Category Archives: 2015 Films

Sisters-2015

Sisters-2015

Director-Jason Moore

Starring-Tina Fey, Amy Poehler

Scott’s Review #458

80063604

Reviewed July 31, 2016

Grade: B-

Slapstick comedy is admittedly not my genre of choice, though I will watch some for light entertainment purposes or to see just how bad (or good) current offerings are.

Nonetheless, I have tried to put myself in a mindset of having low expectations for these types of films that are by and large fluff and plot-driven.

In the case of Sisters, the film is pretty much as one would expect: vulgar, crass, and raunchy. Yet, due to the chemistry between the leads (Amy Poehler and Tina Fey) and a few heartfelt romantic moments, there is something that works about this film- it is not as mean as one might think.

This is not to say that Sisters is a great film- hardly- but not as bad as I feared.

Poehler and Fey play Maura and Kate Ellis, respectively, two late thirties sisters, living in other areas of the country, who return home to Orlando, Florida, when their parents (James Brolin and Dianne Wiest) sell their childhood home. Maura and Kate have been tasked with cleaning out their bedrooms in time for the sale.

The sisters come up with an idea to throw one final bash and invite their high school classmates, who all conveniently still live in the same town. Events go awry and the party gets way out of hand. Mixed in with the main plot are sub-plots consisting of a romantic interest for Maura, and a rival for Kate, played by Maya Rudolph.

The best part of the film is the chemistry between Poehler and Fey. They simply “have it” whether it is a Saturday Night Live sketch, hosting the Golden Globe awards, or starring in Sisters. The banter and the jokes work well because the two comics work well together and it shows on-screen.

They are believable as sisters despite looking nothing alike.

Otherwise, Sisters is a traditional vulgar comedy. One irksome recent trend in this style of the film (now more female-driven than in years past) is the leading ladies being class-less and this must be an attempt at female empowerment or the assumption that since adult comedies were once a man’s world, female characters should be written like men.

Do we need Kate and Maura swearing like sailors, making poop jokes, and being so raunchy? Behaving like ladies would now be the exception, not the norm (Bridesmaids set this precedent).

Not surprisingly, the supporting characters are all caricatures as is typically the case in films of this genre. The parents are a bit clueless, have kinky sex much to the girl’s chagrin, Brinda, bitchy, judgmental, yet insecure, the Korean (big stereotype) nail technician who cannot properly pronounce English words, the new owners of the house are snobbish, uptight, and clueless, and finally, James, the guy next door, who is Mr. Fix-it and the straight man in the high-jinks. He is sugar-sweet and the male hero.

The romantic scenes between Maura and James are rather sweet and sentimental, nicely balancing the vulgarity and raunchiness that the rest of the film encompasses. They are a nice couple and have a rich rooting value.

Most of the action takes place at Kate and Maura’s childhood home where posters of such 1980’s films as E.T. and Out of Africa, as well as a poster of heartthrob Tom Cruise, hang on the walls.

This and many other references that Generation X’ers will take delight from in this film are pointed out, so that is a treat and a positive of the film.

As the party gets off to a slow start and the thirty and forty-something appears dull and either talking about their kids or their various maladies and suddenly, after being fed drugs, are back to their college party days, is both dumb and cute at the same time.

Sisters (hopefully) know what it is. It is a late Saturday night, raunchy comedy affair, meant as fluff and as escapist fun. It is not a masterpiece nor does it intend to be one.

Rather, a full-length SNL sketch including many alumni. It is harmless fun.

A War-2015

A War-2015

Director-Tobias Lindholm

Starring-Pilou Asbaek, Tuva Novotny

Scott’s Review #456

80057926

Reviewed July 29, 2016

Grade: B+

A War, a 2015 film, made in Denmark, is a thought-provoking story that one might think is a standard “war film” on the surface, but as the film moves along, it turns into something much deeper and rather cerebral.

A slow mover, but necessary to the nature of the film’s message,  the viewer questions what he or she might do in a similar predicament as the main character faces a moral dilemma.

The action begins in Afghanistan as we meet a company of Danish soldiers assigned to protect civilians from the evil Taliban. They are young, good-looking and of varying ethnic groups (a nice touch by the film).

One female soldier seems to be thrown in for good measure, though we never see her in combat.

Their leader is Commander Claus Pedersen, a good, decent man, well-liked by his troop. They have all seen death and destruction, and Pedersen frequents the middle of the action on the front lines.

He is one of the guys.

When one of his men is wounded during an attack, Pedersen makes a controversial decision, resulting in the deaths of civilians, some children.  Pedersen is then charged with a war crime and sent home to Denmark to be tried. His wife and three small children are happy he is home, but distraught and opinionated on how he should testify.

The thing I found interesting about A War is how the film shifts gears around the mid-way point.  The camaraderie between the soldiers in the field and their bond with Afghan civilians are mixed with dangerous threats from the Taliban.

I kept waiting for an attack to occur and in these ways, the film is a standard war film.

Mixed in are snippets of “home life” involving Pedersen’s wife- she appears a typical military wife- struggling to raise her three kids, one of whom has recently developed behavioral problems. They miss Pedersen.

The latter half of the film is largely set inside a courtroom as Pedersen is interrogated by a female prosecutor. While she sympathizes with Pedersen’s anguish, she is looking for a conviction. After all, children were killed because of his actions.

The filmmakers are on Pedersen’s side, but the entire conflict makes for great analysis. Should he be held accountable for deaths in a war zone? The viewer will ask him or herself- “would I lie to stay out of jail and with my family who needs me”? Interesting stuff to ponder.

A War, ironic to the title, is a calm, subdued film- very much impressive to me.  To compare, a film of this nature, targeted as a “blockbuster” would likely have technical enhancers- dramatic music undoubtedly would play to cue action in the war zone.

The climax of the film, when Pedersen’s verdict is read aloud in the courtroom, would contain some jarring camera shots, or an intense musical score.

A War has none of those and that brings a certain reality to it- this could be everyday life. A decision is made and life quietly goes on.

Some complaints about A War being a tad boring. I see their point, but it is an atypical war film. It is understated and character-driven, rather than a shoot ’em up, overwrought with testosterone action, or laced with artillery or explosions.

A War is not that mainstream a film- much to its credit. Rather it is methodical and fraught with interesting thinking points.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Trumbo-2015

Trumbo-2015

Director-Jay Roach

Starring-Bryan Cranston, Diane Lane

Scott’s Review #449

80057100

Reviewed July 11, 2016

Grade: B+

Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston, who is suddenly in everything these days, is a 2015 biography drama about Dalton Trumbo, a  famed, talented Hollywood screenwriter blacklisted in the 1950s.

Cranston is certainly center stage in the film, and very good.

The film itself has a crisp, glossy look and excited me with its ode to old Hollywood and its mixture of real-life interspersed newsreels.

Great stuff for a classic film buff!

The sets, costumes, and art direction travel back to the 1940s and 1950s, but throughout I had a constant feeling of a modern film dressed to resemble an older one and I never felt true authenticity- still, a very good effort and a well above average Hollywood film.

A treat for cinema lovers or even those folks interested in seeing some classic black and white footage- a young Ronald Reagan is seen testifying, presumably against those feared to be communists.

Following World War II there was panic throughout the United States, including liberal Hollywood, to oust anyone with thinking deemed “un-American”. If this sounds like a dated way of thinking now, the United States was not always as diverse as it is in 2016.

The infamous “Hollywood 10”, included ten screenwriters who were Communists- or at least had communist beliefs and sympathies. The story in Trumbo focuses on Dalton Trumbo, a quirky screenwriter, always with a classy cigarette, and holder, in hand.

His story is told and the audience sees his passion for fairness in the United States- he sees nothing wrong with being a communist.

The supporting characters are excellent. John Goodman, in the role of Frank King, B movie director, who gives Trumbo a chance to write under a pseudonym, and Helen Mirren and David James Elliott, as villainous Hedda Hopper and John Wayne, respectively.

I felt Diane Lane could have been given more to do as loyal wife of Trumbo, but sadly, Hollywood is not a woman’s world.

If I were to have any criticism of this film it is that Trumbo is mainstream fare and not high on the edgy factor, which is only a mild complaint.

There is nothing wrong with that, but the film screams Hollywood branded.

For instance, throughout Trumbo’s two-year prison sentence he faces no real threats, no beatings, no abuse, nothing. He emerges from prison with a few gray hairs and life goes on. When Trumbo’s friend battles, and finally succumbs to lung cancer, there are no long-suffering scenes, making the film on the soft side.

Again, more an observation of the type of film Trumbo is more than a complaint.

The scenes of Trumbo with his three children as the film periodically ages the children with older actors are touching, especially scenes with his oldest daughter, Nikola, are sweet. She grows up to be just like her father.

Trumbo earnestly explains to young Nikola, why he is a communist and asks what she would do if someone else was going without- her response is to share- a simplistic and sweet scene. Ah, through the eyes of a child the world is so innocent.

Trumbo goes back to Hollywood of old- clean, glamorous, extravagant, both in the way the film is made, and also the retro use of old footage.

It is a nonthreatening film that simply explains the story of Dalton Trumbo in a safe, yet thorough way. I enjoyed the film tremendously.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Bryan Cranston

Janis: Little Girl Blue-2015

Janis: Little Girl Blue- 2015

Director-Amy Berg

Starring-Janis Joplin

Scott’s Review #420

80025570

Reviewed- June 19, 2016

Grade: B+

As a fan of Janis Joplin’s classic 1960’s-early 1970’s brand of classic, bluesy, rock n roll, viewing a documentary of the star’s life and times was a great experience.

The film sheds a bit of light on the mysterious rocker- gone way too soon and with undoubtedly much more to say. Janis was one of the most authentic, real performers of her time. A big voice in a man’s world. Impressive still, is that she wrote all of her songs herself.

The documentary is well put together as it traverses Janis’s early days as an insecure teenager living in rural Texas. Never a beauty, Janis was insecure-as most teenagers are. She was always a pistol and prided herself at being different and outspoken, oftentimes ruffling feathers in her conservative town, especially given the period.

Janis preferred hanging out with males and being “one of the guys”.

An aspect I found interesting about this documentary is the exploration of Janis’s home life- well before she found success as a singer.

Taunted in school for being different because she was a painter, and a thinker, she lived in a largely racist town and had a conflict with others who were not as progressive as she. Janis’s sister and brother are heavily featured throughout the documentary and explain interesting tidbits about Janis’s home life and conflict with her parents.

Sadly, they forged a pleasant relationship, but never really mended fences before Janis’s untimely death.

Her relationships with other rockers of the time are explored and more than one festival performance is shared- giving a glimpse of what type of performer she was- improvised, heart on the line, intense, and brutally honest.

A lost soul with enormous talent and raw capabilities, Janis Joplin is missed, but thankfully we still have her incredible music to carry on with. Janis: Little Girl Blue is a great documentary that gives a cherished overview of the life and times of a tremendous artist.

Mustang-2015

Mustang-2015

Director-Deniz Gamze Erguven

Starring-Tugba Sunguroglu

Scott’s Review #417

80058482

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: A-

Mustang is a powerful, relevant, Turkish film released in 2015 and nominated for a slew of awards, including the Best Foreign Language film Oscar.

I fully support the nomination as I feel it is a top-notch piece.

A coming of age story, of sorts, but with no clichés, and a real, true-to-life feel to it. It tells of various generational beliefs and how these beliefs conflict with other viewpoints and ideas.

It also focuses on blossoming life, and sadly, of tragic death.

The story tells of five beautiful young sisters living in a remote village in Turkey, a thousand long miles outside of Istanbul. The girls range in age from eight to eighteen and live with their Grandmother and Uncle Erol-the sister’s parents had died years earlier.

The main protagonist of the film is Lale, the youngest of the siblings, who is wise well beyond her years as the plot unfolds. We first meet her as she bids an emotional farewell to her teacher, as she moves to Istanbul.

The film is told largely from Lale’s point of view, but each of the girls plays an important role. As the girls play an innocent game in a lake with a group of boys, the game causes a scandal in their “old world” village, and the girls are banished inside the house by their Grandmother and Uncle, who fear their progressive ideas will hurt and shame them.

The obvious main crux of the story is the conflict that develops between different generations and the yearning of the girls to be free and independent, both sexually and intellectually. Their older relatives, and others in the town, prefer the old ways and are prudish.

The oldest daughters enter into arranged marriages, while the younger ones fear the same will soon happen to them.

The film wisely does not portray these conflicts in a clichéd way or make them over-obvious.

Rather, the film feels real, fresh, and like a slice of small-town Turkish life. Istanbul is mentioned as a paradise of open-minded thinkers and progressive ways, and “the place to be”. The girls fear life in the doldrums, cooking and cleaning for their men, married off to older men without any love.

It is unclear if the Uncle is molesting any of the girls- the film alludes to it, but the point is not made obvious. What is clear, though, is the girl’s desire for sexual freedom, experimentation, and love.

They are modern thinkers.

The young actress who plays Lale is a marvel. So natural, earnest, and clever, she befriends an older man who teaches her to drive and they embark on a sweet friendship.

Much of the film is shown through Lale’s eyes and her reactions to situations. Knowing nothing of sex, she sneaks a peek at a sex education book and is fascinated by her older sister’s sex discussions.

The ending of the film leaves things open to interpretation, and I choose to believe happiness awaits those featured at the conclusion.

Mustang is a wonderful film, filled with truth, conflict, great acting, and food for thought. A must-see for foreign language film lovers.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Ex Machina-2015

Ex Machina-2015

Director-Alex Garland

Starring-Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac

Scott’s Review #410

80023689

Reviewed June 17, 2016

Grade: B+

Ex Machina reminds me of another recent science-fiction film, Her, with more of a female empowerment edge to it than the latter, which is more of a  romantic drama with undercurrents of love.

In contrast, Ex Machina has a cynical tone and elements of imprisonment and psychosis, even narcissism.

The film features excellent visual effects and a futuristic mystique that makes it a successful treatment.

Directed by first-timer Alex Garland, who could very well be a director to watch rise the ranks with subsequent projects.

Young, fresh-faced computer programmer, Caleb Smith, wins a week-long trip to remote Alaska, to spend it with his mysterious boss, Nathan Bateman, the CEO of a software company.

Caleb must arrive at the luxurious, sprawling estate via helicopter as it is in a deserted area of the world and exists on mile after mile of the gorgeous landscape.

Nathan, played by Oscar Isaac, is both charismatic and creepy. He lives alone save for a beautiful Asian servant named Kyoko, who speaks no English, and a female robot named Ava (played by rising star Alicia Vikander).

Caleb’s assigned task is to study Ava, and determine whether he can relate to her as a human while knowing she is a robot. It is soon revealed that Nathan plans to reprogram Ava, thereby killing her. Caleb schemes to rescue Ava, but is all that it seems?

With a cast of only four principals, it is not difficult to assess each character and their relations with each other. Caleb is the least complex of the four or rather, the one with motivations readily apparent.

The others are shrouded in mystery. Caleb expects a fun getaway but instead finds himself amid experimentation. Is Nathan’s desire to perform psychological tests on Ava, by way of Caleb, genuine?

The audience can sense immediately that there is something off about Nathan. Merely in his thirties, how could he amass such financial success so soon?

Why are he, a servant, and a robot the only inhabitants of the estate? Why does the helicopter pilot refuse to venture any further than the drop-off point?

Some of these questions are answered, some remain unanswered. It is part of what makes the film mysterious and complex. Could Ava be the one doing her share of experimentation or manipulation?

Alicia Vikander deserves much praise for her role of Ava and some would argue that the talented young actress should have won the Best Supporting Actress trophy for this role instead of for The Danish Girl.

I’m not sure I would leap to the same conclusion, but she does amass a ton of subdued emotion as Ava. She is complex and profound. She expresses a longing for exposure to the outside world and would love to cross a crowded street just to see all the faces and different types of people. Like Nathan, there is also something not right about Ava.

Is she calculating or simply soulful? But how can she be, she is a robot? I found myself comparing her to another famous film robot/computer- HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Along with Vikander, Isaac steals the film in a role that mixes creep with genius. He sits around his estate in comfy clothes a blue-collar man might wear drinking beer and studying Ava. He has sexual relations with his servant and she is expressionless.

He does not treat her well so we do not root for his character- at the same time, his character is tough to read. Is he experimenting on Ava or Caleb?

Visually, Ex Machina has a sleek blend of modern, crisp CGI, not at all usurping the story. There is also a scene of bloodletting that chills as much as any good horror film would.

Garland was heavily influenced by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Altered States and made the film with as little budget as possible and without outside influences that might change his vision. I commend this and wish more filmmakers would follow suit.

Ex Machina, while perhaps not perfect, could be a blueprint to what is to come from this young director.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay, Best Visual Effects (won)

Legend-2015

Legend-2015

Director-Brian Helgeland

Starring-Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #405

80057599

Reviewed May 24, 2016

Grade: B+

Tom Hardy is one of my favorite modern film actors (he should have won the 2015 Oscar for his riveting performance in The Revenant, in my humble opinion) and in Legend fans are treated to a dual role by the handsome Brit.

Hardy portrays Reggie and Ronald Kray, two of London’s most feared and brutal gangsters.

The film belongs to Hardy in every way, shape, and form, the locales of London are fantastic, and more than one scene is jaw-dropping violent, but the film meanders quite a bit and the vocals of Ron Kray are quite difficult to understand.

Still, an impressive effort as a whole.

The time is late 1950’s London. Reggie Kray, the more mainstream of the Kray brothers, is a feared member of the organized crime community.  He is coddled by his mother and can do no wrong in her mind. This makes any relationships difficult as his mum disapproves of his mates.

He falls in love with Frances Shea, a young woman who narrates most of the film, so it is told from an outsider’s perspective. Reggie’s brother Ron has recently been released from a mental hospital and if off of his medications, is certifiably crazy, and very volatile.

He is gay and makes no bones about it.

Ron and Reggie have a love/hate relationship, to say the least, and this dynamic is the most interesting aspect of the film.

Thanks to Hardy, as the writing is not Legend’s strongest suit, we see two very different characters, even though they look alike. In the myriad of scenes shared between the brothers, it appears as though two different actors are playing the roles and that is to Hardy’s credit.

An important scene emphasizes the relationship between the two. When a rival dares to mention Reggie’s wife’s name disparagingly, he points a gun and fires at the man’s head.

Fortunately, the gun is not loaded, so the audience breathes a sigh of relief. Yet, a worse fate awaits the victim. After the deed is done, Reggie whispers in Ron’s ear that he killed the man “because I can’t kill you”.

This means that Reggie would kill Ron if he could- shocking since they are brothers. To add to this, it is implied that he would kill his brother with the same savageness as his victim.

This makes the audience ponder.

Impressive is the sexuality of Ron, and especially since he is not written stereotypically. He is brutal, masculine, and hardcore. The fact that Ron Kray was a real figure is important to note. His entourage of boyfriends follows him around in dedication.

Who can blame them as his charisma oozes- think an unstable James Bond.

The twin’s relationship is the best part of the film, but as a mob film, Legend meanders quite a bit, so much so that it becomes tough to identify what the point of the film is, if not for Hardy.

Save for Frances, none of the supporting characters are written with any interest and they are all rather forgettable.

The wonderful Chazz Palminteri is wasted in the role of Angelo Bruno, head of a Philadelphia crime family and friend of the Krays. There is little meaning or interest in his role.

A mediocre story, but with leading characters with depth, make Legend an interesting film that flies under the radar and received little notice. Hopefully, if nothing else, it continues the success that Tom Hardy is currently achieving in modern film.

Bone Tomahawk-2015

Bone Tomahawk-2015

Director-S. Craig Zahler

Starring-Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson

Scott’s Review #403

80075001

Reviewed May 10, 2016

Grade: B+

Bone Tomahawk, unfortunately, a film from 2015 that almost nobody saw or heard of, is a unique independent horror/western hybrid, that has strong influences of Quentin Tarantino, and contains an impressive cast for such a low profile film.

Bone Tomahawk is the proverbial diamond in the rough and is worth seeing for film fans with patience enough to sit through the slow-moving pace to get to the good stuff, which largely comes in the final thirty minutes of the film.

Notably, the film was recognized by the Independent film committee and received two spirit awards, for Best Supporting Male (Richard Jenkins), and Best Screenplay- it won neither.

The film does not have a “star”, but rather a myriad of heavy hitters in a clear ensemble. Kurt Russell plays Franklin Hunt, sheriff of a tiny town named Bright Hope, presumably somewhere in the west (Wyoming?) circa 1890. His deputy sheriff, Chicory,  is played by Jenkins.

When drifters kill some travelers, they accidentally stumble upon a mysterious Native American burial ground and taint its contents, leaving one brutally murdered by the tribe.

The other (played by David Arquette) stumbles into Bright Hope and is immediately deemed suspicious. When he, a female Doctor’s assistant, and a young local man disappear, it is realized that they have been abducted by the owners of the burial ground, who are feared to be cannibalistic savages.

Hunt, Chicory, a foreman named Arthur (the doctor’s assistant’s wife), played by Patrick Wilson, along with a local playboy played by Matthew Fox, decide to trek long terrain to find and rescue the missing.

The pacing of the film is extremely slow and this will undoubtedly turn off some folks seeking slicker, high-tech viewing, or even some CGI, but the payoff for patience is immense.

To be fair, the group’s trek through the desert in pursuit of the accosted seems endless, and I did have thoughts of what the point was, but the forthcoming turn of events makes this tedium worth it.

In defense of the long plodding journey, this aspect does make the audience get to know and begin to care about the characters- some make it out alive, others are not as lucky. The fun part is finding out who does and doesn’t.

Bone Tomahawk contains one of the most gruesome scenes that I have ever witnessed in my thousands of viewed films. A male character, nude, is brutally scalped and a spear is hammered into his throat in full view of the prisoners.

As if this is not shocking enough, he is then turned upside down, split down the middle, and chopped in half, as his insides spill to the ground. The snapping sounds of his bones and the visual horror of the guts are even tough for the non-squeamish to view.

It is uncanny that Kurt Russell plays a very similar character in another 2015 film- the much higher profile, The Hateful Eight. Sure, in the latter he is a bounty hunter, but the period, setting, and costumes are almost identical. One might wonder which was made first.

Bone Tomahawk is a guys movie, but not in the traditional sense- there are no explosions, no unnecessary machismo, or apparent clichés.

But at the end of the day, it is a western- the cast is mainly male- besides the Doctor’s assistant, the only other females are wives with small roles.

The most glaring is Sean Young- given hardly anything to do in what amounted to a cameo appearance. Otherwise, the Native American females- blind, deaf, pregnant, and missing appendages are the only other females in sight.

A unique hybrid of film genres, Bone Tomahawk is a clever, different experience. I am a champion of independent film and this film is a good example of why I am. Evidently, with a stellar cast of A-list or former A-list stars banding together to make a piece of art, it seems others champion good film too.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Richard Jenkins, Best Screenplay

Spectre-2015

Spectre-2015

Director-Sam Mendes

Starring-Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #401

80056799

Reviewed May 5, 2016

Grade: B+

A modern treat for James Bond fans, Spectre is a slick, very expensive production sure to please die-hard aficionados of the storied franchise.

It contains a rich history and nods to recent installments, wrapping the story-arc up, a fantastic villain, and fast-paced, compelling story-telling.

What it does lack is an interesting lead Bond girl, a quality that detracts from the film, and what is a must for the cherished franchise.

This is the only major flaw in an otherwise fantastic film.  In typical Bond fashion, his adventures take him to London, Rome, Mexico City, Austria, and Morocco.

Speeding along in what is now the twenty-fourth Bond film, and still feeling fresh and relevant, Spectre commences where its predecessor, Skyfall, left off- mainly hot on the heels of M’s (Judi Dench’s) shocking death. How wonderful to see her again, albeit in a videotaped message- that turns out to be crucial to the central plot.

The new M is a male character again and portrayed by Ralph Fiennes. In the film’s sub-plot, a new character, C, comes into play as the head of the Joint Intelligence Service, who deems the 00 section outdated.

The focal point of the story is Bond’s avenging of the former M’s death by taking down Spectre, an organization not seen in a Bond film since 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever, but once again a strong presence.

The opening sequence in Mexico City kicks off the energy of the film.

Fast-paced, and with an awesome helicopter chase/fight sequence, it is a long sequence that thrills. We watch, engaged, as the helicopter swirls and tumbles mid-air, while hundreds of spectators in a large outdoor square flee for safety.

The film then forays into the inevitable Bond song- “Writing’s On The Wall”, this time wrote and performed by Sam Smith.  This particular song has received mixed reviews, but I am fond of it.

This leaves the audience geared up for a wild adventure to come.

The return of the crime organization, Spectre, to the story, brings a rich history and is the strongest, most interesting part of the film. We have a rooting value since it is familiarity.

Even more pleasing is the return of Bond’s arch-enemy Ernst Stavro Blofeld, known more forcefully as “Number 1”, which has been played by such legendary actors as Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas, and Max Von Sydow.

In Spectre, Christoph Waltz takes over the role and this is a major win. Waltz, a tremendous actor, plays Blofeld in a sly, wicked manner- taunting, yet with some comedic elements mixed in.

In a compelling scene (and the first one containing Waltz), James Bond appears, hidden, at a Spectre summit.  He recoils as he recognized the shadowed Blofeld, realizing the detrimental repercussions this will mean.

I only hope that in subsequent Bond films, Waltz will return.

Let’s discuss the Bond girls in the film- Ironically, the small role featuring the oldest Bond girl in franchise history (aged fifty and played by the gorgeous Monica Bellucci) is more compelling than the lead Bond girl, Dr. Madeleine Swann, played by Lea Seydoux.

As Lucia Sciarra, widow of the Italian crime lord, Sciarra, there is more chemistry between Daniel Craig and Bellucci than Craig and Seydoux.

I would have much rather seen Sciarra as the primary focus, but she is shamefully underused, appearing in two scenes only. Seydoux seems to lack energy and I noticed zero chemistry between her and Craig.

I am not sold on the new Moneypenny either- Bond’s labored sidekick and always suggested one-sided love interest, in earlier films it used to be a fun dynamic. She was a secretary, older, and their flirtation was charming, light, and fun- she was almost a mother figure to him.

Now, there is no flirtation or romantic hints at all as the character has been modernized to fit the twenty-first century.

Despite this character’s misses, the film is exceptionally well-made with tons of action. Sometimes Bond films hold up well, other times they do not.

Time will tell what fate holds for Spectre, but my hunch is that it will age well.

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Writing’s on the Wall” (won)

Bridge of Spies-2015

Bridge of Spies-2015

Director-Steven Spielberg

Starring-Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #399

80050060

Reviewed April 28, 2016

Grade: B+

Tom Hanks teams with Stephen Spielberg once again in another A-list Hollywood film.

Like Saving Private Ryan, Bridge of Spies is in the historical vein. This time the Cold War is featured- it is 1957 when the film begins.

The camera work, the artwork, and the set decorations are second to none as the film looks and feels authentic. As interesting as the overall film is, and it felt like I was watching a well-made film, there was also something missing, which did not make it truly riveting and that is why it receives a B+ rating.

Still, with Spielberg and Hanks on board, you know you will get a quality film.

Hanks portrays James B. Donovan, a Brooklyn attorney specializing in insurance law, but a wiz at negotiation and experienced with the Nuremberg trials.

He is assigned to defend suspected spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) in what is assumed to be an open and shut case-his guilt is considered a given. Abel has been arrested by the F.B.I and is thought a Russian spy. They are willing to release him on the condition that he reveal Soviet contacts, but he refuses.

Meanwhile, an American pilot, Frances Powers, is captured in Soviet territory and taken hostage. To make matters more complicated, an American graduate student, Pryor, is trapped behind the Berlin wall in East Germany and not allowed by the Germans to leave. The pressure is on Donovan to not only defend Abel in the United States but to make a deal to return the three men to their respective countries.

Hanks, a great actor, is his typical stoic, capable self, and his portrayal reminds me of his role in Captain Phillips- calm, well-mannered- a clear yet quiet leader.

The role is not flashy in comparison to other legendary Hanks roles (Forrest Gump, Philadelphia). Certainly, the film centers around Hanks and is catered to his acting style- his character is always in the forefront.

In my opinion, Hanks never gives a bad performance and I admire him in almost any he gives.

Let’s discuss the role and the portrayal by Mark Rylance in his Oscar-winning role. Giving a very subdued, nuanced performance, he is good and low-key in what could have been an energetic, over-the-top performance if written that way, but I am not sure I would have handed him the golden statuette over a few of the other nominees in the 2015 Supporting Actor category.

Not that this is a criticism, but I am unsure if there is as much meat in this performance as would warrant an Academy Award.

Bridge of Spies is very detail-oriented and every set piece- from late 1950’s cars, clothing, hairstyles, and home furnishings is spot on.

The film was expensive to produce and no expense seems to have been spared.

The film travels from Brooklyn to the Soviet Union, to Germany, and gives off a patriotic, Americana flare, which is very true to life in the given time. There was such a sense of country and community. Nothing makes this more apparent than the distasteful glares and downright coldness and hatred displayed by many characters towards Donovan.

To counteract this, when Donovan is ultimately more the hero, he is revered and celebrated.

As great as the film looks, there is something slightly disconnecting about it. I was left wanting a bit more from a story perspective and feeling slightly disengaged throughout parts of it. I was never riveted or blown away despite realizing that I was watching a well-made film. This can oftentimes happen as the story is less compelling than the way the film looks and this is the case with Bridge of Spies.

After I finished watching I was left with the feeling that I did not ever really need to see the film again, in contrast to truly great films where one can watch over and over again.

A slight mention is that Bridge of Spies is a “guy’s film”. Amy Ryan, a great actress, does all she can with the only real female role in the film in that of Donovan’s dutiful, supportive wife-a a role written one-dimensionally hundreds of times.

It is a shame her character is not more fleshed out instead of the typical worried scenes or fretting for her husband to return home to his family- purely reactionary and not furthering the plot in any way.

In this sense, the film deserves criticism for being a bit too traditional.

Bridge of Spies is a very good effort, but certainly not a tremendous film. It is the type of film that I liked, but not loved.

Plot-driven rather than character-driven. Perhaps, due to the names Spielberg and Hanks on the marquee, I expected a bit more.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Mark Rylance (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design

Girlhood-2015

Girlhood-2015

Director-Celine Sciamma

Starring-Karidja Toure

Scott’s Review #398

80013602

Reviewed April 24, 2016

Grade: B

Girlhood is a coming-of-age foreign language, French drama that tells the story of a sixteen-year-old French girl, living in a poor area (the projects) just outside of Paris.

She is faced with numerous conflicts and tough decisions on how to live her life. School, gangs, and romance are the main issues she tackles, as well as troubled home life.

Wisely, the film uses a female director, Celine Sciamma, which lends some authenticity to the largely female issues discussed in the film. For all its good intentions and some interesting nuances, the film suffers from a lack of grit and has a safe feel to it making it less compelling than it could have been.

I felt that I was watching a glossy film rather than any sort of harsh reality.

Still, a worthy effort.

Marieme is a tall, gorgeous teenager living in the projects near Paris. She struggles academically and is rejected from attending high school, instead of being sent on a vocational track to be able to find a job.

Her mother works long hours as an office cleaner, and Marieme’s abusive brother is in charge of the household. Marieme also has two younger sisters. Upset to learn she will not be attending high school, she is approached by a gang of girls, led by Lady, who asks her to go to the city with them.

She agrees to join their gang when she realizes that her brother’s best friend, Ismael, whom she has a crush on, is friendly with the other girls. Marieme and the girls begin to while away the days by stealing, fighting, and terrorizing anyone in their path.

Partying in hotels, they make the rounds. Marieme must ultimately decide if this is the life she wants.

What I found most interesting about the film is its use of an all-black cast and certainly, this was intentional. Sciamma (who ironically is white) felt that the female black population in Paris is underrepresented in French film.

This is accurate and scores points with me. I love the camaraderie among the girls. They always have each other’s backs and when Marieme fights a rival girl to defend the recently beaten Lady, there is a sense of sisterhood that is appealing and is at the heart of the film.

Friendship, loyalty, and bonding are explored.

Also worth noting is that most of the cast are either unknown actors or non-actors picked off the streets to appear in the film. To this effect, the acting is surprisingly good for most novice or non-actors.

The romance between Marieme and Ismael is another strong point of the film- they share an undeniable attraction for each other but are forced to only spend time together in secret. Marieme’s brother appears to run a gang of all boys and forbids anyone from being with his sister. The scenes shared between Marieme and Ismael are tender, sweet, and believable. They have a rooting factor.

The aforementioned positives are also the negatives to Girlhood. The film lacks any real grit or dirt and the friendship and romantic elements are also played safely.

Everything is glossy and bright.

For example, two fight scenes occur, one with Lady and a rival girl, one with Marieme and the rival girl. A group of spectators gathers in a circle egging the girls on. They are in a hot, deserted parking lot.

The scenes could have been brutal, bloody, and fierce. Instead, they are very short, lack any blood or bruising, and are very safe feeling. When Marieme pulls out a knife, it is intended to cut the rival girl’s bra, not to stab her. This seems unrealistic and not how things would play out in an urban gang situation.

And on a nitpicky level, why was the mother absent from the family life? Sure she had a night job, but the film presented her as being all but out of the picture entirely. She tried to help Marieme get a job working with her, so why so much turmoil due to her busy schedule?

Also, the silly scene of the girls playing miniature golf added nothing to the plot and should have been dropped.

Girlhood is a nice, albeit sweet, coming-of-age, female gang story, that might have been more intense, but the decision was to make a soft film rather than a harsh one.

An interesting, fine effort that mainly focuses on bonding, friendship, and life choices over the realistic brutality that it could have dealt with.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

The Look of Silence-2015

The Look of Silence-2015

Director-Joshua Oppenheimer

Starring-Adi Rukun

Scott’s Review #396

80016401

Reviewed April 18, 2016

Grade: B+

An extremely grim and depressing 2015 documentary, The Look of Silence is a companion piece to 2013’s The Act of Killing.

Both focus on the brutal Indonesian genocide of 1965-1966, in which an estimated one million people were exterminated.

The documentary tells of the effects on one of the families who survived, who now must co-exist in the same village as the killers, who remain unpunished because of government corruption. They are still in power.

The documentary is cleverly put together as the central figure watches what appears to be outtakes of the related The Act of Killing on television, and the story is manipulated so that some of the killers do not realize they are being filmed for the purposes in which they are.

The main point of view of the film comes from a middle-aged Indonesian man, peacefully living with his wife and daughter, as well as tending to his very elderly parents, the father a torture victim and quite frail, who appears to suffer from dementia.

The father is rail-thin and the mother cares for him as much as she can. Their life is very tough. For protection,  throughout the documentary, the middle-aged man is unidentified.

Through conversation with his mother, we learn that his brother (their son) was one of the  “communists” or leftists, who were led to nearby Snake River, tortured, and eventually murdered and thrown into the river. The mother reveals that by some miracle, the middle-aged man was conceived shortly after his brother was killed, thereby saving the parents from suicide because of their grief.

The middle-aged man, under the guise of fitting patients with eyeglasses, goes from murderer to murderer (all still alive, very old, and living in the town) and politely quizzes them on their involvement in the Indonesian Massacre.

It is unknown whether the middle-aged man is, in fact, a Doctor, or if it is merely a ruse. Interspersed throughout, the interview clips of the murderers on television proudly describing their feats, are shown.

The Look of Silence is a true downer, but also shockingly realistic, sad, painful, and eye-opening.

Unlike many documentaries, we are not shown repeated clips of the events of the 1960’s- the story stays in the here and now.

The audience uses their imagination to create what they think happened- this is powerful stuff. In the videos of the killers, they describe in brutal detail how they killed their victims and it is quite sickening to watch.

Two men proudly reminisce of the chopping off of a woman’s breast, comparing the ruined flesh to an open coconut,  or slicing off a man’s penis. Others tell of drinking the blood of the victims.

Painful to realize is that this is not some horror film, but a real-life event.

Quite dumbfounding to me was that little or no remorse was shown when the middle-aged man questioned the killers in the present time. Some shrugged their involvement off, some got hostile, some denied any involvement. Some, now quite feeble, were accompanied by younger family members unaware of their father’s or grandfather’s past doings. Some appeared quite upset.

The documentary is not filled with spliced together archives or flashy lights or graphics. It is slow-paced and plodding and some I fear may find it too slow.

The title, The Look of Silence is rather perplexing and makes little sense to the subject of the documentary so I am not sure why it has the title that it does. But that is merely an aside.

As much as citizens of the United States complain and stress about the political state of affairs or financial matters, we have it quite good, and viewing this painful documentary is a reminder of that.

The Look of Silence displays the evil and the ugliness of human beings in the very recent past who show no remorse. In a world filled with ISIS, the documentary is a scary reminder that something like this can easily happen again.

This is a sad and morbid reality and this film will stick with you for some time.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary Feature (won)

Cartel Land-2015

Cartel Land-2015

Director-Matthew Heineman

Scott’s Review #395

80039606

Reviewed April 17, 2016

Grade: B

Cartel Land is a 2015 documentary film about the Mexican drug war, specifically focusing on vigilante groups in both Mexico and the United States.

These groups attempt to combat and thwart drug cartels by using their illegal efforts. Brutal and ugly, the documentary paints a dark picture of the very real drug trafficking problem and the hopelessness of the situation.

Interestingly, the hot button issue of illegal immigration is not explored as the issues are considered separate from each other.

The great thing about documentaries, in general, is their truthfulness and ability to open one’s eyes to a situation in the world in which one may not be aware of or have limited knowledge.

Most people know there is a drug problem in the United States, but Cartel Land successfully educates the viewer on the complexity of the issue.

Various perspectives are explored throughout the documentary: the Arizona Border Recon, led by militant figure, Tim “Nailer” Foley, and the Autodefansas, led by Dr. Jose Mireles, are the vigilante groups in the U.S. and Mexico, respectively.

A third perspective, in that of one of the cartel members, the particular gentleman featured, cooks and transports the crystal meth across the Mexican border.

Additionally, some individuals feel that the police and government are the ones responsible for solving the issues and the matter should be left in their hands.

The documentary does not side with one particular opinion over the other, but rather, paints a controversial picture of the reality of the situation and presents both sides objectively. However, the majority of the screen time does go to the Autodefansas story.

One of the most thought-provoking parts of the documentary, and what initially had me engaged in it, comes at the very beginning of the story.

Told from the perspective of one of the cartel members who is interviewed with the backdrop of a nighttime scene, where he cooks the meth he will then deliver, is poignant. Since the transports drugs, he is perceived as a monster.

He admits he causes people’s deaths, destruction, violence, etc. He then explains that the cartel members come from poverty- what else are they going to do to make this much money? Or make a living at all? It is an opportunity- who would give that up?

This made me think of how complex a problem drug smuggling is and it also laid the groundwork for the viewer to realize that the cartel members may not be the only ones who are bad or crooked. What is the definition of right and wrong? On whose terms?

Dr. Mireles and another member of the Autodefansas, named “Papa Smurf” are the primary members featured. They started Autodefansas as a way of combating the corrupt Mexican police and government that allows the drug cartel to exist, presumably for profit.

Their group of vigilantes brandishes militant guns to “protect their town” and the inhabitants. An assassination attempt occurs when someone tries to crash Mireles’s plane- he goes into hiding. But we also learn that Mireles is a womanizer, a cheat, and cannot be trusted. Is he making deals for profit on his own? Papa Smurf is in cahoots with the police. Is cash being exchanged?

The Arizona vigilante story is interesting to hear from Foley’s perspective. I observed the group to be uneducated, poor, angry and filled with racist hatred. This is scary to think that some Americans feel the way they do and it made me sympathize with them the least and the drug cartel a bit more.

One vigilante compared different races as being like two pit bulls in a cage- separated things are fine, but released from those cages the animals will kill each other. He had no concept of two races being able to live happily amongst each other.

Parts of Cartel Land are quite gruesome and descriptive. In one scene we see a teary mother from the town of Michoacán, who the Autodefansas protect, describe how an entire family of innocent farmworkers, including a newborn, were murdered by being hurled against rocks until they died.

They were the victims of a revenge scheme enacted against their boss. One pities her and we see the funeral for the newborn take place amid screams of despair from surviving family members. We also see decapitated heads and murdered individuals. It is chilling to think that this goes on in today’s world.

The cinematography is splendid and countless scenes of the Mexican and Arizona landscape are prominently featured. Miles and miles of spacious, mountainous areas are shown, and the use of night vision cameras allow for a feeling of being right there with the patrol groups.

The main takeaway from Cartel Land is the subject of corruption. Throughout each story the lines are blurry. Who is corrupt? Who should we sympathize with? Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? The facts are shaded in gray and we know that there are no good groups and bad groups.

This documentary teaches the audience that there is a major problem with the drug cartel across Mexico and the United States that has existed for years and will continue to exist for years to come.

A lesson learned.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Spy-2015

Spy-2015

Director-Paul Feig

Starring-Melissa McCarthy, Jason Statham

Scott’s Review #386

80027379

Reviewed March 20, 2016

Grade: C+

Spy is a 2015 comedy spy spoof starring funny-lady Melissa McCarthy as a loser desk CIA-analyst suddenly thrown into the field and assigned to rescue a missing agent whom she is also in love with.

Carrying the film in every way, McCarthy is very funny and adds a great deal to an otherwise formulaic,  by the numbers, comedy.

As, admittedly, the “action-comedy” genre is not my favorite, I have seen much worse than Spy, and the premise is quite nice, but the second half of the film sinks into the ridiculous and is very loud and overly long.

McCarthy plays Susan Cooper, a frumpy forty-year-old woman with a decent job as a CIA analyst (she tracks the field agents cameras and warns them of impending peril), an important job, but she is deemed dispensable and a loser by the higher-ups at her job, with more important duties.

She is single, overweight, and lonely, pining after her sophisticated partner Bradley Fine (Jude Law), a field agent and stylish James Bond-type.  After a mishap with Bradley thought dead, Susan goes undercover in France, Rome, and Budapest to solve the case since she will be unnoticed.

Spy is a film with a star that completely carries the film. Personally being a big fan of McCarthy’s and enjoying her performance in whatever she appears in (comedy or drama), this film needs her charisma and comic timing.

Spy contains a few laugh-out-loud moments, especially when McCarthy is forced to take on the persona of one loser after another- a divorcee with multiple cats and a wardrobe to cringe over-throw in a 1980’s perm and you’ve got a great SNL type moment.

The film itself reminds me of a long SNL skit. When McCarthy delivers her one-liners they connect and amuse.

An apparent homage to spy films and James Bond films, Spy seems closer to an Austin Powers film as it goes for more silliness, but not quite as over the top. Still, the European locales offered added elements of Bond films in a pleasant way. McCarthy as an apparent female James Bond is also kind of cute.

A noticeable negative is the unnecessary two-hour running time. With a genre of this nature, a ninety to one-hundred minute running time is all that is necessary, and any more than that and the jokes wane, become redundant, and usually teeter off into the ridiculous, which is exactly what happens with Spy.

Another problem with Spy is the supporting characters. A well-known cast including Rose Byrne, Allison Janney, Jason Statham,  and Bobby Cannavale, each of these actors are cast in cartoon-like, one-note roles.

Cannavale and Byrne are the villains (Sergio and Rayna) in the plot and they play their roles in a one-dimensional way,  as evil as possible, but perhaps also over-acting the parts.

This could be the fault of the director or simply what is accepted in the genre that this is. Janney-  as the tough-as-nails CIA director and Statham as the dumb, temperamental, field agent also overplay their roles.

Why are all of these characters loud, unpleasant, insulting, or all of the above? The answer is it might allow better comedy to have caricatures instead of characters, but that is a debate for another time.

On the other hand, Miranda Hart as McCarthy’s sidekick Nancy, a very tall, awkward woman and Susan’s best friend is great and shares equally in the comic success that McCarthy brings.

Their chemistry is evident and a recommended second pairing would be worth exploring. Unlike the other characters, I felt myself rooting for her and wished her a love interest, though the 50 Cent romantic introduction was strange.

The plot is more or less trivial and rather unimportant in a film like this. Rationally speaking, almost everything that transpires in this film would never happen in real life, but alas, this is the movie, so one must suspend disbelief big time.

Spy is escapist fare to the max.

A hot mess if not for the wit and comic timing that McCarthy brings to the table, Spy has an interesting premise, but fails at delivering anything more than the silly formula that has existed for decades in the film comedy world. I finished the film with mixed emotions.

The New Girlfriend-2015

The New Girlfriend-2015

Director-Francois Ozon

Starring-Romain Duris, Anais Demoustier

Scott’s Review #382

80017300

Reviewed March 5, 2016

Grade: B

The New Girlfriend is a French, and lighter, version of The Danish Girl, a similarly themed film also released in 2014-2015.

The story involves gender identification confusion among the central character, though the time in The Danish Girl is the 1920’s, The New Girl is set in present times.

The film begins with a brief montage of the lives of two best friends- Laura and  Claire- sharing life and inseparable as children, young adults, and even as married women.

Sadly, we learn that Laura has recently died of a terminal illness and this is where the film begins. Claire embarks on a unique friendship with Laura’s husband David when she catches him wearing female clothing and acting as a “mommy” to his infant daughter.

They form a bond and Claire agrees to harbor David’s secret and even accompany him in public as he slowly takes on the persona of “Virginia”.

I found the film quite compelling throughout most of the running time as we see David’s burning desire to both dresses as a woman and feel like a woman.

We mostly see the bond develop between Claire and David, who sometimes is Virginia, other times David. Claire is happily married to her successful, handsome, husband Gilles and the three individuals are friends- sharing dinners, tennis matches, and evenings consuming wine.

Gilles is unaware of David’s secret and begins to fear an affair has ensued between his wife and his friend. Likewise, during moments, Claire imagines David and Gilles beginning a torrid affair.

Interestingly, the film does not go full steam ahead with the love triangle between Claire/Gilles/David (Virginia) and this is a wise choice. That would have made the film more typical and generic, and perhaps even one-note.

Rather, the point of the film is the struggles David goes through to feel right as a woman and how his friends support him. When he kisses Claire and snuggles with her, it is not sexual- it is to feel close to another woman.

This makes the film more character-driven.

As with many foreign-language films, The New Girlfriend is liberal with nudity, both male and female. When nudity is featured in American films, typically it is gratuitously or sexually.

This film being French, the nudity was tasteful and even beautiful. When Claire is topless it is more expressive as the mystique of the female body than in a showing of a buxom woman, which Claire is not.

The ending of the film slightly disappointed me. The idyllic, fairy tale way that the film wrapped was romanticized and unrealistic. I would have liked to have seen even more of David/Virginia’s struggles and how his in-laws might have wrestled with the idea of their granddaughter being raised by a single man dressing as a woman.

Another flaw was the lack of explanation as to whether David- as a male-desired and yearned to biologically become a woman or if he was satisfied to dress up and publicly look like a woman. The film chose not to go this route and it undoubtedly would have made the film darker, containing a much deeper story.

Instead, The New Girlfriend was light, fun, and wholesome in its overall story.

Beasts of No Nation-2015

Beasts of No Nation-2015

Director-Cary Fukunaga

Starring-Idris Elba, Ama Abebrese

Scott’s Review #380

Beasts_of_No_Nation_poster

Reviewed February 21, 2016

Grade: B+

Having been made aware of this film following the healthy number of independent film award nominations heaped upon it in 2015, Beasts of No Nation is a war drama, set in an unnamed West Africa country,  that tells of dire events from the perspective of a young boy, having lost his family.

He is forced into a life of brutality and death, taken under the wing of a charismatic commander.

Beasts of No Nation is sometimes raw, sometimes gorgeous, but at all times thoughtful and a powerful telling of the devastation of human life, in a world very few can comprehend.

We first meet Agu (approximately aged eight or nine), and wonderfully played by unknown child actor Abraham Attah, during happy times.

He plays with his childhood chums and adores his older brother who is attempting to woo a pretty girl. His father is a leader and the family lives in a small village protected by troops- they allow refugees in for care.

Their country is in the midst of a civil war, but the family happily survives and makes a life for themselves, sharing meals. Suddenly, the government has fallen and rebels seize the area. In no time, Agu’s family is gone, leaving him alone and scared.

His world turned upside down, he becomes involved with a militia commandant, played by Idris Elba, and a fellow child soldier named Strika, who takes him in.

The film belongs to two actors- Attah and Elba, though all actors perform their roles with precision.  The relationship between the characters is interesting and complex- like a father/son mixed with mentor/protégé and is the most compelling part of the film.

The commander is certainly a father figure to Agu- he sees a warrior in him and takes him under his wing- feeds him, cares for him. He is never violent or abusive towards Agu and in one powerful scene, Agu is sodomized by Attah ( mostly off-screen yet very much implied) and Agu seeks comfort in best friend Strika, who has also met the same actions prior.

One cannot help but think sexual assaults like this are perceived and handled differently in Africa.

Rape is a subject that comes up numerous times in the film- mostly against women.

What I noticed throughout the film was the beauty of the cinematography as most scenes are set outside- the lush, green forests and the villages were tranquil and beautiful- contrasting starkly with the violence taking place.

Agu does some terrible things- in one brutal scene an innocent student is hacked to bits by Agu and Strika at the commander coaching as a sort of initiation. Agu sees the student as responsible for his family’s fates and goes berserk.

Later, Agu tearfully mistakes a village woman for his mother and angrily shoots her dead as she is being raped by his cohorts. The film is not soft and contains lots of violence. But again, this is a world unknown to most viewers.

At times we despise Agu and the violent rage he emits- but then we remember he is a young boy being turned into this warrior by savages.

He talks to God and his mother and knows what he does (and what is happening to his country) is wrong. I would have liked to have learned more background about Elba’s character. What makes him tick? Has he lost loved ones long ago as Agu has?

I surmised that the answer is yes. He is brutal, but a calm, calculating, thoughtful man- but still, one that is in control at all times.

As war rages on Agu and his fellow tribe question what they are doing. Such smarts for a young boy and the audience admires his views. He is intellectual and worldly way beyond his years.

That is what makes Beasts of No Nation a compelling character study. I more than once thought that I had seen this type of film before (Last King of Scotland comes to mind in recent times), but never to the extent of what a character-driven story it was, especially in the eyes of a child.

Beasts of No Nation takes the viewer to an unpleasant world of brutality and a world where there is no rule book. We are exposed to a once innocent child’s experiences and conflicted feelings in the face of danger and heartbreak, and hopefully, will learn its complications.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Cary Joji Fukunaga, Best Male Lead-Abraham Attah (won), Best Supporting Male-Idris Elba (won), Best Cinematography

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

Amy-2015

Amy-2015

Director-Asif Kapadia

Starring-Amy Winehouse

Scott’s Review #376

80049094

Reviewed February 8, 2016

Grade: B

Amy is an informative documentary that tells the story of immensely talented, yet troubled, pop singer, Amy Winehouse.

Her childhood, rise to fame, and ultimate downfall as a result of drug, alcohol, and weight battles, are all chronicled in her documentary.

Despite the information, however, I never got the sense that I knew the singer well and at the conclusion, she still seemed mysterious.

Possessing a unique jazz/soul-infused sound and a wonderful British accent to boot, Winehouse burst onto the pop scene like gangbusters in 2003 as a talented artist with many layers of genres in her music.

A diamond in the rough you might say, and a breath of fresh air in modern music.

The fact that she wrote her songs only added to the level of talent oozing from her.

The documentary wisely tells of her upbringing and her abandoned father, who later resurfaced in her life. Her mother, while decent, could not control Amy, who was full of life and energy.

The main crux of the film, however, is to show her difficulty with fame- a sad, tried and true story of celebrities near and dear, artist types, who do not do well with the attention and adoration thrown their way and Amy Winehouse is no different.

As her popularity grew, all she wanted was to be left alone, and, unfortunately, her life became very public, including her tumultuous relationship with her boyfriend who wound up in prison.

Sadly, Winehouse did not have the best support system and it has alluded to that, perhaps, her father was an opportunist. A tortured, pure artist that sadly wasted away due to outside circumstances.

Throughout most of the film, she seemed lost or overwhelmed with the success that came her way. In a cruel irony, her biggest hit “Rehab” became fodder for late-night television comics to poke fun at her.

The documentary itself, while informative, is also quite basic and I felt like I was given more of an overview of Winehouse’s life than a personal introspective. I did not feel like I received a true sense of her inner thoughts and dreams. Yes, she did not want to be famous and it bothered her, but I wanted to see more of the real Amy Winehouse.

Amy is an adequate documentary about the life and times of Amy Winehouse and I finished the piece knowing more about her, but not nearly as much about her as I wished I had learned. A decent effort, but more would have been nice.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature (won)

Room-2015

Room-2015

Director-Lenny Abrahamson

Starring-Brie Larson

Scott’s Review #373

80073823

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: A

Room is a fantastic, compelling story of a woman’s battle in captivity, along with her five-year-old son in tow. The film also tells of the after-effects that occur from reclusive living as they both strive to adapt to their changing world.

Receiving a slew of Academy Award nominations, the film is more than a one-dimensional story of peril or rescue, but rather, a smartly woven tale that delves into the psychological issues involved with being confined in a room for years, giving the film a deeper meaning. Room is adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Emily Donoghue.

We meet twenty-four-year-old Joy and her five-year-old son Jack, who live in squalor in a shed made into one single room. They exist from food and supplies delivered by their captor “Old Nick”, who abducted Joy seven years prior.

He periodically rapes her and is Jack’s father, though there is no affection on either side. Joy has attempted escape before but has failed. She is determined to break free once and for all and allow her and Jack a normal life.

In the first half, we learn about Joy and Jack and we see how they exist and forge a life together. Until the present, Joy has told Jack that only they are real and the outside world and people on television are not.

They live in a fantasy world and Jack periodically treats objects (chair, toilet, bed) as real-life things, giving morning greetings to these objects- this is both cute and sad. His only channel to the outside world is a small skylight, which he endlessly gazes at.

I love how the film suddenly changes course at the halfway point and shifts focus to the aftereffects taking a dark, complex, psychological turn.

The first half takes place entirely in the “room”, and suddenly, a whole new world has blossomed. A monumental event changes the course of the film.

From this point, the film deals with the traumatic effects of being shut away for years. Joy suffers from depression. Jack sees a new world. We see how other characters deal with the turn of events. Joy’s parents- wonderfully played by Joan Allen and William H. Macy react in completely different ways.

How have their lives changed because of Joy’s abduction? Will they see Old Nick every time they lay eyes on Jack? How will Joy’s mother’s new boyfriend react?

There is a strong theme of coping throughout the film and how all of the characters cope with life events and attempt to resume a life of normalcy. There is such a unique humanistic feel to the film that makes it deeper than I would have expected. Sure, Brie Larson gives a dynamic performance, but the film offers reflection and thought.

The direction and camera-work are a marvel. We see a blurred view of what Jack sees in “the real world”.  It is almost like the audience is reawakening to life and we see it through a child’s eyes- the sights, the sounds.

Jack has heretofore created an imaginary dog in his mind and the film introduces more than one real dog that plays a pivotal role in the film. We see Jack’s joy and terror at the new experiences.

Room encompasses a great deal of thought-provoking ideas and makes what might only have been a basic story and turns it into an intricate journey into human psychology through many different nuances and facets.

What a wonderful, dark experience this is.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Lenny Abrahamson, Best Actress-Brie Larson (won), Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Brie Larson (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best Editing

The Revenant-2015

The Revenant-2015

Director-Alejandro Inarritu

Starring-Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #371

80064516

Reviewed January 27, 2016

Grade: A

The Revenant is a fantastic 2015 film that is filled with intensity, great visual camera work/direction, and showcases the acting talents of one of modern cinema’s dynamic performers in Leonardo DiCaprio, who shines every minute he is on-screen.

Almost all of the filming takes place outdoors (the American frontier period), and is a revenge tale, only adding to the excitement and beauty of the film.

The film is set in the 1820s, and we are immediately introduced to a large party of hunters and trappers in remote Wyoming as the film opens.  Right off the bat, I was struck by the picturesque scenery.

Shortly thereafter, we are treated to a compelling (and bloody) battle between the trappers and a tribe of Native American Indians. The Louisiana Purchase has just been passed, which has to lead to tensions between various parties causing both conflict and blood to spill.

The hunters are decimated so the remaining group must flee on foot, hoping to return to safety hundreds of miles away. The main character, Glass  (DiCaprio),  later receives a terrible injury and the main crux of the story develops as we embark on a tale of his desperation to survive and exact revenge on the men responsible for leaving him to die.

The film is a lesson in endurance. Glass is arguably put through almost every punishment imaginable and we wonder what more he can endure.

The film belongs to two actors- Dicaprio and Tom Hardy as the villainous John Fitzgerald- a hunter with a major rivalry with Glass. The film parlays into a revenge tale between the two characters.

DiCaprio is a gem in this film- not only is he compelling from a physical standpoint- he looks broken, battered, and bruised, but DiCaprio gives a performance that I am fond of- the acts non-verbally.

In one crucial scene, Glass is unable to move or speak as a violent act is committed. He is desperate yet helpless- the range of emotions that are portrayed by DiCaprio is astounding. The pain, hurt, and frustration are evident on his face and we sympathize greatly.

This is a powerful performance by DiCaprio.

Tom Hardy is certainly compelling in his own right as the scoundrel he portrays. We despise this character and all of his dirty deeds and Hardy successfully pours all of his energy into this grizzled role.

Hardy, quite handsome in real-life, is transformed into a partially scalped, dirty man. His fate at the end of the film is a clever aspect of The Revenant that helps make it not a typical run-of-the-mill western, but something so much more.

The, by now, infamous “bear scene” is second to none. How this compelling scene was shot is beyond me, but the result is a realism I have seldom witnessed in film. The scene is so prolonged and violent that one will wish it concludes quickly. A surprise comes that rivals any horror film.

The film is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and following a vastly different type of film (Birdman), he does a wonderful job.

The Revenant is arguably a “guy’s movie”.

There are almost no women featured and the ones that are are not treated well, which is unfortunate, however, sadly most likely true of the times. Interesting to note though, is Inarritu decided to have a female victim enact revenge on her abuser in a satisfying (though squeamish moment for the male viewer).

I found The Revenant to have definite left-wing leanings- the age-old controversy of the white man taking the Indians land is explored and the film has a way of bringing this up more than once as well as not making the Indian tribes “bad”, but rather sympathetic, especially since the character of Glass marries an Indian woman and bears a son with her.

Gorgeous cinematography morphed with a wonderful and intriguing story and peppered with brutality. The Revenant succeeds on every level and sets an important precedent for a film about perseverance in the face of hopelessness.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu (won), Best Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tom Hardy, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

The Big Short-2015

The Big Short-2015

Director-Adam McKay

Starring-Christian Bale, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #369

80075560

Reviewed January 10, 2016

Grade: A-

The Big Short is a confusing film- and that is its intention and also it’s genius.

Throughout some of the film, I was uncertain how much I liked it (or got it), and found many of the characters unlikeable, but at its conclusion, I realized that is exactly what the filmmakers intended-this is a clever tactic and makes The Big Short a success.

On the surface, the film has some humor, but is a very dark story at its core, and left me a bit depressed and terrified at the conclusion.

I am very happy that the film is receiving accolades and is the “thinking man’s” hit movie of the season.

To attempt to summarize the film, the film begins in 2005, approximately two years before the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

Eccentric hedge fund manager Michael Burry (Christian Bale), realizes the U.S. housing market is very unstable and predicts a crash.

He attempts to profit by betting against the market, a move that is laughable to all around him- especially the banks who anticipate a windfall at Michael’s expense. Trader and fellow market managers, Jared Vennett and Mark Baum (played by Ryan Gosling and Steve Carrell) catch wind of Michael’s theory and try to get in on the action.

There is a sub-plot involving two younger investors also attempting to profit through the guidance of a retired banker (played by Brad Pitt).

The financial collapse is a tender subject and certainly no laughing matter, especially since it is so recent and affected so many people.

The Big Short is touted as a comedy, which in a way is strange to me. I found the audience didn’t know exactly what to laugh at or when. The film’s “laughs” were cynical, witty, and sometimes wicked. Many people do not get this type of humor.

In real life, people were kicked out of homes, lost their jobs, pensions, etc. and it was all the result of greed, which The Big Short hammers home.

Several scenes include frat-boy investor/trader types getting rich by enabling almost anyone to be able to afford a new house. Little did these people realize that there was a catch. The film paints a jaded picture of Wall Street. The rich get richer at the expense of the middle-class and poor. It is an age-old sad tale.

Performance-wise, Carrell and Bale are the standouts. They both play characters who are damaged. Bale’s Michael is socially awkward, has a false eye, but is also a genius. Carrell’s Mark is angry, grizzled, and is in therapy as a result of his brother’s suicide. Both actors give great performances and have developed into worthy, credible acting talents. Worth mentioning are small, but meaningful roles by Melissa Leo and Marisa Tomei.

The Big Short is shot in an interesting way- highly unusual. From time to time, the action will stop and a famed celebrity (Selena Gomez, a world-renowned chef, or a model in a bubble bath) will explain the events of the film, thus far, or give some sort of review. Also, more than once the actors will turn to the camera and speak directly to the audience. A nice, personal touch that I found effective.

In the end, not much in life has changed, which is the real message of the film, and a frightening one. As one character brilliantly puts it “people will go back to blaming the poor and the immigrants”, which is a sad message.

After millions lost everything, not much has changed in the world and The Big Short makes that very clear. The people responsible have gotten away with crime, the banks bailed out, and a new scheme is undoubtedly in place. It’s a sad world.

The Big Short is a gritty, harsh look at reality and a terrific film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Adam McKay, Best Supporting Actor-Christian Bale, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing

The Hateful Eight-2015

The Hateful Eight-2015

Director-Quentin Tarantino

Starring-Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #319

80064515

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Quentin Tarantino does it again!

The modern equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, or any of the great directors, his films are an experience to be reveled in.

The viewer is taken to another world and experiences a great fantasy. This time he dives into western territory with The Hateful Eight, a brutal tale of eight strangers holed up in a shelter during a Wyoming blizzard sometime shortly after the Civil war.

Another gem of a film that delivers blood, unique characters, and brilliant writing.

We are introduced to Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and John “The Hangman” (Kurt Russell) early on, as Marquis hitches a ride on John’s stagecoach.

They are both bounty hunters heading to Red Rock to deliver their prisoners and collect a large sum of loot. Marquis has three dead bodies, but John has captured brutal female criminal Daisy Domergue, played wonderfully by Jennifer Jason Leigh, alive and well.

The group then picks up the new Red Rock sheriff, Chris Mannix, who is headed there to accept his new position.  Everyone is in a panic to reach safety before a vicious blizzard hits and the group comes to a shelter where they meet the other films principals, Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), Oswaldo (Tim Roth), Marco the Mexican (Demian Bichir), and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern). These eight make up “The Hateful Eight” in the title.

The setting could not be better. The cold, wintry blizzard and the grand mountains of the west are authentic. However, most of the film is set inside Minnie’s Haberdashery, an inn, of sorts, where the eight (and some others) spend most of the film.

I found the setting tremendously effective as the howling wind,  the driving snow through the windows, mixed with the glowing warmth of the lighting and the hot, steaming, soothing stew that they ate, and the hot coffee, which is ingeniously featured throughout the film. These hot and cold elements contrasted so well.

Shot in 70 mm film to ensure a widescreen, epic look, the film succeeds in the snowy, outdoor scenes, though I am not sure I would notice this camera style without it having been touted with the release of the film.

The characters bristle with authenticity and engagement and each one is interested in his or her own right- even the secondary characters.

My personal favorites are John “The Hangman”, Daisy, Marquis, and Sandy Smithers. John is probably the most likable character of the bunch and Kurt Russell (almost unrecognizable under the thick beard), gives the character charm and wit.

As the story unfolds, each character is mysterious and their motives unclear, which makes the film fun. Are some in secret cahoots with others? When someone poisons the coffee, a whodunit erupts. This is the beauty of the film- the motivations of the characters slowly come into play and a slow reveal occurs.

The gore/violence is fantastic. Without revealing too much, there are many deaths and the film is non-linear, the middle portion of the story occurring before the first section. To keep things organized, Tarantino divides the film into chapters, and at over three hours long, the film is a monster.

I like how Tarantino features interracial an relationship (black inn owner Minnie and her white husband).

Favorite scenes include the vomiting blood sequence and the extremely brutal scene of the severing of the arm of a character.  There is also the scene of Marquis dragging a victimized, naked soldier through the snow that is intense and shocking, involving brutal sodomy.

As with all of Tarantino films, the characters are cartoonish and not to be taken completely seriously and the violence will undoubtedly offend some, but that is the beauty of his films. A masterful work by a masterful modern director.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Jennifer Jason Leigh, Best Original Score (won), Best Cinematography

The Danish Girl-2015

The Danish Girl-2015

Director-Tom Hooper

Starring-Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander

Scott’s Review #310

80058477

Reviewed December 29, 2015

Grade: A-

The Danish Girl tells the loosely based story of Danish painters and married couple Lili Ebe and Gerda Wegener and recounts Lili’s struggles as the first known recipient of sex reassignment surgery, unheard of at the time that it was (1930).

The film is a showcase in terrific acting (Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander especially) and a journey of one person’s struggle with gender identity.

The subject matter is quite important and timely as the recent transgender movement has emerged at the forefront of social issues today.

A happy, young couple living in Copenhagen, and married for six years, Gerda and Einar are inseparable and madly in love. They are best friends and help each other with their art. In a pinch because of a female model’s tardiness, Gerda convinces Einar to stand in for the model, wearing female clothes.

This event triggers a lifelong identification as a female named Lili Elbe. Lili has emerged sporadically since childhood.

Through painful self-assessment and encouragement from progressive loved ones, Lili decides to go through with a highly experimental and risky sex change operation.

Gushing with sensitivity and tenderness and groundbreaking in a sense, though I bet even more so if made ten years ago, one feels for both lead characters as it is important to note that they both go through emotional turmoil.

It would be easy to lessen Gerda’s emotions and, perhaps with a lesser actress this might have happened, but Vikander (unknown to me before seeing this film) gives an emotional performance that is raw and exudes empathy.

One can imagine how they would feel if their spouse identified as the opposite sex. Confusion, blame, anger, sorrow, would all be common reactions. Gerda is strong, brave, and helpful, all the while crumbling beneath the surface. Vikander brings all of this to the screen flawlessly.

Similarly, Redmayne brings depth and empathy to his role.  Redmayne’s Einar is masculine, but there is something sensitive and slightly feminine to him from the start.

Was this purposely done to soften the blow? He also appears to be very slightly built. Redmayne lost a bit of weight to portray this role and have a softer appearance.

Actors can easily dress up in drag, but the emotional investment needs to be there and Redmayne makes the viewer care about Lili a great deal. One is teary-eyed along with Lili as she sees no other choice, but to undergo the risky operation. We see the desperation in Lili’s eyes and this is thanks to Redmayne’s acting skills.

I loved how supportive the characters are in the film. Granted, Einar/Lili and Gerda travel in liberal and progressive circles, but for 1930, this was wonderful to see.

Of course, Copenhagen and Paris are open-minded cities, but Lili’s childhood friend Hans, a sophisticated, macho guy, offers nothing but support. The same goes for the Doctor taking on Lili’s surgery.

These aspects lend to a delicate, peaceful film of encouragement.

To be clear, Lili is not gay, and this is made crystal clear during the film as she meets a gay man and the distinction between them is made. She does, however, identify and feel that she is a woman. She was simply born with the wrong parts.

The greatest aspect of The Danish Girl is its powerhouse acting and compelling subject matter. One’s gender is a given for most, but watching a riveting drama about someone who is at unrest with their gender is eye-opening and still rather taboo.

2015 was a year of progressive transgender films and The Danish Girl is towards the top in its class and graceful in dealing with the subject matter in a calm non-judgmental way.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne, Best Supporting Actress-Alicia Vikander (won), Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

Carol-2015

Carol-2015

Director-Todd Haynes

Starring-Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara

Top 100 Films-#90

Scott’s Review #308

80058700

Reviewed December 27, 2015

Grade: A

My comparison would be that this film is the female version of Brokeback Mountain if you will.

Carol is a story of hidden romance and secret lives in the early 1950s, a time in which it was very difficult to lead an alternative lifestyle openly (or even in hiding!).

The film is a marvel in its honest storytelling, exquisite class, and its gracefulness, with excellent cinematography and a nice, heartwarming tale.

Carol is directed by Todd Haynes, a director known for films about doomed romances faced with societal challenges. Carol is a wonderful piece of work.

The film contains two equal female lead roles- Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett) is a gorgeous, sophisticated socialite.  She exudes confidence and style in everything that she does.

Always perfectly dressed, well made up, perfect fingernails, her mannerisms relay confidence, and control. She is married to a wealthy businessman, Harge (Kyle Chandler), who is madly in love with her, yet they are divorcing because of her “problem”.

The fact that Carol is a lesbian is known to Harge and they share somewhat of an understanding…..and also a five-year-old daughter. The divorce they are going through is difficult.

Therese Belevit (Rooney Mara), on the other hand, is the polar opposite of Carol.  Young, naïve, she is a part-time shopgirl, who is fascinated by photography. She dates men and goes to parties, living out a typical young girl’s life.

When Carol and Therese meet at the store where Therese works, they are immediately enamored with one another and a friendship develops. Both seem to be caught off guard and the chemistry between the two actresses sizzles.

The focus of the film is the budding romance between Carol and Therese, but also the societal differences that they face, not to mention the age difference between the two women. I found the chemistry quite evident and this is thanks to Blanchett and Mara.

Worlds apart, the two women somehow find their way to each other and form a bond. Their relationship is tender, gentle, and carefully laid out for the audience. They are neither animalistic nor barbaric in a sexual way, but rather- sweet.

When Therese takes a spontaneous car trip from New York to Chicago, leaving her boyfriend, Richard, perplexed, she is conflicted. He wants them to run off to Paris- Therese wants to be with Carol. He breaks up with Therese and accuses her of having a crush on Carol.

Therese and Carol’s romance is finally consummated in a mid-western hotel. It is New Year’s Eve and Todd Haynes chooses to shoot this scene in a romantic, spontaneous way. They are celebrating the holiday, but both are blue and vulnerable. It makes perfect sense that they would turn to one another at this moment.

The film delves into many different emotions that Carol and Therese face- love, glee, anger, rage, confusion, rejection, and loneliness. These adjectives and the aforementioned examples of the tone of the film are why it succeeds.

From an acting perspective, both Blanchett and Mara are great, but I am more partial to Blanchett’s performance. She embodies this character. From the way she confidently orders a martini dry with one olive, to how she brazenly approaches Therese, she is a woman in control. But faced with family issues she becomes vulnerable and we see her as a human being.

Besides the interesting story of a love faced with many challenges, the look of the film is grand. The sets, hairstyles, clothes, and makeup are all graceful and rich. To summarize- everyone looks great and it portrays a perfect picture of the 1950s.

A progressive Hollywood tale did very well, Carol showcases glamour, great acting, and sends a powerful message of acceptance and struggle during a difficult time to be “different”, to fulfill one’s life.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Cate Blanchett, Best Supporting Actress-Rooney Mara, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Todd Haynes, Best Female Lead-Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography (won)

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.