Category Archives: 2016 Films

American Honey-2016

American Honey-2016

Director-Andrea Arnold

Starring-Sasha Lane, Shia LaBeouf

Scott’s Review #622

Reviewed March 6, 2017

Grade: A-

American Honey is an unconventional coming-of-age drama that deserves kudos for not only being shot on a shoe-string budget, but also for having something of substance to tell.

The film is mostly shot outdoors throughout the scouring summer months in heat-drenched Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas, as the film follows a group of rebellious, lonely teenagers as they attempt to sell magazines as part of a shady con organization.

Their female leader uses cult-like rallying techniques to achieve loyalty.

The film is shot mainly by hand-held cameras and only uses natural light, which is an admirable feat in film.

The film’s central character is an eighteen-year-old girl named Star, played by novice actress, Sasha Lane.

Saddled with a deadbeat boyfriend with two young kids that she is forced to care for, she takes food from dumpsters to survive.

One day, she is approached by a charismatic, handsome bad boy, Jake (Shia LaBeouf). Jake, along with a group of teenagers, offers her a job in Kansas.

Hesitant, but realizing her dead-end existence, she accepts the mysterious job and travels with other unsavory characters across the bible-states, where they prey on wealthy, religious types willing to lend a hand, under the guise of selling them magazines.

The main story envelopes Star, her romantic feelings for Jake, and the quandaries that she faces on the road. She drinks, smokes, curses, and is sexually active, yet also savvy and wise beyond her years.

The audience wonders if she will continue this lifestyle and worries when she comes into contact with older men- all rather well-mannered and some affluent.

Will they pay her for her magazines or some other form of entertainment? How will Star handle propositions and scrapes in and out of precarious situations? Star grows up throughout the film. Star is also a kind and confident character.

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

It seems to just go on and on and on.

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

Star and Jake (thanks in large part to the talents of Lane and LaBeouf) have true chemistry and likability as a couple.

The mystery surrounding Star is we know nothing about her parents or family or how she came to this existence at such a young age. At one point, she does mention her mother dying of a meth overdose, but it is unclear whether she makes this story up for the benefit of a magazine sale or if it is the truth.

Star is rebellious, but very intelligent and capable, all the while exhibiting kindness to strange children and her “colleagues”.

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

Also, the film is almost entirely shot using a basic hand-held camera or cellphone eliciting a shaky, documentary-style feel. Instead of these characteristics giving American Honey an amateurish feel, it gave the film an authentic quality.

The left of the center approach of featuring male frontal nudity and same-sex relations gives the film much credo as an alternative film- the teens also swear and use drugs quite a bit, which could turn some off.

Receiving a heap of 2016 Independent Film award nominations (but winning none), my reason for watching the film, American Honey breathes some fresh air into the world of independent cinema, where sometimes too many big-name stars appear in the indies to garner some credibility.

Watching a film of novices or individuals with no acting aspirations simply create a good story is worth something in itself. And kudos to Arnold for spinning such a fresh tale.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Andrea Arnold, Best Female Lead-Sasha Lane, Best Supporting Male-Shia LaBeouf, Best Supporting Female-Riley Keough, Best Cinematography

Hidden Figures-2016

Hidden Figures-2016

Director-Theodore Melfi

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

Scott’s Review #619

Reviewed February 26, 2017

Grade: A-

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

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

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

I enjoyed this film immensely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two also have nice chemistry together.

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

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

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

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

Captain Fantastic-2016

Captain Fantastic-2016

Director-Matt Ross

Starring-Viggo Mortensen

Scott’s Review #616

Reviewed February 10, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Viggo Mortensen

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Director-Stephen Frears

Starring-Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant

Scott’s Review #613

Reviewed January 30, 2017

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Streep is the highlight and the draw of the film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20th Century Women-2016

20th Century Women-2016

Director-Mike Mills

Starring-Annette Benning, Greta Gerwig, Elle Fanning

Scott’s Review #611

Reviewed January 22, 2017

Grade: A-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

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

Hell or High Water-2016

Hell or High Water-2016

Director-David Mackenzie

Starring-Jeff Bridges, Chris Pine, Ben Foster

Scott’s Review #609

Reviewed January 16, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

London Has Fallen-2016

London Has Fallen-2016

Director-Babak Najafi

Starring-Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart

Scott’s Review #608

Reviewed January 13, 2017

Grade: D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everybody Wants Some!!-2016

Everybody Wants Some!!-2016

Director-Richard Linklater

Starring Blake Jenner, Zoey Deutch

Scott’s Review #585

Reviewed January 5, 2017

Grade: A-

A follow-up to the successful 2014 film Boyhood, directed by Richard Linklater, Everybody Wants Some!! is another slice of life story with interesting characters, trials and tribulations, and a coming of age theme centering around the main character’s struggles to identify with themselves and each other.

Like Boyhood, a timeline is used, but instead of taking place over seventeen or so years, it takes place throughout a long weekend preceding the start of the college semester- a blissful, yet melancholy time for many.

The setting is steamy Texas in the late summer of 1980.

A few freshman baseball prospects, superstar athletes in high school, but unknown here, move into a large house inhabited by other baseball players all hoping to make it to the majors.

The college is fictional but is a Southeast Texas Cherokees team. The main character, freshman Jake, arrives to find a bevy of drunken jocks carousing for a good time. He bonds with the other guys, but is more introspective and complex, and embarks on a flirtation with a theater student, Beverly, while also connecting with various other jocks with whom he lives.

The film is successful in that it is a quiet story, Linklater, similar to Boyhood, chooses to focus on relationships and good storytelling rather than big bombastic moments or cliched stereotypes. We simply observe a large group of acquaintances living life and getting to know each other, having fun, rather than taking life too seriously.

At the same time worrying over their futures and choosing to live for the moment, not knowing what tomorrow will bring- they are stuck in a moment in time.

The musical soundtrack is wonderful- interspersing 1980’s bands like Van Halen (known for the title song), Pat Benatar, Devo, and a myriad of others while mixing in classic artists like Neil Young and Led Zeppelin. The film focuses on a bonanza of rock n roll history.

Everybody Wants Some!! is well written and intelligent. Fellow intellectual jock, Willoughby, neither he nor Jake quite fitting in with the other, loud and self-centered jocks, forge a close friendship, discussing intricate aspects of rock songs by Led Zeppelin, and dissecting the arrangements and simply talking about life, rather than guzzling beer and chasing girls.

Ironically, Linklater chooses to have Willoughby diss Van Halen as a corporate rock band, despite branding the title name of the film.

One may argue that nothing happens throughout the film, but that is the beauty, and what makes it work as an honest, truthful piece of filmmaking.

How novel that the film does not contain any contrived plot devices intended to create tension between the characters- the film simply is, and that is the beauty of it.

Everybody Wants Some!! is intended to be observed.

The romance between Jake and Beverly is sweet and unassuming. They come from different backgrounds- he a jock, she a theater major, yet they connect innocently.

The film displays different social groups coming together- a major accomplishment of the film. We witness the jocks attend a theater-style party and enjoy themselves.

The film successfully merges differing social groups as one, but the key here is that the film never does this in a contrived manner- it simply happens organically.

Some complaint about the age of some of the actors- many considerably older than teenage years- donning wigs, but that did not bother me. I enjoyed the maturity of the seasoned actors in these roles.

Linklater is a modern director daring to tell interesting stories about ordinary individuals with who the audience can immediately identify and that is what makes him a worthy talent of today.

Jackie-2016

Jackie-2016

Director-Pablo Larrain

Starring-Natalie Portman

Scott’s Review #576

Reviewed January 1, 2017

Grade: A-

Natalie Portman carries the 2016 biographical-drama film based on the life of Jackie Kennedy, and the events directly following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The film is not a retread of conspiracy theories nor does it feature more than a few glimpses brief of JFK himself, but rather, it is Jackie’s story and what she faced throughout the ordeal.

The film wisely uses flashbacks to show the famous tour of the White House, which Jackie gave shortly before the President’s death. A bravura performance by Portman as Jackie.

Director Pablo Larrain, primarily known for achievements with foreign-language films (the Chilean film, No comes to mind), rather than the American History genre, is successful in his work with direction.

The film is a gloomy one, both in tone and with the terrific brooding musical score composed by Mica Levi, with its loud, abrupt sound effects.

The overall feel of the film is foreboding and dark.

The main activity is told through a famous Life interview that Jackie Kennedy gave a week after the assassination- the reporter was Theodore H. White, who was slightly less than sympathetic in demeanor toward the First Lady.

Held in Massachusetts, Jackie is away from the limelight in peaceful tranquility but is still pained.

Portman is very successful at revealing two sides of Jackie Kennedy to the audience. Not simply a smiling debutante that she always portrayed to the world publicly, Jackie was also a complex, feisty woman, who vehemently wanted the world to see how brutal the assassination was, how proud she was of her husband, and how she would not back down from holding a lavish and public funeral procession for her deceased husband.

Jackie was met with harsh criticisms and defiance for desiring to do so. A proud woman- she did not wish to run off and hide from the terrible events that occurred.

Jackie is mostly a quiet, introspective film. Much of the film is Jackie being interviewed, or flashbacks of her giving the White House tour.

Typically Portman plays Jackie as prim, proper, and demure- she is always filled with class and grace. In one riveting sequence though, we see Jackie walking through the White House, smoking cigarettes, and drinking vodka. She appears alone and vulnerable, having just lost her husband.

Portman embraces her pain and the audience grieves with her- she is alone in more ways than one. We see her not only as a First Lady but as a sad woman,  in her agony.

Portman is fantastic in her mannerisms and tone of voice.

I loved the continuous usage of flashbacks to tell the story, but the film does not delve into an unneeded history lesson- we all know what happened- the point of the film is to answer curiosity about Jackie.

What is most effective is the focus on Jackie’s reactions and how Jackie handled the events.

In a grotesque scene, rivaling any horror film, we are right there with Jackie in the car that fateful day as a shot rings out, blowing JFK’s head wide open. Sinking into Jackie’s lap, she later candidly describes to the Life magazine reporter, how she attempted to hold the remains of his head together.

We then see her wandering around, her beautiful pink suit smeared with blood.

A quiet yet compelling and mesmerizing film, Portman is the main draw. She channels emotions of heartbreak, sadness, and composure.

A fantastic First Lady, Jackie always was graceful and proper, but Portman shows another side to her, which very few people knew of.

In addition to this fine acting, Jackie is a dark, brooding film that successfully tells this woman’s story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Natalie Portman, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Pablo Larrain, Best Female Lead-Natalie Portman, Best Editing

Manchester by the Sea-2016

Manchester by the Sea-2016

Director-Kenneth Lonergan

Starring-Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams

Scott’s Review #542

Reviewed December 11, 2016

Grade: A

Manchester by the Sea is a beautiful film.

Told from a slow build-up to a crescendo, and a big reveal mid-stream about one of the character’s pasts, it takes its time, and this is why it is so compelling.

The audience gets to slowly become familiar with the characters, making them rich with nuances- caring about them and their predicaments- just like good, solid story-telling should do.

The film is a slice of life, dark drama, but I did not find it to be a downer in the least bit. Rather, a film with rich writing and great characters. A good film makes you care for the characters as one would real people.

Casey Affleck is astoundingly good as the lead character, Lee Chandler, a janitor living a mundane life in Quincy, Massachusetts, and tending to a series of apartment buildings. He calmly goes about his work-dealing with indifferent, angry, or odd tenants.

Affleck portrays this man with quite a reserve and occasional outbursts of rage. His anger is confusing to us, but as the story unfolds we begin to understand what this man has been through and the reasoning behind his anger, even though he is a good person.

Lee receives a call one day with news that his brother, Joe, has died.

Through a myriad of flashbacks throughout the film, Joe is played by Kyle Chandler. Upon Joe’s death, Lee returns to Manchester (where he formerly resided) and is told he will be the guardian of his sixteen-year-old nephew, Patrick.

In the mix are the characters of Joe and Lee’s ex-wives- Elise and Randi (Michelle Williams), playing small, yet pivotal roles.

The film is dark, and many characters either suffer from emotional trauma, neurosis, or some other maladies, either physical or emotional. The slice of life analogy comes into play-everyone can relate to these characters in some way- most people have lived in towns like this, and/or have suffered crappy turns of events in life.

When Lee returns to Mansfield, he is a familiar face with a hint of mystery and lots of history. Mansfield is a small town- everyone knows each other’s business, and all of the characters are hardened, blue-collar, and tough individuals.

In addition to Affleck’s effective performance, Williams must be mentioned. She gives a tremendous, heart-wrenching performance as a good woman in pain, trying to carry on and do the right things, forging some sort of adequate existence, as is Lee.

Anyone who has gone through pain (which is everybody) can relate to these characters.

The supporting, and even the tiny characters, are perfectly cast and have hearty Boston-type accents that I loved. From Joe’s wife to Patrick’s girlfriend’s mother, to various other walk-on characters, each has a vulnerability mixed with toughness- as if life has been hard and they are wary of trust, yet they help each other and stick together.

The characters are a major positive to Manchester by the Sea.

Many reflective moments abound within the film- we often are given scenes of Lee driving down the highway- deep in thought. Or long shots of the vast Atlantic Ocean, where fishing is a large part of the character’s lives. Fishing boats and waves are monumental in the film.

These are not throwaway scenes, but rather interesting, compelling moments rich with meaning.

During the best sequence of the film, when a startling event occurs, the scenes are mixed with classical and operatic music, giving the scenes and the shocking revelations, power and meat.

It is heavy stuff, but also beautiful with an effective musical score.

Not to be drowned by the heavy drama, Manchester has some quirky, dry humor moments. When Joe is originally told about his heart condition, he and his father unintentionally call his female, Asian doctor by the wrong name.

When family friends host a party following awake, they awkwardly misunderstand each other when they attempt to fix Lee a plate of food. Finally, nobody can find the deceased Joe’s belongings at the hospital. These moments are awkward, but add some comic relief to the film.

I adore well-crafted, emotional, effective family dramas. Too often they are cliche-ridden and highly predictable.

In the case of Manchester by the Sea, the writing is brilliant, the acting top-notch, and the characters layered with intricate qualities.

This film has it all.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Kenneth Lonergan, Best Actor-Casey Affleck (won), Best Supporting Actor-Lucas Hedges, Best Supporting Actress-Michelle Williams, Best Original Screenplay (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Casey Affleck (won), Best Supporting Male-Lucas Hedges, Best Screenplay, Best Editing

La La Land-2016

La La Land-2016

Director-Damien Chazelle

Starring Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling

Scott’s Review #538

80095365

Reviewed December 6, 2016

Grade: A

La La Land breathes new life into the classic musical genre of the 1950s, with a fresh glimpse into the world of Hollywood.

The film explores the glitz and the glamour, the triumphs and heartbreaks, and the dreams both broken and fulfilled in a town laden with broken hearts.

The bright and colorful film stars two of today’s top young talented stars- Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. The chemistry between the leads and the dynamic musical numbers is wonderful to experience.

A masterful nod to old Hollywood.

Mia (Stone) is an aspiring young actress, struggling to survive the Hollywood scene by serving lattes in a coffee shop on a studio lot. She auditions endlessly for film and television parts, without much luck. Her passion is acting, but she also writes a one-woman play that she plans to star in.

Sebastian, on the other hand, is a dedicated jazz musician, struggling to make ends meet by playing demoralizing gigs that ruin the essence of jazz, meeting many people who tell him that jazz is a dying genre. Sebastian’s dream is to one day open his nightclub.

Through circumstances, Mia and Sebastian meet and continue to run into each other, forging a wonderful friendship, eventually leading to romance.

The film is a gorgeous experience with bright sets, creative sequences, and numerous song and dance numbers to keep you humming along- Mia and Sebastian even tap-dance one beautiful night following a Hollywood party, under the moonlight with the Los Angeles skyline in view, as they begin to bond with one another. It is one of the best scenes in the film.

La La Land is seasonal and begins in the winter- though this is strictly an attempt to separate the chapters- Los Angeles is always warm, but the timing is Christmas- interesting in itself to see in a warm climate.

During the first scene, we are immediately treated to a musical number- stuck in stifling freeway traffic, the drivers of the cars all get out in unison, sing and dance, and then proceed to get back into their cars and continue their ho-hum day.

Director, Damien Chazelle cleverly balances the cheerful tone with the everyday redundant tasks and the struggles of artists hoping for a dream.

La La Land excels during the scenes of Sebastian and Mia as the chemistry is palpable. Gosling and Stone have something. Supporting players such as J.K. Simmons and Rosemarie Dewitt add pizzazz in their small, but meaningful parts.

I adore the odes to classic Hollywood films that director Chazelle incorporates into his film.

Classics such as Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious are referenced and the legendary film, Casablanca is referenced twice.

Additionally, during a sweet moment, Sebastian takes Mia to see Rebel Without a Cause at an old-style theater, as he is shocked that she has never seen the film, and eagerly excited to introduce her to it-this continues as he shares his love for jazz music with her.

Later, the theater closes as the film takes a more dour tone as the struggles of both characters overwhelm them.

The film’s finale is amazing.

Suddenly, it is five years later and many events have happened. In a brilliant sequence, the lives of the characters are explained through a song as we see the period play out until we reach the point of the film where the song began- a treasure of an ode to the truth of the characters.

The sequence is emotional, heartbreaking, and choreographed without missing a beat,

Gosling and Stone sing all of their songs- not live as was the case with Les Miserables, but wisely on a sound stage- they are neither novices nor Grammy winners, but they are real and truthful and with heart.

How refreshing to see classic Hollywood told in such a riveting fashion, as seen through the eyes of the young. Films and styles of decades past are renewed through this wonderful piece of film.

I noted similarities to An American in Paris and countless other gems from years ago and stood proudly with the knowledge that a nostalgic piece of cinema is exactly what we need.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Damien Chazelle (won), Best Actor-Ryan Gosling, Best Actress-Emma Stone (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“City of Stars” (won), “Audition (The Fools Who Dream)”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Loving-2016

Loving-2016

Director-Jeff Nichols

Starring-Joel Edgerton, Ruth Negga

Scott’s Review #527

80099974

Reviewed November 26, 2016

Grade: A

Loving is a quiet film.

Subdued and poignant, it is an important, historic story to tell, and jarring to be transported back to the 1950’s southern style, where interracial marriage was not only illegal but children of interracial couples were barely considered human beings, to say nothing of the views of their parents, specifically by law enforcement.

Sadly, circa 2016, we all should be aware that racism is still alive and well in the United States and this film is a reminder of how much further we need to go. The true story of the landmark1967 Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court case is the basis for this film.

The time is 1958 Virginia, and a sweet, working-class couple-Richard and Mildred-are very much in love. Richard-white, and Mildred-black, are met with some sideways glances around town, but generally have a strong supportive family and friend structure, although both families are quite poor. They enjoy spending time with friends in bars and racing cars.

When Mildred becomes pregnant, Richard purchases a plot of land for them and asks Mildred to marry him. Despite the challenges this will create, they are wed in Washington D.C. Once they return to Virginia, they are arrested for violating anti-miscegenation laws, prohibiting interracial marriage.

The couple eventually sue the state of Virginia, leading to a unanimous Supreme Court ruling a decade later.

As a film, Loving is thoughtful and introspective.

The audience questions who are we to decide who someone loves? This can apply to same-sex couples as easily as interracial couples.

The film, led by director Jeff Nichols, creates many quiet scenes of thoughtfulness on the faces of leads Edgerton and Negga.

Furthermore, several scenes of peril encompass the film.

The Loving’s are in constant threat of being discovered as they secretly return to their forbidden home state to give birth to their son- only wanting Richard’s mother to perform the birth. The tense scene where Mildred is dropped off on a deserted back road is well shot- the camera constantly focusing on the road and the threat of a car coming by at any moment.

Edgerton, a fantastic actor, and director gives a tremendous performance as a quiet, stoic, blue-collar man, madly in love with his wife and seeing nothing wrong with it, simply because it is not the norm.

He is poorly educated, but Edgerton gives him underlying intelligence and a basic understanding of cherished love and more than once calmly uttering “but I love my wife.”

To him, it is that simple. Richard will also use any measures necessary to protect his family, as any man surely would. Edgerton’s squinting blue eyes portray suspicion, warmth, and love.

Negga is equally compelling as calm and loyal Mildred.

One might expect Mildred to finally explode with rage as she has to put up with obstacle after obstacle, raising three kids in an environment she does not want, yet she never does.

Negga embodies the character with sweetness wide-eyed passion and longing for a better life. Mildred tries not to get her hopes up with each impending court date, but Negga successfully portrays the character with many different emotions and complexities.

My favorite scenes of hers simply involve Mildred gazing at her husband- her eyes filled with love and pride.

Nichols wisely does not spend very much time in the courtroom and this is positive with the film. Sure, we do get the occasional scene of Richard and Mildred facing the court, but the film does not go a different route than necessary.

Despite a landmark decision coming from Loving’s marriage, the film is a love story between a good man and a good woman, who just happen to be of different races.

What a lesson every viewer can learn from this film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Ruth Negga

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Jeff Nichols, Best Female Lead-Ruth Negga

Lion-2016

Lion-2016

Director-Garth Davis

Starring-Dev Patel, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #521

80108447

Reviewed November 19, 2016

Grade: A-

Lion is an enthralling, humanistic, drama about family, lost loved ones, and the search to find them, as seen through the eyes of the same character as a child and as an adult.

It features fantastic acting- specifically from stars Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) and Nicole Kidman and also features lavish cinematography of the Indian and Australian countryside.

The film is based on a non-fiction book named “A Long Way Home”.

Introduced to a poor neighborhood in India in 1986, we meet five-year-old Saroo, a wide-eyed boy, who idolizes his big brother. Their mother, a beautiful woman, carries rocks for a living and relies on the boys to watch their younger sister- the boys steal coal to help eliminate their mother’s hardships.

Their father is absent. When Saroo insists on accompanying his brother on a night job, he accidentally gets on an empty train and is transported thousands of miles away- losing his family in the process.

Twenty-five years later, and long since adopted by an Australian family, Saroo attempts to find his long-lost family, using new technology- Google Earth.

In a lesser film, this subject matter might have been a sappy affair, predictable, and contrived.

But Lion soars with humanistic, emotional flair, and heartfelt, without any manipulations.

The first third of the film is focused on the five-year-old Saroo. We witness the boy’s confusion, desperation, and scrapes with potential kidnappers, child molesters, and undesirables. We also see how resilient and intelligent the young boy is- wisely outmaneuvering foes and being savvy enough to avoid monstrous people.

As much as I enjoyed this segment of the film, it went on slightly too long and I was ready to see Saroo as an adult and the encompassing problems to come, but this is a very small gripe in an otherwise extraordinary film.

Lion takes off when Saroo, now all grown up, is played by Patel. Having been adopted by an Australian couple, John and Sue Brierley, he has lived a life of love, respect, and encouragement.

The Brierley’s are a selfless couple, who, in addition to Saroo, have adopted another Indian boy with deep emotional issues. This has caused hardship and issues in the household. Their reasoning for adopting is poignant; rather than bring their biological children into the world, why not save two children who need to be saved?

Patel and Kidman give emotional and raw performances. Patel is quite a find as he plays conflicted and haunted very well and is quite convincing in the lead role.

We witness his conflict as he struggles with not knowing what has become of his family in India- imagining their worry and the devastation of not knowing what has become of him. He also avoids telling Sue- his adoptive mother- who has her hands full with other emotional issues.

Kidman, who always delivers, is raw, emotional, and sympathetic.  Her facial expressions as Sue struggles to be strong, are subtle and contained, yet dying inside with underlying pain, is exceptionally relayed by Kidman in an award-worthy portrayal.

Director, Garth Davis, cleverly adds several scenes of Saroo, longingly looking out into the ocean or simply gazing in the distance, imagining and self-reflective.

What makes these simple scenes great is through Saroo’s imagination, he imagines being with his real mother, she still young, he now as an adult. Similarly, he imagines being with his brother- his brother is still age ten, but Saroo is now an adult.

These are quiet, beautiful scenes that add layers to this film.

Lion is a wonderful experience in great storytelling, led by effective acting performances and a compelling screenplay that gives honesty in film-making to the true story that the film is based on. The film is heartwarming and can be enjoyed by anyone.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Dev Patel, Best Supporting Actress-Nicole Kidman, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography

Moonlight-2016

Moonlight-2016

Director-Barry Jenkins

Starring-Trevante Rhodes, Andre Holland

Scott’s Review #512

80121348

Reviewed November 6, 2016

Grade: A

Moonlight is a wonderful film, rich with character and grit, that tells the story of one man’s life- from childhood to teenage years, to adulthood, sharing the bonds he forms, and the demons he wrestles.

The acting all around is fantastic and the story poignant and truthful.

The film is not preachy, but rather tells a story and leaves the audience to sit and observe- quietly formulating their own opinions. Moonlight is a mixture of beauty and heartbreak and is told very well.

The film is divided into three chapters- in chronological order of the central character’s life.

Chiron is a shy, docile, young boy of six or seven living in a drug-filled world of Miami, Florida in the 1980s. He is bullied for being “different” though he knows not why he is shunned. Chiron is introverted and distrusting.

A kind-hearted drug dealer named Juan (Mahersala Ali) takes a shine to Chiron, whose own mother becomes more and more absent and emotionally abusive to her son.

Naomie Harris plays Paula, mother to Chiron and herself a drug addict. Juan and his girlfriend Theresa (Janelle Monae) become surrogate parents to Chiron and share their home with him as needed.

Chapter two focuses on Chiron as a teenager- still bullied and coming to terms with his sexuality and feelings of insecurity. By this time his mother has spiraled out of control and his life is a sad one. He is filled with emotions such as rage, despair, and confusion. He has an experience with his best friend Kevin that changes the direction of his life. Kevin is his saving grace and a decent person amidst his troubled life.

In chapter three, we are re-introduced to Chiron as an adult- having completely reinvented himself and become a changed man, but is he changed for better or for worse? People from his past resurface at this time and Chiron must face various demons and emotions, and come to terms with himself and others surrounding him.

Does his story have a sad or a happy ending is the question we are left wondering.

The aspect that left me impressed the most is the storytelling and the ground that is broken with this film.

From an LGBT perspective, by this time (2016), we have experienced numerous offerings on the subject, but the fact that Moonlight is not only a character study, but a love story between two black men have not been done to this degree yet in cinema, or arguably at all, especially in mainstream fare.

Happily, Moonlight is receiving critical praise. The fact that Chiron lives in a macho, male-driven society, makes his self-acceptance all the more challenging for him.

The direction in Moonlight is impressive and director Barry Jenkins deserves much praise.

Quiet scenes of Chiron as a boy asking Juan and Theresa why the bullies call him a certain name are heartbreaking. Another scene, muted and in slow motion, reveals an abusive Paula calling Chiron a degrading name leaving him confused and hurt. Otherwise, tender scenes between Chiron and Kevin are sweet and passionate and told on such a humanistic level.

Moonlight delves into such territory as loneliness and self-identity and is an interesting film to view for anyone who has struggled with these issues or anyone who is empathetic to those who have.

Moonlight breaks stereotypes and molds a film that is subtle and low-key but speaks volumes.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture (won), Best Director-Barry Jenkins, Best Supporting Actor-Mahershala Ali (won), Best Supporting Actress-Naomie Harris, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature (won), Best Director-Barry Jenkins (won), Best Screenplay (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Editing (won), Robert Altman Award (won)

The Girl on the Train-2016

The Girl on the Train-2016

Director-Tate Taylor

Starring-Emily Blunt, Justin Theroux

Scott’s Review #493

80105068

Reviewed October 12, 2016

Grade: B+

The apparent must-see film of fall of 2016, with seemingly everyone flocking to see the blockbuster, I happily was able to see it shortly upon release.

While containing some flaws, The Girl on a Train is a very good thriller- and a great companion piece to Gone Girl- similar in style, tone, and in a way, story. A whodunit with psychological, almost Hitchcockian elements, it navigates twists and turns to an unfortunate disappointing finale.

Still, a more than adequate offering that does not bore.

Based on the hit novel of the same name, which I understand is superior to the film.

First and foremost, how gorgeous was the scenic eye candy of suburban New York City, where the train chugs along the Hudson River in breathtaking beauty?

Affluent houses are nestled along the river banks hidden with secrets- which is the point of the film. Beautiful neighborhoods are often riddled with affairs, drama, and back-stabbing.

The setting was perfect as was the element of the train- peering through windows to witness smoldering events.

The standout of the film is Emily Blunt, who gives a compelling, sometimes heartbreaking turn as a boozy, jobless, young woman fraught with heartbreak after heartbreak. She finds solace on the Metro-North train as she peers into a particular well-to-do house, making up stories about a young woman she re-names daily, usually while inebriated to the state of blackouts.

Though The Girl on the Train is not the typical “Oscar type film”, I’d argue that a potential nomination is warranted for Blunt, who is brilliant on her emotional roller coaster.

Rachel fantasizes about being the stranger’s friend, revealing her desperation. We quickly learn about her life circumstances and feel empathy.

I anticipated an experience like Hitchcock’s classic Rear Window- Rachel Watson noticing a crime occur and somehow becomes involved in the situation. This is partly true, but different altogether. I was, however, treated to a film that never lags or waivers and the action is plenty- not in bombs or car-chase way, but instead a circulating array of plot twists and emotions.

How wonderful to see Allison Janney, Lisa Kudrow, and Justin Theroux in a big-budget, mainstream film, rather than independent small films (certainly not a knock, but good to see some wide recognition).

All three knock the material they are given out of the park, and kudos to the writers for making Kudrow- in little more than a cameo- a major part of the great reveal.

Arguably, Janney’s character of Detective Riley is the weakest written and seems to change motivations depending on the story shift. This is perplexing and too plot-driven.

In a way, the same might be said for Theroux’s character of Tom Watson, but, alas it is a thriller and this sometimes does happen in this genre.

Without giving much away, the conclusion to the film is unsatisfactory. We are given an ending that is wrapped up in a neat, tidy bow, which contradicts the rest of the film.

The film is confusing, dream-like, and muddled- in a good way. We are disturbed by Rachel’s thoughts and wonder what the reality is. The climax is too clear and instead of leaving much to the imagination, we are fed a linear, straightforward, story ending, almost geared for a Hallmark television movie (gag).

Wise would have been to write Rachel as still vague about her surroundings, but this does not occur.

The Girl on the Train will not re-define cinema or go down in history as fine art, but it is not intended to-it is the type of film designed to keep you on the edge of your seat and does so.

The story is above average and slick, but Blunt is worth heaps of praise and is head and shoulders above the rest of the film- and the cast- no small feat considering the talent involved.

Great acting job, but the writing could have been slightly better.

Café Society-2016

Café Society-2016

Director-Woody Allen

Starring-Jesse Eisenberg, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #462

80106775

Reviewed August 11, 2016

Grade: B+

Having received sub-par reviews, but wanting to see this film for me, as it is a Woody Allen film, and I have yet to see an Allen film I did not like, I traversed to my local theater to see this flick.

I was not disappointed, though others did not share my opinion.

To love Woody Allen films is to love quirky characters who are either neurotic, damaged, or more often than not, both.

Also notable to Café Society is the stellar cast of who’s who- many in small cameo roles, but which is another trademark of Woody Allen films.

Marisa Tomei, Daniel Radcliffe, and Anna Camp (True Blood) have very small roles as do stars such as Sheryl Lee (Twin Peaks), and Tony Sirico (The Sopranos).

Additionally, Woody Allen himself narrates the film- a highlight.

The main stars of Café Society, though, are Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, both perfectly cast.

The setting (which I adored) is 1930’s Hollywood and the action traverses between California and New York City- another common bond of Allen films.

Eisenberg plays Bobby Dorfman, a Jewish son of a working-class jeweler, who has many siblings. Tired of New York, he flies to Los Angeles to obtain work with his hot shot Uncle Phil, played by Steve Carrell, who knows every celebrity under the sun.

There, he meets Vonnie (Stewart) and they fall in love, Bobby unaware of her on and off love affair with Phil.

The set and costume designs are to die for and, being a fan of this glamorous time in history, is a wonderful treat from a visual perspective.

Café Society is a prime example of a film that feels authentic to its time rather than appearing staged with actors merely dressed up in appropriate attire. This is tougher to achieve than one might imagine.

Despite opinions of the contrary, I enjoyed how most of the characters were wishy-washy and unsure of their motivations or feelings toward other characters.

Vonnie loves Phil, then she warms to Bobby, who has been in love with her since their first meeting as she innocently showed him around the palatial mansions of Hollywood.

She is real to Bobby, but then makes a decision and becomes everything that she once despised about Hollywood- a shallow trophy wife.

Ironically, back in New York, Bobby then becomes involved with a stunning new woman with the same name as his ex. The importance of this coincidence is crucial to the film’s point. He transfers his feelings to another woman, but is he really happy?

It did not bother me, though perhaps it should have, that several characters were introduced for a scene or two and then mysteriously dropped.

For instance, the novice hooker, Candy, having tried to make it as an actress and failed, has a heart of gold. But after her awkward attempt at a tryst with Bobby, the character is never seen again.

Another characteristic of the film that I enjoyed is the natural, overlapping dialogue between the characters. It makes them that much more genuine and harkens back to my fondness for Robert Altman films, which used a similar technique with his actors.

The point of Café Society is that nobody ever gets what they want or, the film is making a point of, nobody ever really knows what they want.

Containing elements common to other Woody Allen films, Café Society is intended for fans of his lengthy body of work.

Holidays-2016

Holidays-2016

Director-Anthony Scott Burns, Miscellaneous

Starring-Jocelin Donohue, Sophie Traub

Scott’s Review #460

80096585

Reviewed August 7, 2016

Grade: A-

While perusing my Netflix streaming new releases options, I stumbled upon an intriguing choice with an interesting premise.

Eight varying horror vignettes all set in a holiday theme, aptly named Holidays. The description of the stories harkens back to the days of the beloved Showtime Masters of Horrors series that featured macabre horror shorts.

Not all eight offerings are spectacular, but the ones that stand out are dynamic if not downright creepy.

Set in chronological order, Holidays begins with a story centered on Valentine’s Day- a clear homage to the horror classic Carrie.

A taunted female teenager nicknamed “Maxi-Pad” by her cruel nemesis is encouraged to dive into the high school pool by her male coach to retrieve a brick, presumably to conquer her fear of swimming or water. The coach, who Maxi is in love with, requires a heart transplant, so Maxi goes to morbid lengths to assist him and exact revenge on her tormentor.

In Father’s Day, a young female teacher receives a mysterious cassette tape from her long-estranged father, leading her on an adventure in an abandoned area, in an attempt to now locate her father, wonderfully voiced by actor Michael Gross. The voice tones and static sound of the audiotape lend a great deal to the intrigue and suspense of the story.

Along with the Valentine’s Day story, the Christmas and New Year’s Eve segments are my personal favorites as each is exceptional and creative.

On Christmas Eve, a young father attempts to buy the last virtual reality device for his son, but when he leaves a stranger to die to obtain it, he becomes haunted by the device.

On New Year’s Eve, a male serial killer looks for his next victim, a lonely woman desperate for an online date, but once they return to her house for sex, who becomes the hunter, and who becomes the victim?

Other holidays featured in either too bizarre to make perfect sense or less compelling stories, but still worth mentioning, are St. Patrick’s day, Easter, Mother’s Day, and Halloween.

I adore the holiday theme that this film cleverly features and the wonder of which holiday will come next and exactly how it will be incorporated into the story is wonderful fun.

Specifically, the Christmas story reminds me of a classic Twilight Zone episode in which betraying an unknown stranger for personal gain leads to guilt and conflict for the main character.

A few of the stories focus on the traditions of the featured holidays, like the legendary snakes of St. Patrick’s day or the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, as a frightened young girl becomes terrified of the folklore involved.

This is incorporated with the legend of the Easter bunny delivering candy as the confused girl cannot separate fairy tales from reality, which makes me wonder if the director’s point was to question the silliness of religion if one were to dissect it enough.

Other themes are revenge as in the Halloween and Valentine’s Day episodes.  Both features bullying in one way or another, each getting their due in the end.

I wish more anthologies like Holidays were made as it was a fascinating, late-night joy to watch this feature.

The Witch-2016

The Witch-2016

Director-Robert Eggers

Starring-Anya Taylor Joy, Ralph Ineson

Scott’s Review #446

80037280

Reviewed July 7, 2016

Grade: B+

The Witch is a slow-build 2016 horror film that plods with sinister wickedness and left this viewer thinking well beyond the credits.

Is it a message movie?

Good versus evil and containing a definite religious umbrella encompassing the entire film, it is god against the devil, and guess which one wins out? To be transparent, this film will undoubtedly offend the staunch religious.

Set in 1600’s New England and entitled- “The Witch- A New England Folktale”, we meet a Puritan family banished from the village they inhabit.

They are forced to begin a life on their own and build a farm struggling to survive by selling family heirlooms in secret. William and Katherine are the parents, followed by a teenage daughter, Thomasin, son Caleb, and youngsters, Mercy and Jonas.

Their recent addition to the family, Samuel, is snatched by a mysterious creature appearing in the shape of a witch. We only see her draped in red as she sneaks into the woods holding the infant.

From the families perspective, they know not who (or what) has taken Samuel) and they tell themselves that it was a wolf, but soon they are not so convinced and Thomasin is assumed to be a witch.

I adore how this film is not set in modern times, undoubtedly a turn-off for some viewers. The thick English dialect is almost Shakespearean at times and challenging to follow at others, but rich in the culture at the same time.

The period is unsettling for some reason as is the absolute purity of the family- too good to be true? Much of the film is shot in the daytime- unlike many horror films- and this adds to the tension- combined with the creepy musical score- strings are used.

At one hour and thirty-two minutes, the very short film feels longer- it truly does move at a snail’s pace, but the final act makes up for this as something all along told me it would. It simply has a creepy feel to it and nightmarish events occur at the finale of the film.

Some of The Witch is open to interpretation. At times I suspected one family member or another of perhaps being evil, but the film is not that straightforward and some complexities arise.

For instance, do spirits possess animals? When Thomasin milks a goat and blood runs out is this supposed to represent female menstruation?

A thinking man’s horror film, which is refreshing within the horror genre or any other genre for that matter, The Witch is unorthodox and thought-provoking, which makes it a winner in my book.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay (won), Best First Feature (won)

Dirty Grandpa-2016

Dirty Grandpa-2016

Director-Dan Mazer

Starring-Robert De Niro, Zac Efron

Scott’s Review #432

80049285

Reviewed June 29, 2016

Grade: D-

It is a sad day when the only interesting aspect of a film is the gratuitous nudity of one of its stars, but that is precisely the case with Dirty Grandpa, as Zac Efron bravely bares all for the sake of art….or a big paycheck, whichever the case may be.

Otherwise, Dirty Grandpa is complete drivel.

It is crass, rude, mean-spirited, and blatant in its raunch. It also aspires (successfully) to be politically incorrect- quite surprising in these times of fairness and equality for all. If the film intends to be outrageous it succeeds in spades.

Unfortunately, there is not much comedy and the film is quite bad, even where dumb comedies are concerned.

Starring one of films greatest talents of all time- Robert DeNiro, one wonders why he would sign on to appear in this film- certainly not the money, perhaps it has to do with playing a role he has yet to do- we will probably never know.

DeNiro plays Dick Kelly, a retired Army veteran, recently widowed after forty years of marriage. Faithful for decades, he embarks on a road trip to Daytona Beach Florida, with his grandson, Jason, in tow. Dick’s goal is to conquer a slutty college girl he and Jason meet while they are eating at a roadside diner.

Lenore, the college girl, is with her friend Shadia, who knows Jason from school.  To complicate matters, Jason is engaged to self-absorbed Meredith. This sets off a chain of circumstances where each pair falls in love, all the while hurdling various trivial issues.

Thrown in are scenes of partying, acting silly, and outrageous crude remarks and behavior. The standard bathroom humor is not spared.

The subject matter of Dirty Grandpa is not unchartered territory as the “road trip/buddy movie” has been done oodles of times in film history.

My gripe is not so much with the film’s raunchiness, but to be blunt it is just not funny. Over the top in raunch comedy has worked many times before- think Pink Flamingos and other John Waters films.

But those films had characters to root for and who was interesting.

DeNiro’s character is the pits- Efron’s not so bad. The motivation of Dick Kelly is to have sex- almost like the guys in American Pie, but with them it was cute- but DeNiro plays a man in his 70’s.

That is fine, but he is so blunt about his need for sex and whines of not having sex for fifteen years because of his wife’s cancer. So, the audience is to think of him as a nice guy because he waits for his wife to die to score on spring break?

Lame.

Efron is my favorite character and as mentioned above- he bears a lot of skin, making it the most appealing aspect of this sorry film.

The chemistry between Efron and DeNiro is not terrible, and I bought them as grandfather and grandson.

Efron is not afraid to poke fun at his beefcake image and kudos to him for this. He has a fantastic, chiseled body, and good for him for showing it off.

Efron has the talent- does anyone recall The Paperboy? He was superlative in that underrated independent gem. His character is the straight man in Dirty Grandpa and the only “normal” character. He is the voice of reason if you will.

The supporting characters are as stereotypical as possible.

It is almost as if the film intends to offend, but with no good reason why. Dirty Grandpa has the dumb jocks, the horny teen girl, the weak, effeminate gay character, the Hispanic drug dealer, and so forth.

Danny Glover’s brief cameo appearance as a horny wheelchair-bound nursing home resident (and old buddy of Dick) is as much laughable (not in a good way) as forgettable. Most characters are thinly written.

Dirty Grandpa appeals to unsophisticated moviegoers who find crude, mean-spirited characters funny, and deem stock characters acceptable. Every other sensible person will dislike this film.

Hello, My Name Is Doris-2016

Hello, My Name Is Doris-2016

Director-Michael Showalter

Starring-Sally Field, Max Greenfield

Scott’s Review #390

80050896

Reviewed April 1, 2016

Grade: B

Sally Field shines in Hello, My Name Is Doris, a sweet-natured indie romantic comedy that tells of a lonely Staten Island woman, and her mostly fantasy-laden relationship with her colleague, a much younger, hunky man.

The film has a certain measure of predictability, but is sweet, honest, and works well. It hardly reinvents the wheel, but rather is a story of a woman’s reawakening from a dull life and is a nice character-oriented film- refreshing in a world of retreads and super-hero flicks. Hello, My Name Is Doris is humanistic.

Doris Miller meanders through life at her crappy data entry job at an Advertising Agency in mid-town Manhattan. Having worked in the same role for decades, she is overlooked and more or less invisible to colleagues.

She is the “weird old lady” or the “wallflower” who goes unnoticed. Her personal life is a dud- she lives with her mother who has recently died, is a hoarder, and is severely marginalized.  She has no dating possibilities.

One day, on the elevator, heading to the office, a kind young man named John Fremont innocently pays attention to her and she becomes enamored with him. Later, she is stunned to realize that John is the new Art Director at her job.

Her crush escalates as she and John become friends, and a series of misunderstandings ensue, with the added conflict of her friends think she is living in a fantasy world, worried she will wind up hurt.

Sally Field carries this film in every way. It is nice to see her in a lead role again, which sadly, for a seventy-year-old actress, is a rarity these days.

She convincingly plays quirky, shy, awkward, and has one melt-down scene that is a powerful testament to her continued acting ability.

The character of Doris slowly blossoms and becomes rich with zest. We discover she is much more than meets the eye and these moments in the film are wonderful to experience and this is thanks to Field’s charisma.

My favorite scenes involve the nice bond between Doris and the thirteen-year-old granddaughter of her best pal, Roz, played by Tyne Daly.

Despite the age difference, the granddaughter views her as a peer, giving daring dating advice to the inept Doris. This leads to a nice portion of the plot and some funny moments.

One unique aspect of Hello, My Name Is Doris, is that it is not a film about a May-December romance between a man and a woman, at least I did not look at the film that way. Rather, it is about a woman who finally decides to live regardless of her age.

I felt her stifled and smothered by her brother and sister-in-law, who clearly did not understand that she hoarded “stuff” in her home to cope with her loneliness and to be surrounded by things that gave her comfort helped her deal.

Granted, Doris clinging to one broken wooden ski from the dark ages was amusing in its cuteness.

Worth a huge note is Tyne Daly, who, from an acting standpoint, can recite the phone book and I’d be happy with that. She is one of those natural, confident, interesting, real, actresses and her scenes with Fields glistened with raw talent and emotion.

Perhaps a female buddy movie with Field and Daly?

The remainder of the supporting characters is capable, but not spectacular. They are rather clichéd and one-note.

For example, Doris’s colleagues view her as invisible with the classic office jokes and especially the female boss has thrown into the film- possessing a hard-as-nails personality and coldness. I have seen these characters time after time in comedy films.

Supporting actors from Orange is the New Black and Mad Men are featured as a couple of the colleagues.

Indie, fun, and with a freshness made in large part by Sally Field, Hello, My Name Is Doris is an innocent comedy with a romantic edge and some nice laughs.

It is far from a masterpiece, but a good-natured escape, especially for the middle-aged or senior crowd craving a non-stereotypical female character- and that is refreshing in itself.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Piaget Producers Award (won)

Hail, Caesar!-2016

Hail, Caesar! -2016

Director-Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Starring George Clooney, Channing Tatum

Scott’s Review #377

80074084

Reviewed February 16, 2016

Grade: B+

Hail, Caesar! is a quirky film created and directed by the Coen Brothers, known for such offbeat films as Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and Raising Arizona.

Hail, Caesar is a satirical comedy about the Hollywood film industry during the post-World War II period of the 1950s.

Including singing, dancing, and scandalous matters, the film includes a bevy of current Hollywood talent including George Clooney, Channing Tatum, Josh Brolin, and Scarlett Johannsen to name but a few.

All give fine performances and add humor and wit to the film.

The plot centers on the character of Eddie Mannix (Brolin), a celebrity “fixer” and real-life person, who works as an executive for Capitol Pictures, and whose main responsibility is to ensure that famous Hollywood stars remain out of trouble.

The period is 1951, a particularly scandalous time in pictures. One of the biggest stars of the time, Baird Whitlock (Clooney), is suddenly kidnapped and held for ransom while completing a big epic film for the studio. Mannix must race to keep the crisis out of the news and safely get Whitlock back.

Certainly, there are interesting subplots including handsome, yet talent-less Western actor Hobie Doyle, hired by the studio to appear in a sweeping period piece directed by suave Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes), and DeeAnna Moran (Johannsen), unmarried and with a “bun in the oven”, determined to keep herself out of the tabloids.

I loved the look of the film, as numerous films within the film occur. The 1950’s set pieces and set designs are exquisite to experience, particularly the period piece set, lavishly designed with classic doors, a staircase, flowers, and a cast dressed to the nines. It brings back an extravagant time.

The film is a satire, to be sure, but also contains the serious subject matter of communism (especially for that period), Russia, and Russian defectors, all involved in a plot to prove a valuable point.

Despite the film being a comedy, this is worth serious thought. Many writers in Hollywood make money for the studios and are rewarded with underwhelming salaries. The same holds in Hollywood today.

This point can spill over into other walks of life as well and the point of the “little man gets screwed” is explored. Communism is also explored throughout the film as the main message- a message that is important and resonates.

Another interesting tidbit that Hail, Caesar! mentions, though only on the surface, is the burgeoning onslaught of television programming.

Suddenly, more and more folks were purchasing TVs and staying away from the glamour of films opting instead for the comfort of their couch.

What a different time it was!

An intriguing, favorite character of mine belongs to Channing Tatum’s portrayal of Burt Gurney, a Gene Kelly-like character famous for singing and dancing numbers. A sizzling sailor dance gives edge and sexuality to the film.

A revealing scandal involving Burt and Laurence is fantastic and delicious.

My favorite scene belongs to Frances McDormand, shamefully only appearing in one scene- quite memorable. As film editor C.C. Calhoun, she diligently shows Mannix film dailies in the hopes of discovering a clue in the disappearance of Whitlock. When her scarf gets caught in the projector, both hilarity and grotesqueness ensue.

It is a classic Coen Brothers comedy.

Hail Caesar! succeeds as a witty, comical, throwback to a wonderful time in film history, with a political edge, that historians will appreciate and Coen Brothers fans will relish.

Perhaps not their most creative or memorable, but enjoyable all the same.

Oscar Nominations: Best Production Design