks, the raft in peril, and dissent among the ranks.

These high sea clichés have gotten to me recently.

The film is similar in context to Life of Pi, also made in 2012. It’s not a bad film, but there is nothing special about it either and it has glossy and safe written all over it- the score is Spielberg to the nines who has nothing to do with this film.

The five adventurers are bronzed with buff bodies when nobody was buff in the 1940s when this film is set, and the scruffy beards, after months of sailing, look perfectly phony.

For the top-tier foreign language group, I expected something more cutting-edge and with more substance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

The African Queen-1951

The African Queen-1951

Director John Huston

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn

Scott’s Review #76

60011001

Reviewed June 28, 2014

Grade: B-

The African Queen (1951) is a difficult film to review.

Revered and appearing on many greatest films of all time lists, overall this film is disappointing to me.

Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn star as a couple who despise each other, stranded together on a tugboat in Africa on the eve of World War I.

Sure, the chemistry between Bogart and Hepburn (Hollywood royalty in their day) is there and the opposite attraction has a definite rooting value as the passion between them oozes off the screen.

He is a grizzled alcoholic, American. She is a repressed, puritanical British woman. The locales of Africa, as the couple traverses on a makeshift boat, are gorgeous to view.

That is it for me though- nothing else about the film is spectacular.

The plot is rather silly and unrealistic and the two are thrown together purely for plot purposes. The adventure seems quite secondary to the love story at hand.

How far-fetched is that an “old maid” and a sailor could build torpedoes and blow up an enormous German warship?

The film is a decent, old-fashioned romantic adventure film, but a little more and that disappoints me because I was expecting much, much more due to the film’s accolades.

Bogart won the 1951 Best Actor Oscar for this performance.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Director-John Huston, Best Actor-Humphrey Bogart (won), Best Actress-Katharine Hepburn, Best Screenplay

Captain Phillips-2013

Captain Phillips-2013

Director-Paul Greengrass

Starring-Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Scott’s Review #28

70243460

Reviewed June 17, 2014

Grade: B

Captain Phillips is an intense, gripping, action/adventure/thriller type film nominated for the Best Picture Oscar.

As much as I enjoyed the film, I do not think a nomination for the top honor is warranted. I feel like I have seen this type of film many times before and the underlining tone of “USA- good, other countries- bad”, whether intentional or unintentional, distracted me.

Another distraction I noticed was that all the protagonists are white whereas all of the antagonists are African. This is based on a true story, yes, but it seems to be glorified.

I felt like the target audience had to be older, white, conservative men, who would surely revel in this type of film.

To be fair, Tom Hanks is great and his performance during the last 15 minutes of the movie should have cemented him an Oscar nod.

The main villain, played by a complete unknown, Barkhad Abdi, was excellent, especially considering the actor had no acting experience. What a big break!

Overall, interesting, exciting experience, but falls short of the Oscar glory.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Barkhad Abdi, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing