Tag Archives: 2019 Films

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark-2019

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark- 2019

Director Andre Ovredal

Starring Zoe Colletti, Michael Garza

Scott’s Review #997

Reviewed March 10, 2020

Grade: C+

Admittedly, not having read the series of books that Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) is based on, nor knowing the books even existed, may have influenced my opinion. Still, the film is lackluster at best, serving up some creative moments, but more silly ones.

The film is too polished, uneven, and feels too similar to modern projects like It (2017) or the television series Stranger Things to have its individuality.

A few interesting moments or sequences exist, but not enough to recommend.

The creepy children’s books written by Alvin Schwartz are adapted into film form, as the 1968 Halloween period is brought to life.

The small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania, serves as the backdrop for the historic Bellows family mansion, which has loomed over the city for decades and holds a haunting mystery.

Sarah, a young girl with dark secrets, has transformed her troubled life into a series of terrifying stories, written in a book that has transcended time.

After a group of impressionable teenagers discover Sarah’s terrifying home, they uncover her stories, and they become all too real.

The visual effects and images are the film’s high point.

Several visceral and stylistic sequences deserve admiration and mention. When one of the panicked teenagers scrambles into a mental institution, he is met with a horrific, blood-red glowing image that surrounds him.

As he attempts to escape, a ghastly, bloated figure slowly approaches him from all sides.

Later, a freakish person known as The Jangly Man, able to reconstruct itself from separate body parts, pursues one of the teens. These scenes are credible and inventive. The look of the film is its only real success.

The late 1960s time period both works and doesn’t work. Getting off to a splendid start, the theme song performed by Donovan, “Season of the Witch”, also incorporated over the closing credits, is a positive and provides a nice mystique.

Since the date is supposed to be Halloween, this is fitting, though too few other seasonal reminders ever exist so that the viewer soon forgets it is Halloween at all.

Attempts to make the characters look the part are feeble, resulting in modern actors clad in 1960s attire, which reduces authenticity.

Mentions of the Vietnam War, while politically left-leaning, are only added for story purposes, feeling staged.

Once and for all, a note to filmmakers: making a character wear glasses to appear intelligent is a gimmick done to death and no longer works.

Actor Zoe Margaret Colletti is fine in the central role of Stella and does her best with the material she is given.

Still, the realism is lacking, resulting in an overwrought quality. The character feels more like a Nancy Drew-type than anything more profound.

Viewers are supposed to believe the convoluted story that Sarah was abused and now resides, as an older woman, in a secret room and scripts a book of horror stories that come to life and wreak havoc on those who enter the haunted house.

Stella manages to channel Sarah, as an adult, and convinces her to stop writing and cease the terror with a weak message of female empowerment. The events are so far-fetched, and the storyline is dictated that it eliminates any character development from the film.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) struggles to determine its target audience. Is it young adults or an older audience seeking a Halloween-themed scare?

The story is too complex and confusing for both the audience and anyone else.

The visual effects are fantastic, especially the stylistic red and black end credits, but the overall context suffers from a lack of continuity and becomes a forgettable experience.

The Two Popes-2019

The Two Popes-2019

Director Fernando Meirelles

Starring Jonathan Pryce, Anthony Hopkins

Scott’s Review #994

Reviewed February 27, 2020

Grade: B+

The Two Popes (2019) is a biographical drama that focuses on two real-life religious figures and the close friendship they form while sharing differing ideas and viewpoints.

The two men hold the highest spiritual office, and deep respect culminates over time while past secrets are uncovered.

The film carefully balances past and present but offers too few meaty scenes between the legendary actors for my taste.

Otherwise, a thought-provoking and historical effort, with brilliant sequences of Italy and Argentina.

The film begins in April of 2005 during a pivotal moment in history, following the death of Pope John Paul II. The world is abuzz with the naming of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (played by Anthony Hopkins), elected Pope Benedict XVI.

At the same time, Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce), from Argentina, receives the second-highest vote count.

Ratzinger has a stiff and more traditional approach to Christianity, while Bergoglio is more modern in thinking and open to new ideas.

Seven years later, the Catholic Church is embroiled in the Vatican leaks scandal, which tarnishes the very concept of religion. Benedict’s tenure has been marred by public accusations regarding his role in the cover-up, which has shocked the world.

Meanwhile, Bergoglio intends to retire and arrives in Rome to receive Benedict’s blessing. This is the point at which the men slowly come to terms with each other and develop mutual respect and admiration.

The Two Popes is worth the price of admission for the acting alone. With heavyweights such as Hopkins and Pryce, one can rest easy in this regard and simply enjoy the experience.

The scenes between the two actors are fantastic and fraught with energy.

As the religious figures confide in one another and secrets brim to the surface, the actors are believable as the real-life figures. Even good, old-fashioned small talk is fascinating to watch.

While the present-day sequences enthrall, the flashbacks of Bergoglio as a younger man and his journey into the church are explored a bit too much, sometimes halting the flow.

He was once engaged to be married, but instead joined the Jesuits. He was married in scandal when the perception was that he had collaborated with the Argentine military dictatorship, and he was exiled to serve as an ordinary parish priest to the poor for the next ten years.

The balance between timelines is acceptable, but the flashbacks become too prevalent as the film progresses.

Director Fernando Meirelles seems more comfortable shooting scenes within Argentina since those are best directed using black and white filming to showcase both the ravages of a chaotic nation and the decades preceding the present.

Best known for the wonderful City of God (2003), he also intersperses real-life news sequences featuring the peril of the Argentinian people. The two time periods do not always flow naturally together, though.

A huge positive is the inclusion of the child abuse scandal that rocked the religious world and the brave decision that Meirelles made to focus on the revelation that Benedict knew about the accusations and dismissed them, clearly aiding in their continuation.

Both Popes deal with the struggle between tradition and progress, guilt and forgiveness, and confronting one’s past, making it a character study.

The exterior and surrounding sequences are an absolute treat. Having visited Rome and particularly Vatican City, the Sistine Chapel, a showcase of the Vatican, is wonderful to view on a personal level.

The chapel in the Apostolic Palace, the official residence of the pope, is both astounding due to its lovely religious art and the backdrop for many scenes between Benedict and the future Pope Francis (Bergoglio).

Any viewer fond of world history or religious history will enjoy The Two Popes (2019). With great acting, secrets revealed, conflict, and loyalty, the film is crafted well.

Some momentum is lost in the story’s back and forth, and the film is hardly one that warrants repeated viewings or study in film school; however, it provides a realistic look at modern religion, complete with its arguments and discussions, to delve into.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Jonathan Pryce, Best Supporting Actor-Anthony Hopkins, Best Adapted Screenplay

The Lighthouse-2019

The Lighthouse-2019

Director Robert Eggers

Starring Robert Pattinson, Willem Dafoe

Scott’s Review #987

Reviewed February 5, 2020

Grade: A-

The Lighthouse (2019) is the sophomore effort by acclaimed and novice horror director Robert Eggers.

His first film, The Witch (2015), garnered praise and independent film award nominations, and his latest offering has also received numerous accolades across the board.

This time around, he wisely secures top-notch talent, casting the incredible Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson to star.

The result is a well-acted, gorgeously photographed film that is odd beyond belief, requiring a second viewing even to attempt to understand it. The atmosphere of this film will draw some viewers in and push away others. It is that type of film experience.

Shot in startlingly good black and white, the time is the 1890s, set somewhere off New England.

The film stars Dafoe and Pattinson as two lighthouse keepers who start to lose their sanity when a storm strands them on the remote island where they are stationed. They spar, love, and play games, while imaginations run wild with bizarre images of mermaids, death, and claustrophobic storm conditions.

Frequent hallucinations render the plot unclear of what is fantasy and what is reality.

The technical aspects of The Lighthouse are superior to the story elements.

The gorgeous camera work, looking like either a modern film or a film from the 1940s, is superior. Seldom is a film made like this, and the black and white filming provides a cold and bleak atmosphere.

The prevalent wind and driving rain are buffeted by flying objects and mud, creating a looming and foreboding danger. The viewer can tell that sinister events are on the horizon, perfectly encrusting the increasingly dangerous storm.

The story is harrowing to figure out, with the exception that one or both men are losing their minds. Winslow (Pattinson) is the newbie, sent to assist the elder lighthouse keeper, the elderly and cranky Thomas Wake (Dafoe).

Wake forbids Winslow to ever set foot in the lantern room, insisting that the task is his job alone. This piques the interest of the young man, especially when Winslow observes Wake going up to the room at night and stripping naked.

Winslow begins experiencing visions and dreams of tentacles in the Lighthouse, tree stumps floating in the water, and distant images of a mermaid.

Peculiar scenes exist that make The Lighthouse both memorable and challenging to decipher. The presence of seagulls lends the film an authentically beach-like atmosphere, with their cawing and flying around.

Their existence soon becomes an ode to Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963) as a one-eyed gull begins to stalk Winslow.

Told it is bad luck ever to kill a gull since they harbor the souls of sailors, Winslow finally kills the attacking one-eyed gull in a fit of rage during one of the film’s most brutal scenes. Wake seethes with anger.

The film is homoerotic in many scenes, none more so than the lovely scene when the two men begin to dance and sway to the music. About to kiss, reality strikes, and the two drunk men come to blows.

The scene reminds me of an important one in the groundbreaking LGBT masterpiece Brokeback Mountain (2005).

The combustible pent-up masculine tension explodes, and we wonder if in another time the men lovers might be. This aspect is cerebral, filling The Lighthouse with psychological mystique.

A common element is the two men’s distrust of one another. Trapped by the destructive storm, they frequently drink themselves into oblivion- what else is there to do?

They sit and stare at each other, sometimes filled with rage, sometimes suspiciously. In a scene both jaw-dropping and hilarious, Winslow forces Wake into a collar and leash and leads him on his hands and knees into a muddy grave.

Unsure if the scene is fantasy or reality, it could almost be taken from a gay leather porn film.

Eggers has a bright future ahead of him, and I am eager to see his next project. I am not averse to odd or even nonsensical films if the intent is good, but I would recommend a more straightforward approach next time to see what he comes up with.

The Lighthouse (2019) successfully offers a creepy and bizarre tale of men losing their sanity in a dream-like and creative way that will assuredly divide audiences.

Oscar Nominations: Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins- Best Director- Robert Eggers, Best Male Lead- Robert Pattinson, Best Supporting Male-Willem Dafoe (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Editing

Oscar Nominated Animated Short Films-2019

Oscar-Nominated Animated Short Films- 2019

Directors: Daria Kashcheeva, Matthew A. Cherry, Karen Ruper Toliver, Rosana Sullivan, Kathryn Hendrickson, Bruno Collet, Jean-Francois Le Corre, Siqi Song

Scott’s Review #986

Reviewed February 4, 2020

Grade: A-

Having the honor of being able to view the five short films nominated for the 2019 Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film at my local art theater was pretty amazing.

Far too often dismissed as either irrelevant or completely flying under the radar of animated offerings, it is time to champion these fine little pieces of artistic achievement.

On par with, or even superseding, full-length animated features, each of the five offers a vastly different experience, yet each presents either inspired or hopeful messages or dark, devious, and edgy stories.

The commonality this year is relationships, and not necessarily between human beings, as one of them features a darling relationship between a cat and a dog.

Below is a review of each of the shorts.

Memorable-2019 (France)

This offering is the most visually enticing of the five nominees. In the story, a French painter slowly falls prey to the ravages of dementia, while his wife suffers alongside him as his memory disintegrates. He sinks into a world of impressionistic shapes, vivid with gorgeous color.

The film is both beautiful and heartbreaking, making it a challenging watch. The swirling colors and fragmented shapes provide a lush and melancholy feel.

The viewer will likely empathize with the only two characters to appear (husband and wife) and relate to each of them as they experience the misery and confusion, with the assurance of what the outcome will be.  Grade: A

Sister-2019 (China)

Sister is a touching tribute to a person who does not even exist.

A man thinks back to his childhood memories of growing up with an annoying little sister in China in the 1990s. What would his life have been like if things had gone differently? Would the siblings annoy each other or be the best of friends?

With political overtones, the piece describes the inhumane law that Chinese parents could only have one child, the mother forced to abort an impending birth.

Traditional Chinese colors of red and black are used, and the imaginary sister is cute and energetic, a tragic realization of the terrible loss of potential life in a damaged nation. Grade: A-

Hair Love-2019 (USA) (Won)

Created by a team from the United States and strongly considered the front-runner, Hair Love feels the shortest of the bunch and is the most accessible of all the nominees, but hardly fluff either.

A young black girl battles with her wild head of hair on a special day. After she unsuccessfully tries to create a gorgeous hairstyle by watching YouTube videos, she desperately enlists the help of her kindly father. At first disastrous, they manage some success.

The relationship is at first unclear. Is he a single dad? Is he her dad at all? Is he an older brother? The puzzle is quickly resolved with the revelation of the mother’s whereabouts in a tender and heartfelt ending. Grade: A

Kitbull-2019 (USA)

My personal favorite of the bunch, Kitbull, is tough to watch at first.

Any animal abuse in the film makes my stomach turn, and the beginning turned me off as I anticipated giving the piece a low rating.

Instead, Kitbull results in a marvelous experience as a darling and compassionate story of the relationship between a kind cat and a suffering dog.

The unlikely connection brought tears to my eyes as the cat, presumed to be an independent alley cat, came to the rescue of the pit bull, suspected of being in a dog fight. Any animal lover will watch this short with a mix of anger, empathy, and finally, joy.

The sobering reality that so much animal abuse still exists in the world is a both mind-blowing and cruel reality. Grade: A

Daughter-2019 (Czech Republic)

Daughter is a brief, yet vague film that is both confusing and yet resilient and creative. The story consists of two characters- a father and daughter, both of whom seem to suffer from regret.

The father appears to be either sick and recovered, or to have died (unclear if the story is told via flashbacks). The frequent pained expressions of both characters as they yearn to rewind the clock and treasure moments of the past, both of hardships and joy, are lessons that every viewer can appreciate and relate to.

The misshapen ceramic figures and the facial movements, especially the blinking eyes, do much to elicit an emotional reaction from the audience. Grade: B+

Little Women-2019

Little Women-2019

Director Greta Gerwig

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh

Scott’s Review #982

Reviewed January 21, 2020

Grade: A-

Numerous adaptations of the 1860s classic novel by Louisa May Alcott have been forged upon the silver screen, some good and some not as good.

The consensus is that Little Women (2019) is one of the better offerings, if not the best.

Director Greta Gerwig crafts a clear feminist, progressive version of the trials and tribulations of the March family, led by the spirited, spitfire Jo (Saoirse Ronan). Gerwig’s telling is fantastic, breathing fresh life into a classic story.

The story fluctuates heavily between 1868 and 1861, spanning both the United States Civil War and its aftermath.

Liberal, the Marches reside in Massachusetts, led by matriarch Marmee (Laura Dern), who mainly lives life while their patriarch, Father March (Bob Odenkirk), is off at war. The rest of the household includes sisters Jo, Meg (Emily Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh), and the youngest daughter, Beth (Eliza Scanlen).

The family endures joy, hardship, romance, love, and death as they navigate the decade.

The focal point is Jo, a determined young lady, who moves to New York City, frequently reflecting on her life through back-and-forth sequences.

She begins, as an aspiring writer, and as she grows up, eventually becomes a success, having her novel published boldly. She resists the tried and true and questions why a woman must rely on a man for success rather than her efforts and talents.

During the story, she is pursued by two young men, Laurie (Timothee Chalamet) and Friedrich (Louis Garrel).

Little Women is a fantastic and emotional story and a film that has no need for CGI, car chases, explosions, or any ingredients meant to enliven a film. It does not need them.

The excitement is in the plot, as we thirst for more of the ups and downs that the March family faces. With any successful drama, there are nuanced characters, each taking a turn at a story.

While Jo is the headliner, Amy, Meg, and Beth are much more than opening acts. They each have their own lives, dreams, triumphs, and hardships, and the audience cares about each of them.

To capitalize on this point, the casting is dynamite. In a small, but brilliant role, Meryl Streep gives a bombast to her character of Aunt March, the wealthy widow who owns a gorgeous house and vacations in Paris.

She is cranky, but wise, only wanting the very best for her nieces, which is, of course, to marry rich!

Ronan is well-cast and charismatic as Jo, the actress who loses her Irish accent for an American one. She utilizes her acting skills to imbue Jo with determination and just enough empathy to win over the audience.

Gerwig assures that the audience is reminded of the times and what it meant to be female during the 1860s, with a minimal chance at self-achievement, having to rely on a man for nearly everything.

She is in no way demeaning or ridiculing the male gender, though. She paints no villains in her film, instead showing men as supportive at times, enamored at other times, but never exerting their power over women.

Little Women receives a minor demerit in the pacing department. The film sharply shifts back and forth, in a too rapid manner, from period to period, at times leaving the viewer unclear as to which section of the film they are in.

Blessedly, this ceases about midway through, but the technique is jarring and unnecessary. One wonders what the action was intended to achieve and why a more straightforward approach to storytelling was not used.

A key facet of any outstanding film is the emotional reaction, and Little Women had this viewer with tears streaming down his face. Sometimes for joy, sometimes for sadness, all in an organic way given oomph by a powerful musical score that resonates but never overwhelms.

The film is one in which all its elements come together in perfect harmony.

The film received six nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actress (Ronan), Best Supporting Actress (Pugh), and Best Adapted Screenplay. Sadly, and in a never-ending slight for female directors, Gerwig was overlooked.

Before the 2019 film adaptation of Little Women, the novel had been adapted for film six times, with the most successful versions being in 1933 and 1949.

Seventy years later, the most modern version is arguably the best, with a left-leaning stance that is oh so necessary in modern times.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win- Best Picture, Best Actress- Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Actress- Florence Pugh, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design (won)

The Lion King-2019

The Lion King-2019

Director Jon Favreau

Voices: Donald Glover, Alfre Woodard, Seth Rogen

Scott’s Review #981

Reviewed January 17, 2020

Grade: B

An impossible feat would have been to eclipse the magic of the stage version or the loveliness of the animated version. Still, The Lion King (2019) offers a different approach as well.

Arguably, this version is both animated and not, infused with computer-generated animation (CGA) and marvelous visual effects, showcasing creativity.

Partial to the two-former offering, this telling is lovely and perfect for the entire family.

The realism of the animals and scenery is remarkable.

To recap, new viewers, the story centers on a den of lions living among the creatures in the “Pride Lands of Africa”. They hunt, prance, love, and guard their territory, mainly from the hungry hyenas, who are kept at bay during peaceful times.

King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi (Alfre Woodard) are fair rulers and anticipate their son, Simba (Donald Glover), taking over the throne one day, much to the chagrin of Mufasa’s evil brother, Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who was passed over for the crown.

Envious of Simba, Scar tricks him and his friend Nala (Beyoncé) into wandering into the land of the hyenas, hoping to cause their deaths. When a heroic Mufasa foils his plot, Scar ups the ante and hatches a scheme to kill his brother.

He not only succeeds but also makes Simba believe he caused his father’s death. Ashamed, the youngster runs away to begin a new life, unaware that he will one day return to save the day.

Props must be given to the filmmakers for their inclusion and cultural authenticity, as many of the characters, especially those at the forefront, are voiced by African-American talent.

This is a notable achievement, considering the film is set in Africa, and it’s unusual for the voices to be Caucasian.

Heavyweights like Jones and Woodard sound polished, especially Jones with his deep and dominant, yet fatherly voice, perfectly cast as the King. Woodard provides gentle warmth and confident complexity.

The musical numbers are terrific.

The film begins with an energetic and tribal rendition of “Circle of Life,” where a legion of wild animals dances together in a warm display of diversity.

The song appears later in the film. The powerful and romantic “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is performed against a lovely moonlit sky with decadent stars.

The new song “Spirit” performed by Beyoncé is adequate but does not figure into the story as much as it should, seeming more like an afterthought.

The best parts of The Lion King, however, are the astounding visuals.

The contrasting sequences of bright, sprawling African terrain and a magical oasis of colorful flowers and running water, set against the dark and foreboding landscape of the dangerous hyenas, offer the viewer a multitude of delights to savor.

The orange and red colors during the climactic finale are unrivaled in the dazzling bombast of adventure.

As realistic as the elements are in the film, they are also negative. Watching the animals talk and prowl amid the lush landscape felt wonderful, until I realized that all of it is fake.

Real animals were never used; instead, it is a virtual reality tool that creates the illusion of reality.

This aspect slightly saddens me as the genuine quality left me feeling robbed. The possibility of another alternative would have meant a reboot of the animated classic, and I am not sure that would have been wise.

Favreau, once an actor and now a director, known for creating films such as Iron Man (2008) and Iron Man 2 (2010), certainly knows his way around an adventure film.

The story, while containing some menacing moments, also feels a bit safe and lacks the freshness or edginess that the 1994 version possessed. Something seems watered down, and the excitement and heart of the original feel missed.

I will always go back to the animated 1994 treasure for a cinematic feast, but while The Lion King (2019) could have been a disaster, it isn’t. With modernized songs and enough CGA to last a lifetime, I could easily see some people hating the film, but I embraced it for what it is.

Spectacular visual treats await any fan of cinema, as one will ponder how the project all came together.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

1917-2019

1917-2019

Director Sam Mendes

Starring George Mackay, Dean-Charles Chapman

Scott’s Review #979

Reviewed January 14, 2020

Grade: A

My tastes do not always lean towards the standard war film, so when I first heard about 1917 (2019), I was less than enthusiastic for no other reason than my pre-conceived perceptions.

Though it peaked with the idea of a World War I film rather than the standard World War II or Vietnam War film, I anticipated a run-of-the-mill experience or a story that had already been told.

Boldly told with incredible intensity and a brilliant technical style, director Sam Mendes creates a memorable cinematic treasure.

In April 1917, during the height of World War I, two British soldiers are tasked with a daring assignment: to hand-deliver crucial news to the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, calling off their planned attack on the German forces.

The Germans have faked a retreat to the Hindenburg Line and are ready to ambush the battalion, intending to kill sixteen hundred soldiers.

Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are chosen, with Blake’s brother Joseph among the soldiers bound to meet their fate.

As they journey, the young men face a myriad of hurdles including booby traps left by the Germans, terrain littered with dead bodies of their comrades, a precarious helicopter crash, giant rats, and the rapidly approaching deadline to deliver their message.

If they do not accomplish their mission in a timely fashion (twenty-four hours), the results will be devastating. Mendes keeps the tension high because he tells his story in real-time.

1917 is raw and emotional, hitting a hard punch.

Powerful scenes of dead bodies riddle the land, fat and pale from days spent immersed in cold water, young soldiers once handsome, now dead and bloated, remind the viewer what a terrible thing war is, and the ravages it causes.

Unlike other war films, patriotism and nationalist pride are not present.

Instead, the soldiers are weary and angry, confused as to why they are sent to fight for land as ugly as where they are, to die for land that is not even their own. They are depressed and confused.

The relationship between Schofield and Blake is excellent. Both men are weary and afraid, but have each other’s backs throughout their assignment.

It is not clear how long they have known each other, but they are at least acquaintances. They each come to the other’s rescue, and a pivotal scene occurs in a dusty hideout where they nearly die after a cave-in.

The characters possess grit and determination, but it is their humanity and connection with each other that resonate powerfully with the viewer.

An incredible scene unfolds as the day turns into night, and Schofield is well into enemy territory. To avoid a pursuing German soldier, he hides in a dusty basement area and finds a cowering young French girl. At first fearful, the pair quickly bonds, and a realization occurs to Schofield.

A newborn child accompanies the girl.

Assumed to be hers, the soldier immediately parts with his stash of food, not realizing the baby can have only milk. A ghastly realization is that the baby is not the French girl’s at all, but was instead found and rescued to prevent its death. The scene is tender and beautiful, perfectly contrasting the ugliness of the war.

The fantastic scene gives the viewer pause, prompting them to wonder what will become of the girl and the baby.

Nearly rivaling this lovely scene, another poignant moment occurs when Schofield stumbles upon a group of soldiers watching another soldier perform a rendition of the melancholy war tune, “Wayfaring Stranger”.

This moment slows the action down to a crawl, dedicated to loneliness and sadness amid the terrible battles.

The technical aspects that Mendes creates are spectacular and meant to be enjoyed on the largest screen possible. He uses a one-take approach, which keeps the action fast and furious.

The lavish and grandiose exterior scenes of immense dry land perfectly counterbalance a terrific watery scene when Schofield is chased into the river and soon embarks on wavy, grand rapids.

The camera remains on the soldier throughout the scene, as the viewer is taken on a wild adventure, sweeping every morsel of up and down motion with the tide.

To piggyback on this point, a scene occurs when one of the young men is knocked unconscious. It is daylight, but when he regains consciousness, it is night. The cinematography is brilliant, with a sharp left turn to translucent colors and blurry images of buildings.

The viewer is as disoriented as the soldier and fears what lurks in the shadows, as is found out when an unknown approaching figure begins to fire his gun.

1917 (2019) is a progressive-leaning gem with an anti-war message and a genuine approach to a “day in the life of a soldier”. It is not glossy or contrived, but a candid, realistic view of the savagery of war.

With a creative technical style, it is one of the best of its genre ever made.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Sam Mendes, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Visual Effects (won)

Bombshell-2019

Bombshell-2019

Director Jay Roach

Starring Charlize Theron, Margot Robbie, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #972

Reviewed December 26, 2019

Grade: B+

Bombshell (2019) is the type of film that, depending on your political affiliation, you will either refuse to see or see and have a love/hate reaction to.

As a non-lover of the “news” network Fox News, I am firmly ensconced in the latter camp, so my opinion of the film is mixed.

The importance of releasing the film during a time of political turmoil in 2019 is crucial and intentional, which is why I commend the film.

Still, the subject matter of sexual harassment against women is complex to watch and a sobering reminder that this behavior continues to occur.

The performances of the principal players — Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie, Kate McKinnon, and John Lithgow — are outstanding and key to the film’s success. Theron and Lithgow receive the lion’s share of makeup and prosthetic work, making them look identical to their real-life counterparts.

Beneficial is a myriad of Fox News political figure portrayals (Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, and Bill O’Reilly) with frighteningly good accuracy, creating a surreal effect.

The film centers on female Fox News personnel in Manhattan and their sexual harassment allegations against founder Roger Ailes (Lithgow).

The central figure- Megyn Kelly (Theron) is conflicted over the risks to both her career and her financial stability if she comes forward and admits her harassment by Ailes years ago, after Gretchen Carlson sues the network.

Margot Robbie plays Kayla, a young Fox employee whom Ailes also harasses.

McKinnon plays a closeted lesbian and confidante to Kayla, who works for the network despite being liberal and a massive admirer of Hillary Clinton.

The plot is fast-paced and unfolds like a quick page-turner, with some sections narrated by Kelly. Bombshell feels timely and has a distinct “ripped from the headlines” makeup.

The fact that the real-life events occurred as recently as 2016 is a striking aspect that will captivate the viewer, especially those who follow United States politics or current events.

The story is fresh and vibrant, with a sense of familiarity, rather than a tale from an event decades ago that many viewers have forgotten or were too young to remember.

I had difficulty feeling much sympathy for most of the characters, which detracts from the film’s overall impact.

The standard definition that the term “Fox News” usually conjures is one of male chauvinism and the good old boys club, with old-fashioned machismo ruling the roost.

Why would any woman choose to work for them or align themselves with the Conservative party, which is not a fan of women or women’s rights?

With this fact in mind, it was difficult for me to watch the film.

To build on this, CEO Roger Ailes is written as the clear villain with no redeeming value. During one scene, he salivates over Kayla when she visits him in his office and instructs her to lift her skirt higher and twirl for him. The scene is sickening, and we feel Kayla’s embarrassment and humiliation.

In a cheer-out-loud moment at the end of the film, she quits, unable to remain in such a corrupt corporation.

One of the only likable characters is Jess Carr (McKinnon), probably fictitious. Hardly fitting the mold of the female staff, not perky or showing leg, she goes out for drinks with Kayla and admits to being gay; the two end up having a one-night stand.

The character is unique, and McKinnon makes wise acting choices.

Worth mentioning is Ailes’s long-time secretary Faye (Holland Taylor). Surely, she knows the antics that go on in her boss’s office, but she almost serves as an accomplice. Why?

Sad to realize that, as recently as 2016, women were still having to face discrimination in the workplace. Industries with powerful men still can be toxic and poisonous to women attempting to climb the ranks.

If the women harassed at Fox News were not top anchors, there is no way the accusations would have even been heard. What about the receptionists, cleaning staff, or administrators who are harassed?

Would anyone listen to them? This message crossed my mind while watching Bombshell.

With fantastic acting and incredible makeup, time will tell if Bombshell (2019) remains a relevant film. Leaving the viewer with an unsatisfying ending rather than a hopeful one, it isn’t easy to sympathize with most of the characters, even when they are supposed to be sympathetic.

Bombshell would make a perfect companion piece to Vice (2018), a similar political, yet superior film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Charlize Theron, Best Supporting Actress-Margot Robbie, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won)

Knives Out-2019

Knives Out-2019

Director Rian Johnson

Starring Ana de Armas, Daniel Craig

Scott’s Review #969

Reviewed December 17, 2019

Grade: B+

Knives Out (2019) is a cleverly constructed whodunit, crafted in a style not dissimilar from the famous board game Clue. This facet is mentioned by one character during a scene in the film.

With a sizable cast of film stars, both young and old (mostly old), the result is a good time, featuring intelligent writing, surprises, and a crowd-pleasing tone. The project is presented by a cast who undoubtedly had a ball during filming.

The point of the film is to try and figure out whodunit and why, in perfect murder mystery form.

It is explained through narration that wealthy crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) has invited his family to flock to his mansion for his eighty-fifth birthday party. The next morning, Harlan’s housekeeper Fran finds him dead, apparently having slit his own throat.

An anonymous figure hires private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) to investigate the situation. When Blanc arrives at the grand estate to interrogate family and friends, tidbits of scandal and intrigue slowly emerge as layers are revealed.

The sizable cast features Hollywood stalwarts like Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda, Harlan’s daughter), Don Johnson (Richard, Harlan’s son-in-law, and Linda’s husband), Chris Evans (Ransom, Harlan’s grandson), Michael Shannon (Walt, Harlan’s youngest son), and Toni Collette (Joni, widow of Harlan’s deceased son Neil).

Helpful is how the film takes the time to introduce and explain each prominent character, so that the viewer has a good sense of who’s who and how one character relates to the others before the tangled web unravels.

The delicious aspect of Knives Out is the numerous twists and turns it offers throughout its runtime.

Surprisingly, it was a key revelation exposed quite early on, so that the pacing is more left of center than classic whodunits of days past. Once the new story arc is revealed, the plot thickens further, and we know that more events will ultimately unfold, as the story cannot be this simple.

This successfully kept me engaged as a viewer throughout the entire experience.

Having witnessed the previews at length and the way the trailer presents a Hercule Poirot/Agatha Christie/Jessica Fletcher-type sleuth to solve, it was delightful to see one character snuggling on the couch, absorbed in an episode of the 1980s television series “Murder, She Wrote.”

Director Rian Johnson offers several sly homages to influential tidbits of pop culture that helped shape his film and retain its amusement.

Another momentous positive is the incorporation of a political discussion among the family as they brood and fret over how much money they stand to inherit from their dead patriarch.

Donald J. Trump, a man who catapulted the United States into controversy post-2016, is never mentioned by name. Still, immigration, children in cages, and expletives are carefully hurled about in his honor, so there is no question about the connotations.

Harlan’s caregiver is Marta (Ana de Armas), the heroine of the film and the standout, whose mother is an undocumented immigrant.

So political overtones abound.

Knives Out seamlessly blends dark humor with traditional mystery, ensuring it never loses its edge. The big reveal at the end is neither brilliant nor disappointing. It simply bubbles to the surface after numerous red herrings and lies.

The final sequence is palpable, and savvy viewers will wonder what one character will possibly do next to either please or anger the rest of the characters.

Might a sequel be at hand?

A film not meant to be high art or anything more than an entertaining good time, Knives Out (2019) achieves its intent by offering an experience reminiscent of an Agatha Christie tale that is fun for the audience.

The benefits are reaped, as the film received an enormous box office return. Thanks in large part to a talented cast, a gloomy mansion, and wealthy individuals faced with peril and comeuppance, these elements make for a wonderful recipe for a good, solid mystery.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Toy Story 4-2019

Toy Story 4-2019

Director Josh Cooley

Voices: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts

Scott’s Review #966

Reviewed December 10, 2019

Grade: B

Toy Story 4 (2019) is the fourth installment in the Pixar/Disney-produced Toy Story series, now nearly twenty-five years old!

The glitter is beginning to fade on a once-endearing franchise, and hopefully, this is the last one- additional segments are not needed unless desperation develops.

After a slow start and too many retread moments, the film shows bombast and familiar heart and tenderness in the finale, presumably wrapping up the long story with a neat bow.

The animation is vivid and colorful, almost astounding, and makes up for an otherwise unnecessary story.

In a flashback sequence, nine years after Toy Story 2, Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is donated to a new owner, and Woody (Tom Hanks) begrudgingly decides to maintain his loyalty to the owner, Andy.

Years later, and now a teenager, Andy donates a forgotten Woody to a young child named Bonnie, who lacks the affection for the toy that Andy had. When Bonnie makes and bonds with Forky, a toy made of plastic, Woody struggles to convince Forky that each is more than garbage.

When Bonnie and her parents embark on a summer road trip to an amusement park, Woody and other familiar faces are along for the ride.

The group meets other forgotten toys, some benevolent and some sinister, at the park and a nearby antique store. Woody’s dear friend and comic relief, Buzz (voiced by Tim Allen), is in the mix and helps all the toys realize that they are not forgotten and that they can still bring joy to children.

The film provides an unwieldy list of celebrities in major and minor roles. The incorporation of characters like Chairol Burnett, Bitey White, and Carl Reineroceros (voiced naturally by Carol Burnett, Betty White, and Carl Reiner) may not be necessary.

Still, it’s fun to watch the credits roll and see who’s who from the cast.

The minor characters are little more than window dressing, but the creativity is admirable.

The main story of abandonment, loyalty, and discarding of one’s toys is ample and pleasant, but has occurred in every segment thus far in the series.

Do we need to see this again? Yes, it is an essential message for both children and adults, but why not simply watch the first three installments of Toy Story, each brilliant in their own right?

Toy Story 4 plays by the numbers with little surprises.

One glaring notice is how almost every single adult is either incompetent or played for laughs.

I understand that the main draw is the toys and outsmarting the adults is half the fun, but when Bonnie’s father assumes his navigation system is on the fritz, rather than catching on to the fact that one of the toys is voicing the system, one must shake one’s head.

Suspension of disbelief is increasingly required in these types of films.

Toy Story 4 picks up steam in the final twenty minutes with a thrilling adventure through the amusement park and a cute romance between Woody and Bo Peep.

When the long-forgotten toy Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) emotionally rescues a lost child, she is rejuvenated and breathes new life into both the child’s life and her own.

In a darling moment, Forky meets another creation named Knifey. Knifey suffers from the same existential crisis as Forky once did, and Forky immediately becomes smitten with her, both realizing that even though they are odd-looking, they still matter.

The nice lesson learned is that even toys from the 1960s and 1970s can provide warmth and comfort to a young child and are more than “of their time”.

This is a clear and bold message that resonates with human beings and acknowledges that advanced age does not come with an expiration date.

Everyone matters and brings importance. The underlying theme is heartwarming and central to the film, bringing it above mediocrity.

What should certainly be the final chapter in a tired franchise that continues to trudge along, the bright message and strong animations remain, but the film feels like a retread.

Given that Toy Story 3 was released in 2010, Toy Story 4 (2019) needs to bring the series to a conclusion before installments 5, 6, 7, or 8 result in a dead-on-arrival sequel.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Song-“I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away”

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood-2019

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood-2019

Director Marielle Heller

Starring Matthew Rhys, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #964

Reviewed December 6, 2019

Grade: A

Any viewer seeking a weepy affair should look no further than A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019). The film is sentimental, without ever feeling sappy or overwrought; instead, it abounds with freshness and authenticity.

Tom Hanks is brilliant as the iconic children’s television personality, and Matthew Rhys holds his own, delivering a fantastic performance as an angry journalist tasked with writing a magazine article about the legend.

The film is heartwarming and teary with a poignant and inspirational message, and in 2019, we could all use a little Mister Rogers in our lives.

The film’s period is 1998, and on the outs with his father, Jerry (Chris Cooper), Lloyd Vogel (Rhys) works as a writer for Esquire magazine. Both attend Lloyd’s sister’s wedding, where the two men come to blows over past disputes, ruining the wedding reception and reigniting their feud.

Lloyd’s wife, Andrea, serves as a mediator when their newborn son becomes an interesting link between father and son. When Lloyd meets with Mister Rogers (Hanks), he is at first skeptical of the man’s benevolence, but the two men slowly develop a strong bond, forging a deep friendship.

Director Marielle Heller drew acclaim for her recent film, Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018), a project about a grizzled New York writer.

Once again, her lead character is a dark and troubled writer, but with enough humanity bubbling under the surface to make the character likable. The contrast between the two main characters (Lloyd and Mister Rogers) is palpable and central to the story, making it intriguing and successful.

Her message is a strong lesson in humanity.

The setup is tremendous for anyone who has a clue to the unconditional kindness that Mister Rogers embodies. He not only adores children but also all of humanity, and, as referenced, he is particularly drawn to those who are wounded or broken.

The legend sees the goodness in all human beings and focuses on everyone he speaks with rather than on himself. What a wonderful message of patient, goodness, and empathy Heller carves from start to finish.

No surprise is how Rogers teaches Lloyd to accept and forgive Jerry. During a thrilling scene, Lloyd lashes out at his father, reminding him that when he was bedding other women, his wife (Lloyd’s mother) lay riddled with cancer, not dying in peace, but screaming with agony.

The irony is that Jerry is now at death’s door, attempting to make amends with Lloyd before he dies. Both men are wounded and damaged, but because of Mister Rogers’ kindness, they come to an understanding. The message is lovely and kind.

I was surprised at how emotionally fulfilling the film turned out to be. Mister Rogers cares, and one can easily slip into a fantasy that, as he sits and holds a conversation with Lloyd, gazing whimsically and thoughtfully into his eyes, he is staring into our very own eyes.

I sure did, and what a powerful emotion that conjures. When Mister Rogers asks to take a moment of silence to think about the people who have shaped our lives, there is no doubt that each member of the movie theater audience did just that.

Hanks is a godsend and ideally suited for the role. Known to be a kindly humanitarian himself, he easily slips into the role of Mister Rogers and imitates the mannerisms perfectly. Especially impressive is when Danny, a puppet bear, appears on screen.

Savvy viewers will realize that Rogers channels his childhood through this character and the pain he felt as an overweight child.

Hanks is a tremendous actor, winning Oscars for Philadelphia (1993) and Forrest Gump (1994), so we have every confidence in his ability to craft a new character so well.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) wins the year’s award for evoking the most emotion from viewers. The familiar “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” tune will evoke memories and add a level of sentiment to a heartwarming film.

Instead of crafting a sterile or preachy film, Heller delivers a simple message of kindness and understanding, along with a valuable lesson in accepting people as they are.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Tom Hanks

The Irishman-2019

The Irishman-2019

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci

Scott’s Review #960

Reviewed November 20, 2019

Grade: A

Any film created by legendary director Martin Scorsese is sure to impress legions of adoring followers and most critics.

Every project he touches results in something fantastic, and it’s easy to revel in, with good analysis and discussion about the movie moments after the closing credits have rolled.

The Irishman (2019) is a film that demands repeated viewings and thoughtful consideration to appreciate the rich and diverse cast of characters fully.

The picture may not be on the same level as Goodfellas (1990) or The Godfather (1972), which it seems patterned after, but the work is awe-inspiring and should stand the test of time, resulting in a fine wine analogy.

The years will likely be kind to the film and enrich the experience- it’s that kind of film.

With stars like Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, and Harvey Keitel on board, the viewer expects a plethora of riches, and that is precisely what is delivered.

The film spans the period from the 1950s to the 1970s.

It follows the life of Frank Sheeran (De Niro), a truck driver who becomes a hitman and becomes involved with mobster Russell Bufalino (Pesci) and his crime family, including his time working for the powerful Teamster Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino). Sheeran is dubbed “the Irishman”.

He narrates much of the story, now quite elderly and residing in a nursing home, of his time in the mafia and the mystery surrounding the death of Hoffa.

The only negatives to the film are the suspension of disbelief that De Niro is Irish – was there ever a more quintessential Italian New Yorker? However, this film is directed by Scorsese and produced by De Niro, so they could tell me the sky is green, and I would readily nod in agreement.

At three hours and twenty-nine minutes, the film is a long haul, and towards the middle, the film meanders a bit. Perhaps twenty or thirty minutes could have been sliced to the cutting room floor.

The rest of the experience The Irishman serves up is brilliance, with rich characters and a fantastic atmosphere. Have I mentioned that Scorsese directed this film? The cast of characters is endless and drips with zest, speaking volumes for what The Godfather did with casting.

Many recognizable actors appear in minor roles, like Ray Romano as attorney Bill Bufalino, Bobby Cannavale as “Skinny Razor”, and Anna Paquin as Frank’s estranged daughter, Peggy.

An endless supply of character actors fleshes out the remaining cast.

Excellent is the plethora of food references that would impress notable food director Alfred Hitchcock, known for incorporating meals into many of his scenes. The delectable early scenes, when Frank delivers meat to grocers and gets into a discussion with a gangster over a good steak, will leave viewers mouth-watering for a tender sirloin.

The conversations between characters are interesting, slowly building and adding robust grit to a packed film. They engage in good, thoughtful dialogue exchanges and discuss life and experiences matter-of-factly.

Characters are given a chance to develop and grow, and even minor characters, such as a nurse or a wife, add a comforting aura. It is evident what treasured films look like when a director can create and develop without outside interference.

The standouts in the acting department are Pacino and De Niro, the former of whom I’m crossing my fingers will receive an Oscar nomination.

The pairing is flawless, and eagle-eyed fans will recall that both actors appeared together in The Godfather Part II (1974) yet never shared a scene.

In The Irishman, they appear together in pivotal scenes. Pacino infuses Hoffa with humor and poise, as only Pacino can, in a character. He is my favorite character and is tough to look away from.

Both actors, along with Pesci, are treated to a recent marvel in cinema —the de-aging process. Each actor, well into his seventies, is transformed to appear in his mid-forties in many scenes and then aged to appear elderly later in life.

While each has a strange, unnatural look as a younger man, the process is impressive and an innovative technique that will surely become more common in film, subsequently offering limitless possibilities.

The Irishman (2019) is a cinematic gem by a storied director advancing in years, but still offering grandiose films. With stalwarts like De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino, the players are well cast, and nuanced touches add dimensions to the finished product.

Offering a gangster film with grace and style, the story is poignant and crisp, and a thoughtful approach to one of the legendary mysteries- what happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Martin Scorsese, Best Supporting Actor-Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

Marriage Story-2019

Marriage Story-2019

Director Noah Baumbach

Starring Adam Driver, Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #959

Reviewed November 14, 2019

Grade: A

Marriage Story (2019) is a film that could have been generic, melodramatic, or contrived. Before its release, it was described as an excellent” version of Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) or Terms of Endearment (1983).

Those are excellent films, but marginally sappy and overwrought. Marriage Story excels at being a brilliant, powerful, and realistic portrayal of a marriage disintegrating, painting a picture of how good people can turn ugly under certain circumstances.

Believe the hype of how good this film is.

Taking place in both New York City and Los Angeles, we meet Charlie and Nicole Barber (Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson), a theater director and his wife, an actress who stars in his plays.

They fill notebook paper with what they love most about each other, and the list is lengthy.

Appearing to be madly in love, the audience soon realizes that the couple is amid an amicable separation, the writings a result of an assignment by a “separations counselor”, hired to make things easier.

Charlie and Nicole share an eight-year-old son named Henry. Nicole returns to Los Angeles to resume her acting career and spend time with her mother (Julie Hagerty) and sister (Merritt Wever). Adam, successful in New York City, plans to stay and reside with his son.

Nicole hires a tough lawyer, Nora (Laura Dern), while Charlie begrudgingly hires semi-retired attorney Bert Spitz (Alan Alda), and later Jay (Ray Liotta). Nicole and Charlie are sensible, planning to work things out on their own, only needing representation for formalities, or so they think.

The situation escalates, spinning out of control as their divorce becomes increasingly hostile, as custody of their young son ups the ante. Qualities they once loved about each other become hate-filled arguments as the couple fights and feuds, as their attorneys scramble for a leg up.

Can the couple save themselves as secrets bubble to the surface, and situations be used against each other?

The film is a lengthy two hours and sixteen minutes, so the plot takes time to capture its viewer. When it eventually takes hold, it never lets go, forcefully enrapturing the watcher.

We care for both Charlie and Nicole, and while sympathizing with each other at different times, both characters are written as benevolent.

There is no villain except the divorce itself.

The key to success is in the writing. Director, Noah Baumbach, known for The Squid and the Whale (2005), and Frances Ha (2012) knows how to craft witty and clever dialogue, weaving comedy and drama intricately together.

He can make the viewer laugh and cry within the same scene.

The screenplay is the best part of the film because it is laden with crackling words and interesting situations.

Marriage Story reminds me of a Woody Allen film. Feeling improvised, unsure if any of the dialogue is, the characters speak lengthy soliloquies and engage in endless chatter with each other or themselves.

This results in a powerful medium of self-expression and a “talkie” movie.

The banter between characters is not drivel nor gibberish but contains significant, emotionally rich meaning and flavor.

The film belongs to Driver and Johansson, each delivering a home run. Driver is the stronger of the two, but not by much, and this is only because his emotional scenes feel rawer than hers do.

When the actors engage in a knock-down, drag-out fight, the scene is lengthy and exceptionally well-acted, with each taking turns verbally attacking the other. Vicious rage and emotional fury come to the forefront.

This is the best scene in the film.

Dern, Alda, and Liotta are terrific, bringing respect to the film. Each has been on the Hollywood scene for a long time, and each plays an attorney. While Dern’s and Liotta’s characters are sharks, Alda is a reasonable and realistic older man who has seen it all.

Burt lays down the facts for Charlie, making him realize how much is at stake. Dern shines as the sexy blonde attorney who wears revealing clothes and legs for miles. Grizzled Liotta plans to win at all costs. What a delight to see these veterans bring electricity to each scene.

Lastly, I adore the bi-coastal locales of New York City and Los Angeles. The big cities burst with meaning and are as different as day and night, as the film explains.

Charlie is a New Yorker, and Nicole is a California girl at heart. The numerous scenes shot on location in both cities lend the film richness and texture.

With Marriage Story (2019), Baumbach creates his best and most personal film.  Rumored to be partly autobiographical, he takes a subject matter that most assume has already been exhausted and spins the story in a different direction, making it feel fresh.

The aspects all come together in an experience that is emotional, powerful, and intelligent. The film is a treasure and a shining example to young filmmakers that good writing always prevails.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actor-Adam Driver, Best Actress-Scarlett Johansson, Best Supporting Actress-Laura Dern (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Screenplay (won), Robert Altman Award (won)

Midsommar-2019

Midsommar-2019

Director Ari Aster

Starring Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor

Scott’s Review #957

Reviewed November 11, 2019

Grade: B+

Director Ari Aster made a splash with his feature-length directorial debut, the horror-drama film Hereditary, in 2018. The film received enormous accolades, even considered for an Oscar nomination, and was quite bizarre and horrific.

Aster follows up with Midsommar (2019), a film that is arguably even freakier and more ambitious.

The film is slow-moving and foreboding, but it ultimately reaches a macabre and perplexing climax. My initial reaction is that the film is a fine wine with additional richness upon subsequent viewings.

The film quickly gets off to a creepy start in the United States as college student Dani Ardor (Florence Pugh) receives a cryptic email from her troubled sister. Her sister soon kills herself and her parents by filling the house with carbon monoxide fumes.

Dani is devastated and needs support from her distant boyfriend, Christian (Jack Reynor), an anthropology student. The couple continues to feel increasingly disconnected from each other as the months pass.

Dani and Christian decide to join some friends at a midsummer festival in a remote Swedish village. One friend has relatives in the town, and another chooses to work on his thesis.

What begins as a carefree holiday takes a devious turn when the villagers invite the group to partake in festivities that grow increasingly unnerving and viscerally disturbing.

Strange events begin to occur as the subsequent series of celebrations gets underway.

Any horror film that mixes pagan cults, folklore, and religion easily provides the creeps, and Midsommar successfully hybridizes American culture with Swedish culture in frightening form.

Much of the film takes place in a remote area, with sprawling sunny lands and a deathly silent atmosphere.

The cheery locale has a peculiar California vibe, and Swedish women often adorn their hair with hairstyles reminiscent of the Charles Manson era.

Uncertain is whether this was Aster’s intent or not.

I love how the students are intelligent and worldly, using their time in the village to learn and study. The traditional horror stereotype involving high school or college students is their desire to guzzle beer, party, have sex, and do little else.

Aster wisely makes his group intellectual and more studious than the norm. The students do partake in drugs, but this has more to do with the villagers having healing remedies and other sorts of herbal delicacies.

Midsommar contains many lengthy nude scenes, both male and female, the actors readily baring both their fronts and their rears. This is almost unheard of in American film, but Midsommar is a co-production between the United States and Sweden, providing more leeway in the nudity department.

When Christian is given a strong psychedelic and beds a virginal villager eager to mate, the poor chap winds up chased around the village in the buff. This occurs after he inseminates the girl as they are surrounded by nude female villagers cheering them on.

Confusing and left unclear are the motivations of the villagers. The point is made that nine human sacrifices must be made to rid the village of evil, but why is the evil there to begin with?

During a ritual, it is revealed, in gruesome form, that those elderly folks commit suicide at age seventy-two, and their names are given to newborns.

The handsome Christian is a prime candidate to provide life, but why are the others killed? Were they lured intentionally, and does their being American have anything to do with it? Was the intent all along to crown Dani May Queen, or did she win the dancing competition?

The climax of the film ties back to the beginning portion only in terms of Dani’s and Christian’s relationship, and her family’s deaths seem to have little to do with the overall narrative. Does Dani intend revenge on Christian, or is she so drugged that she is unaware of her actions? Will she remain in the village?

A film heavily influenced by The Wicker Man (1973), Midsommar (2019) has divided audiences, with common reviews offering mixed opinions. Some despise the film, calling it one of the worst ever seen.

Others herald it as a work of art, an unsettling offering that provokes thought and provides a sinister feel.

I found an enormous number of questions left unanswered, and this may be a good thing. It only makes me want to see the film again or peel back the onion post-film to dissect the many layers Aster creates.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Cinematography

Jojo Rabbit-2019

Jojo Rabbit-2019

Director Taika Waititi

Starring Roman Griffin Davis, Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #955

Reviewed November 6, 2019

Grade: A

Jojo Rabbit (2019) is, quite simply, a satire.

This type of film, and this style of filmmaking, is not intended for all palates. The subject of Nazis and Adolf Hitler will hit too close to home for some viewers, especially considering this film is being classified as a comedy, albeit a dark one.

With this risk in mind, the film has a fabulous message, is quirky, well-acted, and a marvelous piece of work. But it is a gradual, acquired taste, and not everyone will leave theaters feeling satisfied. I sure did.

Director Taika Waititi, a Jewish man, is careful to toe the line with his story, teetering close to the edge, but never going too far overboard.

He is careful not to offend those who may have close ties to World War II, the horrific events that took place, or disrespect the scars that remain.

Instead, he teaches a lesson of acceptance, humanity, and pathos. A laugh one moment leads to tragedy and tears the next, making Jojo Rabbit quite the robust emotional experience.

The time is the 1940s, setting Germany, as Roman Griffin Davis portrays the title character, a Hitler Youth who finds out his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl, Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), in their attic.

Energetic and excitable, he joins a training camp where he is unable to kill a defenseless rabbit, earning him his new nickname. Jojo slowly comes to question his beliefs while dealing with the intervention of his imaginary friend, an idiotic version of Adolf Hitler (Waititi).

He eventually forges a close bond with Elsa.

As the film begins, it immediately reminds me of Wes Anderson’s distinctive storytelling style. Think The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) or Moonrise Kingdom (2012).

With quick editing and fast-paced monotone dialogue, the characters initially appear silly and trite, yet offer witty responses to unusual situations. As the relationships deepen, the audience comes to fall in love with them.

Davis is an outstanding child actor and the heart of the film.

Johansson’s Rosie, the mother, is secretly anti-Nazi. She’s got flair, pizzazz, and a good pair of shoes. She states that to dance is to be alive, offering Jojo words of wisdom. They come upon a few dangling bodies perched in the center of town for all to see.

They have been caught aiding Jewish people and are a deadly symbol to present. Rosie tells Jojo not to look away, for these people did what little they could.

This scene is a poignant one.

Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), a Nazi captain who oversees the youth camp, initially appears to be a buffoon and a one-dimensional character. He deepens as not just his patriotism, but his sexuality is called into question.

The LGBTQ angle is implied, but only lightly touched upon, so that the point remains vague and mysterious.

The Captain stands very close by his second-in-command, Finkel, and a scene at the pool will make many wonder about the proper relationship between the men.

Finally, Yorki, Jojo’s best friend, is just adorable, providing sweetness and genuine quality that is undeniably benevolent. McKenzie, as the frightened yet strong Elsa, is courageous to a fault. Stubborn and inflexible, she softens to Jojo as they get to know each other.

Her mysterious boyfriend, Nathan, never seen on-screen, plays a prominent role and is a key to the relationship between her and Jojo. The characters are an integral part of the film.

Made in 2019, a volatile time on planet earth, and especially in the United States, the film breathes fresh air into the world of inclusion and acceptance. Much of this is slowly revealed as events transpire to a crescendo.

As the war ends, several lives are forever changed, some for the better, others tragically, but each is connected to the others, enriching their respective lives.

Waititi celebrates the gifts, joys, and heartbreaks of life.

Jojo Rabbit (2019) is a film that prompts the viewer to think critically and challenges them to reconcile innocence and evil. Despite the subject matter, the film is neither cold nor harsh, and it does not disrespect history.

Incorporated are death and tragedy, mixed with learning and strong relationships.

The film is a great experience and an essential find among many routines and mainstream projects. Jojo Rabbit perks up the cinema, and hopefully the viewer, with a beautiful message.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress-Scarlett Johansson, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Yesterday-2019

Yesterday-2019

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Himesh Patel, Lily James

Scott’s Review #952

Reviewed October 29, 2019

Grade: B-

Yesterday (2019) is a film that is silly but sentimental, oozing with a nice quality that becomes tiresome towards the conclusion.

For those seeking a safe experience, the film will be deemed as wonderful, but for those with an appetite for a left-of-center grit, the film will only marginally entertain. It’s safe.

Director Danny Boyle (2008’s Slumdog Millionaire) chooses a charismatic British-Indian actor, Himesh Patel, for the starring role in a film that any fan of the rock band The Beatles should see.

Jack Malick (Patel) is a struggling musician who resides in Lowestoft, England, a suburb of London. Unsuccessful, he is nonetheless encouraged by his manager and childhood friend, Ellie (Lily James), to reach for the stars and never give up his dreams of achieving success.

One day, he is hit by a bus during a global blackout and is hospitalized with a head injury and missing teeth. When he performs the Beatles song “Yesterday” for his friends, they are blown away by its genius.

Jack realizes that the entire world has never heard of the legendary band and capitalizes on the stroke of luck, becoming a rock n roll superstar.

The massive song catalog of the Beatles featured in Yesterday is the best part of the film. The pleasure is in wondering which songs will appear next and in what context. Jack awkwardly “debuts” the song “Let it Be” to his parents, who continuously botch the name of the song, only showing mild interest.

Next, Jack furiously attempts to remember the lyrics to “Eleanor Rigby”, a difficult song lyrically. Other gorgeous classics featured are “The Long and Winding Road”, “Here Comes the Sun”, and “Something”.

A sentimental nod and appearance of a John Lennon figure is a nice touch and a worthy dedication to the deceased legend. The key here is wondering what would have become of the assassinated star had he not been famous.

The film approaches this when revealing that Lennon would be an older man today. Lennon tells Jack in a sentimental scene that he has lived happily with his wife by his side. If only this had been the case.

Patel is charming and a character to root for. As the butt of jokes made by his friends, who truly adore him, he is neither the handsome lead nor the wimpy co-star, more of a hybrid of the two.

We want him to achieve musical success because he is a nice guy, but we are glad when he finally confesses to the phony plot, as predictable as that revelation is to the film. Patel’s best scenes occur on stage when he either rocks out to the guitar or adorns us with a piano ballad.

Other than the above notes, Yesterday was only mildly entertaining, as it mixed a musical with a romantic story that does not work. If the audience is expected to root for Jack and Ellie to get together, then the idea falls flat.

The pair has no chemistry, nor is Ellie even remotely written as being the type who would live the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle or want to. She is an elementary school teacher and asks Jack to give up his dream and lead a simple life in the suburbs. Who would do that?

Yesterday is riddled with stock characters, some of whom may or may not exist in real life. As much as I love actress/comedian Kate McKinnon, her overbearing character of Debra Hammer doesn’t showcase her best work.

Driven and cold, the character is played for laughs with her over-the-top behavior, but it feels too much like a part written to showcase McKinnon. Jack’s parents are cliche-filled characters, doting around with confused expressions and seeming to be overwhelmed by all events.

A musical film that cringes with a safe and saccharine feel, saved only slightly by the bevy of mostly 1960s hits by the Beatles, some of which lyrically are dissected and showcased.

Yesterday (2019) features pop star Ed Sheeran, who does not act or contribute to the film. Way too polished and superfluous for its good, Boyle, a worthy director, should have added some edginess rather than going for safe pop.

Thank goodness the film is about the Beatles rather than the Backstreet Boys.

Ma-2019

Ma-2019

Director Tate Taylor

Starring Octavia Spencer, Diana Silvers

Scott’s Review #949

Reviewed October 22, 2019

Grade: B+

Marketed as a slasher film based on the trailers, Ma (2019) impressed me immensely as my expectations of a standard horror film were superseded by a more complex, perfectly paced psychological thriller.

A fantastic performance by Octavia Spencer, and dare I mention an Oscar-worthy one if this were a different type of film, the actress effortlessly brings a vulnerability to a not-so-easy role to play.

The finale is disappointing, and the film includes a few too many stereotypes, but it is a terrific effort nonetheless.

Set somewhere in remote Ohio, but looking more like the southern United States, teenager Maggie Thomson (Diana Silvers) and her mom Erica (Juliette Lewis) return to Erica’s hometown after her marriage fails.

Reduced to a job as a cocktail waitress at a local casino, she encourages Maggie to make friends. Maggie falls into the popular crowd as Erica reconnects with high-school friends who are mostly the parents of Maggie’s new friends.

Sue Ann (Spencer) bonds with the cool kids by purchasing them alcohol and hosting parties in her basement, much to the displeasure of her parents.

The audience soon realizes that something is amiss with Sue Ann. She forbids the kids from ever venturing upstairs and slowly develops a needy attachment to the teens.

Flashbacks begin to emerge as clues to her connection to the other parents and her plot for revenge.

The incorporation of a place in the house to avoid is a typical horror gimmick that always works well. Inevitably, someone will venture into that area of the house, and a secret will be revealed. Ma is no different in this regard.

It’s terrific to see more diversity, particularly among the African-American population, represented in the horror genre. Typically, the horror genre has been an all-white affair, with actors of color often cast as best friends or in minor supporting roles at best.

Thanks to Get Out (2017) and Us (2019), horror films have recently included all-black casts and have been tremendous hits.

Let’s hold out hope that the Asian, Latino, and LGBTQ communities will receive more inclusion and bring freshness to a key cinematic genre.

The film belongs to Spencer.

The Oscar-winning actress must have had a fun time with this role and gets to let loose during many scenes. She goes from coquettish to maniacal, sometimes within the same scene, with flawless precision and gutsy acting decisions.

My favorite, Sue Ann, is the unhinged one as she slyly threatens to cut one male character’s genitalia off. She smirks and uses her large, expression-filled eyes to her advantage. Psycho has never looked so good!

The climax, so crucial in horror or thrillers, to follow through and capitalize on the build-up, ultimately fails in Ma. Once the big reveal surfaces and a childhood prank is exposed, the trick hardly seems worthy of a killing bonanza.

A mousy Sue Ann performed fellatio on a nerd instead of her crush. Even those involved on the outskirts are blamed, and waiting twenty years to exact revenge on her tormentors (most of whom have repented) doesn’t seem plausible.

Ma (2019) contains a hefty cast of stalwarts, but it’s Spencer who brings the sometimes-generic material and trivial conclusion to crackling life with her brilliant portrayal of a damaged woman.

Allison Janney, Lewis, and others add respectability when the film teeters too close to mediocrity with its teen character cliches. Still, the film excels when it focuses on a character-rich story and unexpected plot points.

Child’s Play-2019

Child’s Play-2019

Director Lars Klevberg

Starring Aubrey Plaza, Mark Hamill

Scott’s Review #948

Reviewed October 17, 2019

Grade: B

In the horror cinematic genre, when a successful franchise has been dormant for a period, a reboot will inevitably be among the offerings.

Child’s Play (2019) resurrects the series of films popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s with a modern stamp.

The film is formulaic, but it adds a bit of macabre dark humor that lifts it above mediocrity. However, the freshness turns too silly in the final act, and neither the film nor the killer is terrifying.

Kaslan Corporation has launched a successful new global product called Buddi, a revolutionary line of high-tech dolls designed to be human-like companions to their owners, learning from their surroundings and acting accordingly.

Buddi dolls can also connect to and operate other Kaslan products, quickly becoming a phenomenon for kids worldwide. A disgruntled employee tweaks one of the dolls to turn sinister and then commits suicide.

Single mom Karen Barclay (Aubrey Plaza) works as a retail clerk in Chicago, raising a thirteen-year-old son named Andy (Gabriel Bateman), who wears a hearing aid.

New to the area, he struggles to make friends, so Karen takes the defective doll from her store as a substitute friend and picks me up for her son.

As Andy makes acquaintances within the building and takes a dislike to Karen’s new beau, Shane (David Lewis), Buddi names himself Chucky and seeks vengeance against those surrounding Andy, eventually turning on the boy.

Child’s Play takes a modernized approach by making the new Chucky a more high-tech doll, significantly advanced from the original Chucky introduced in 1988.

2019’s Chucky is creepier and more lifelike than the original Chucky, which lends the film a fresh look rather than merely a retread of the 1980s.

Set in present times, the film feels relevant and glossy. New Chucky is more human than old Chucky, with more capabilities and room for thought and deduction, making him more devious.

A treat for Star Wars (1977) fans and any fan of cinema history is the inclusion of Mark Hamill as the voice of Chucky. While Hamill’s voice is not sinister nor particularly distinguishable to the naked ear, the star power adds fun and familiarity, a throwback and ode to film lore.

Hamill’s voice is pleasant and kind, which adds a foreboding and sinister quality.

The film has some clever moments and bits of chilling dark humor that make it a fun experience. When Shane becomes the first victim of Chucky’s wrath and meets a dire fate at the hands of a tiller while hanging Christmas lights, he is beheaded, and Chucky leaves the head in a disgusted Andy’s room.

In hilarious and laugh-out-loud form, the head ends up as a wrapped Christmas present for Andy’s elderly neighbor Doreen, who props it on her mantle until she can open it.

Bryan Tyree Henry, known for his prominent roles in Widows (2018) and the wonderful If Beale Street Could Talk (2018), brings comedy and a likable edge as Andy’s neighbor, Detective Mike Norris.

Plaza, like Karen, is given limited material and unable to shine in her role, not seeming old enough nor motherly enough to add much realism. A big fan of the actress, she is more talented than this part allows her to be.

The film misfires with the cliched misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions that Andy is responsible for the deaths Chucky caused.  Andy’s two apartment buddies are caricatures, and the big finale set inside the retail store is disappointing.

Chucky brilliantly hacks the Buddi toys on the shelves, and chaos ensues as parents and children are massacred as a stampede tries to escape the store. The scene does not work as well as it should at a climax.

Sticking closely to the script and offering a predictable formula film, the 1988 film Child’s Play is remade in 2019 with added star power. Familiar faces (and voices), Plaza, Henry, and Hamill, raise the film slightly above B-movie status, though the dumb finale made me tune out a bit after the main kills were over.

I doubt the film performed well enough at the box office to secure the known actor’s returns, and hopefully, this will be a one-and-done project.

Downton Abbey-2019

Downton Abbey-2019

Director Michael Engler

Starring Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #947

Reviewed October 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Capitalizing on the tremendous success of the television series, which ended in 2015, Downton Abbey (2019) is a British historical period drama film written by Julian Fellowes, creator and writer of the series.

Beloved fans will devour the film, as the familiar formula and characters are brought to the big screen, giving it an even grander feel.

The film plays more like a two-hour episode arc over reinventing the wheel, but the result is a resounding crowd-pleasing affair with drama, scandals, and a good dose of nostalgia.

The Crawleys and their servants reside in the lavish fictional estate of Downton Abbey during the year 1927, a year and a half after the series ended.

Little has changed, and most of the characters are in similar situations, enjoying their daily lives.

Robert (Hugh Bonneville) and Cora Crawley (Elizabeth McGovern), the Earl and Countess of Grantham, are notified that King George V and Queen Mary will visit their home as part of a royal tour throughout the country.

The family and staff are excited yet skittish as they prepare to ensure the lavish event goes off without a hitch.

Situations arise such as the Downton Abbey servants feuding with the Buckingham Palace staff, Violet Crawley’s (Maggie Smith) dismay at Robert’s cousin Maud (Imelda Staunton) being in attendance, and attempted plot to kill the King which is thwarted by Tom (Allen Leach).

A new job offer for Edith’s (Laura Carmichael) husband, Mary’s (Michelle Dockery) frustration with maintaining the vast estate, and potential romances for several characters, including a scandalous same-sex relationship.

A few contemporary issues are created – among them, women’s rights and the plight of gay men. And though welcome, neither changes the overall blueprint of what the series is about, which is just what the series fans ordered.

Smith is the main attraction as she chews up the scenery with her insults, sarcasm, and blunt honesty. But the best scene, coming late in the film, gives Smith a chance to burst with sentimentality and limit the hamminess for at least one treasured scene.

The costumes and art direction are lovely, with luscious gowns, tuxedos, suits, jackets, hats, and shoes found in every scene.

The sprawling grounds of Downton Abbey and the ravishing interiors are front and center.

The film ventures to the neighboring city of York to offer a more progressive and metropolitan vibe, but each scene looks perfect, which is what fans have come to expect.

Not every character is front and center, but with an unwieldy cast of close to thirty principals, some are destined to accept back-burner status.

Surprisingly, yet agreeably, is the toned-down story for “super-couple” Bates (Brendan Coyle) and Anna (Joanne Froggatt), having enjoyed their share of trials and tribulations during the original run.

Wonderful moments feature supporting characters like Carson (Jim Carter), Thomas (Robert James-Collier), and Molesley (Kevin Doyle), who nearly steals the show with his hysterical fascination with royalty.

The balance and pace of the film are nearly perfect, and every character has at least something to do.

This characteristic has always helped huge ensemble casts succeed, and Fellowes wisely balances humor with drama but avoids tragedy or dark situations, hoping for mainstream success with his move to the big screen, opting to play it safe.

The attempt succeeds as the film adopts the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach.

Downton Abbey (2019) is a splendid winner, primarily due to its impressive production values and costumes.

For fans of the television series, the film is a must-see and offers no more or no less than expected, providing more than enough to please those who want what the popular stories initially offered.

Despite the drama, the film does not feel “soapy” or contrived, and the tender moments may evoke a need for a hankie.

If the writing can remain fresh, I see no reason for another offering not to be green-lit, primarily due to the significant box-office returns.

Judy-2019

Judy-2019

Director Rupert Goold

Starring Renee Zellweger

Scott’s Review #946

Reviewed October 14, 2019

Grade: A

Creating a film about an iconic figure like Judy Garland is undoubtedly a challenging task. Casting the role is even tougher.

Both points come together with perfect symmetry as director Rupert Goold provides Judy (2019) with heart, hope, and a sense of sadness. Rene Zellweger is astounding in the title role as she embodies the character.

The film is excellent and an accurate telling of the real-life person.

The period is 1967, and we meet the adult Judy Garland (Zellwegger) well after midnight, having performed with her two young children in tow. Haggard, they are informed by the Los Angeles hotel staff that their room has been given up due to non-payment.

The American singer and actress is broke due to bad marriages, drugs, and alcohol. The star is forced to return to her ex-husband for shelter—the two quarrel about the children.

The film does not focus solely on the late 1960s and the final years of Garland’s life, but also delves back to her debut as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939).

The pressures put upon the aspiring actress to perform, lose weight, and maintain her energy are shown in savage fury, so that the audience realizes how the young girl has turned into a boozy, unreliable middle-aged woman.

Hollywood ruined her innocence.

Zellweger is beyond brilliant. Having disappeared from the spotlight for several years, the actress is back with a vengeance, having something to prove. Prove she does as she becomes Judy Garland.

From her small but expressive eyes to her nervous movements and pursed lips, she delivers a flawless performance and has been rewarded with praise across the board.

It is a remarkable portrayal that should be remembered in history.

Much of the film takes place in London as Garland is forced, for financial reasons, to agree to a series of concerts to bring in cash. This necessitates leaving her children behind.

A poignant scene unfolds in a phone booth as Judy reaches the heartbreaking conclusion that her children would prefer the stability of living with their father. Though she understands, the star crumbles in sadness and loneliness.

A treat is the showcasing of Garland’s compassion for others deemed outcasts, as she also was. Gravitating towards gay men, she spots one gay couple in the audience night after night and befriends them as they eagerly await her exit from the theater one night.

She suggests dinner, and the dumbfounded couple clumsily searches for a restaurant open that late, finally offering to make her scrambled eggs at their flat.

Things go awry, but it hardly matters in a heartfelt scene that exposes the prejudices same-sex couples faced as recently as the 1960s and the champion Garland was to the LGBTQ community.

The iconic “Over the Rainbow” is featured late in the film and perfectly placed. Judy ends her touring engagement due to hecklers but returns for a final night on stage, where she asks to perform one last song.

She breaks down while singing “Over the Rainbow,” but recovers with the encouragement of supportive fans and can complete the performance.

Judy asks, “You won’t forget me, will you?” She does not live long thereafter and dies in the summer of 1969. The scene is painful, and not a dry eye is left in the house.

Judy (2019) is a wonderful tribute to the life and times of a Hollywood legend. The film is neither a complete downer nor cheerful.

What the filmmakers do is make it clear that Garland always had hope for a better life and for the happiness that eluded her. She was kind to most and loved her children beyond measure.

Zellweger will likely eat up a plethora of awards throughout the season, as she should.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Renee Zellweger (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Renee Zellweger (won)

Hustlers-2019

Hustlers-2019

Director Lorene Scafaria

Starring Constance Wu, Jennifer Lopez

Scott’s Review #942

Reviewed October 3, 2019

Grade: B+

Hustlers (2019) is a film that I had no intention of seeing. It was not on my radar, and I did not know much about the movie except that it was promoted as a story about a group of strippers who bamboozle Wall Street men.

Yawn!

The experience was better than expected, thanks to the critically lauded performance by Jennifer Lopez. She astounds in a role perfectly written for her as the true story champions female empowerment, and why shouldn’t it?

The result is a feminist film with humor.

Constance Wu, famous for putting Asian actors on the map with Crazy Rich Asians (2018), does a complete one-eighty as the lead character in Hustlers.

Unrecognizable, she plays a New York City stripper named Destiny, who works at a trendy Wall Street club named Moves, in 2007. She supports her grandmother and barely gets by on meager tips, possessing the looks but not quite the style.

When she witnesses fellow dancer Ramona Vega (Lopez) perform a simmering routine, the women bond and become fast friends.

Destiny enjoys newfound wealth and a close friendship with Ramona. A year later, the financial crisis strikes, and both women find themselves struggling for cash, having squandered their fortunes.

Destiny becomes pregnant.

Her boyfriend leaves her shortly after their daughter’s birth, and she is unable to find a new job. Destiny and Ramona, along with other girls, hatch a plot to manipulate the business people they have grown to know out of desperation.

The story is based on actual events.

Had the elements not wholly come together in this film, the result would have been dreary or at best mediocre.

A current trend in modern cinema is to have a group of female characters team up in some form of heist or crime-fighting adventure- think Ocean’s Eight (2018), the Ghostbusters (2016) remake, or Widows (2018).

Some results are better than others, but hardly memorable, as the girl-buddy genre hardly has any depth.

Two critical factors stand out to me as rising Hustlers way above a mediocre or standard fare film experience. Jennifer Lopez deserves all the praise she has been showered with for her role as Ramona.

From the moment Lopez, who is listed as Executive Producer, appears on screen, she is electrifying and impossible not to be mesmerized by.

As she shakes her booty (and many other parts of her anatomy) and writhes on stage to Fiona Apple’s “Criminal,” the men in the club throw money at her.

The scene oozes sexuality, and from this moment on, Lopez owns the film.

Lopez, besides Selena (1997), has primarily chosen mainstream and fluff material like The Wedding Planner (2001) and Maid in Manhattan (2002) over the years.

She may not be the Meryl Streep of her time, but it is always nice when an actor charts challenging and dangerous waters. May she continue to choose wisely. She powers through Hustlers with gusto and is the central draw.

Not to limit Hustlers to a conventional woman using sex appeal to lure men, the film is sure to get its message across to viewers in a more sobering way.

By 2008, the United States was in a financial landslide, with Wall Street being hit particularly hard. The point is made that not a single person went to jail for causing the collapse or for causing tens of thousands of people to lose their homes, jobs, or life savings.

This makes the audience realize that what the women did pales in comparison to Wall Street types (their victims), and many of their lures got what they deserved.

The subject matter at hand, being one of the worlds of strippers, may turn off some of the prudish, but delving into the emotions and aspirations of those who exist in the industry is eye-opening and quite enjoyable.

Hustlers (2019) successfully garnered empathy from its audience and champions a female empowerment movement, resulting in the surprise hit of the season.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Lorene Scafaria, Best Supporting Female-Jennifer Lopez, Best Cinematography

The Aftermath-2019

The Aftermath-2019

Director James Kent

Starring Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgard, Jason Clarke

Scott’s Review #940

Reviewed September 13, 2019

Grade: B-

The Aftermath (2019) is a heavily melodramatic post-World War II period film riddled with cliches and poor plot setups, but is nonetheless a moderately enjoyable experience.

With a marginal romantic triangle in play and good-looking stars, this can only go so far, as predictability soon sets in.

Exquisite to look at, with a bright and lush European ambiance, the picture is easy on the eyes but lacks a good story or surprises. The film will be forgotten before long.

The period is 1945, and the murderous war is still fresh on the minds of all affected, and animosity remains between the English and the Germans.

Rachael Morgan (Knightley) arrives in Hamburg during the bitter winter season to reunite with her British husband, Lewis (Clarke), who is tasked with helping to rebuild the decimated city.

The Morgans reside with a handsome German architect, Stefan (Skarsgard), and his teenage daughter, Freda. Resentment exists between the four since a German-caused explosion killed Morgan’s son.

Both positives and negatives are contained within the film.

The casting of Knightley, Skarsgard, and Clarke brings professionalism and A-list sensibility so that the viewer is keen to be watching a glossy Hollywood affair.

The offering of a robust romantic triangle is not fair to say, since from the moment Rachael and Stefan meet, they can barely take their eyes from one another.

As if this is not enough, the largely absent Lewis leaves plenty of alone time for Stefan and Rachael to watch each other lustfully. Nonetheless, Knightley and Skarsgard share great chemistry.

The time and setting are also well done. The gorgeous German house in which Stefan and his daughter reside feels both grand and cozy, complete with a piano and enough open space to go along perfectly with the snowy and crisp exterior shots.

The coldness mixes with the fresh effects of those ravaged by war. Music is played frequently, and a female servant dutifully waits on all the principals during dinners and desserts, adding classic sophistication to the film.

So, the look of it all is quite lovely.

Despite the elements outlined above, the story is a real weak point of The Aftermath. It is riddled with cliché after cliché and seems to want to take a page out of every war romance imaginable. Rachael at first loathes Stefan simply for being German, despite clearly being in lust with him.

Her constant gazes into the distance (thoughtfully pondering what, we wonder?) grow stale, and the product is just not very interesting.

A silly side story involving Freda’s boyfriend being involved in Werwolf, a Nazi resistance movement, seems unnecessary and merely a way to momentarily cast suspicion on Stefan.

The film is plot-driven rather than character-driven, and this makes the characters less than compelling.

The final sequence, set on a train platform as Rachael, Stefan, and Freda eagerly decide to steal away into the sunset and begin a new life together, is standard fare. Lewis, the odd man out, is a bit too okay with the circumstances of Rachael and Stefan’s passion to be believed.

The farewell scene is stolen from the superb 2002 classic Far from Heaven and is nearly identical in every way.

Marvelous to look at and nurturing a slight historical lesson within its bright veneer, The Aftermath (2019) is a soap opera story-telling of a romance between two individuals who are not supposed to fall in love.

The film has pros and cons and is an okay watch, mainly because the talented cast raises it slightly above mediocrity, adding some measure of realism and avoiding it from being a disaster.

Recommended for anyone who adores melodrama mixed with a classic period piece.

IT: Chapter Two-2019

IT: Chapter Two- 2019

Director Andy Muschietti

Starring James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Bill Hader

Scott’s Review #939

Reviewed September 11, 2019

Grade: B+

A companion piece to the first chapter, named It (2017), and an adaptation of the famous and chilling 1986 novel by horror novelist Stephen King, It: Chapter Two (2019) is a successful culmination of the vast story and will please many fans.

A box-office hit mixing straight-ahead horror with the supernatural, and a tad of adventure mixed in, the film is to be appreciated in many ways, though I slightly prefer the first chapter by measure.

Set in present times (2016), twenty-seven years after the first film took place, the Losers’ Club kids are now nearing middle age, in their forties.

The most prominent characters in the group, Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain), Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy), and Richie Tozier (Bill Hader) are summoned by childhood chum Mike Hanlon to return to the sleepy town of Derry, Maine, after a series of murders begin at the summer carnival.

Each of them, except for Mike, has fled the small town and found success in bustling cities, living prosperous lives.

Because of a promise made as kids, the entire group reunites except for Stanley Uris, who chooses to fatally slit his wrists in a bathtub rather than return and face evil Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgard).

The six members wrestle with their demons and past mistakes while Pennywise takes the form of human beings and objects to terrorize the group, providing imagined and frenzied scares. At the same time, they scramble to perform a Native American ritual to destroy the beast.

It isn’t easy to write a successful review of It: Chapter Two as merely a stand-alone film since the two chapters are meant to be one cohesive, long film.

Filmed at the same time, the pacing and continuity are what make the experience an enjoyable one. The key is the interspersing of many scenes, a hybrid of childhood and adult sequences, which gives the film a cohesive package.

This style is a treat for viewers who have seen the first chapter two years ago. After the hoopla dies down, patient fans would do well to watch both chapters in sequence in back-to-back sittings for an undoubtedly pleasant experience.

Director Andres Muschietti wisely places focus on the characters so that the film is character-driven rather than plot-driven, a risk with anything in the horror genre.

Each of the six adults resembles the six kids in physical appearance, which makes the story believable. A major strength is the focus on each character individually, both in the present and in the past. Each faces insecurity, guilt, or mistakes, making them complex.

At a running time of two hours and forty-nine minutes, the film can take its time with character exploration and depth.

A nice add-on and deviating slightly from the King novel is a modern LGBTQ presence. It is implied (though I admittedly missed this when I saw the film) that Richie (Hader) is either gay or wrestling with his sexuality.

The pivotal final scenes depict Richie’s undying love for his lifelong friend Eddie, as one saves the other’s life only to sacrifice his own. The fact that the love is unrequited or unrealized is both sad and heartbreaking.

The gay-bashing opening sequence of Adrian Mellon and his boyfriend is quite a difficult watch, as is the lack of any comeuppance for their perpetrators, but the scene is faithful to King’s novel.

It is also a jarring reminder that in 2019, small towns are not always the safest place for the LGBTQ community, as far too often, small towns breed small minds.

The film could contain more jumps and scares than it does, and teeters a bit too long in the overall running time. While the focus on the character is excellent, the final climax and the battle with Pennywise are a slight letdown and feel predictable.

The film is not scary in terms of horror but does have nice special effects and visual razzle-dazzle, especially concerning Pennywise. The creepy clown is less frightening than in the first chapter, but perhaps this is due to becoming more familiar with him.

A treat for eagle-eyed fans is the cameo appearance by legendary author Stephen King. As a cantankerous pawn shop owner, he sells Bill the relic bicycle he had enjoyed in his youth.

For bonus points, Muschietti treats fans to a scene including filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich, who cameos as the director of the film based on Bill’s novel.

It: Chapter Two (2019) offers good entertainment and will please fans of the horror genre and the famous author, as the film is very faithful to the novel.

As a modern horror experience, the film is a solid win, though not without slight missteps. Superior in depth and character development to most films in the same vein, it is a film to be enjoyed and appreciated.

The Curse of La Llorona-2019

The Curse of La Llorona-2019

Director Michael Chaves

Starring Linda Cardellini

Scott’s Review #937

Reviewed August 29, 2019

Grade: C+

The Curse of La Llorona (2019) is a modern-day horror flick that possesses all the standard and expected trimmings that a genre film of this ilk usually has.

The story is left undeveloped, with many possibilities unexplored in favor of a by-the-numbers experience.

Linda Cardellini, an outstanding actress, consistently exceeds the material she is given, yet she often comes up empty-handed.

It is the sixth installment in The Conjuring Universe franchise.

The film does have jumps and frights galore, and a creepy ghost/spirit character that is scary, but more was expected from this film, which left me ultimately disappointed.

First-time director Michael Chaves is a novice, so a bit of leniency should be given as he develops a limited product, but he could have a strong future ahead of him if he works on story elements rather than focuses on merely scare tactics.

In 1673, in Mexico, a family happily plays in a field when one of the boys suddenly witnesses his mother drowning his brother, and soon suffers the same fate.

This incident becomes part of Mexican folklore and is subsequently feared by many. In present times (1973), caseworker Anna (Cardellini) is sent to investigate a woman who has locked her two sons in a room. Despite the woman’s claims that she is trying to save their lives, Anna brings them into police custody.

When the boys are later found drowned, the woman curses Anna, whose two young children are now in danger.

The positives are that Chaves makes a competent film. It is not bad and provides a level of familiarity, with creaking doors, cracking mirrors, and an evil spirit named “The Weeping Woman” that are effective and provide a scare or two at just the right moments.

Characters frequently see the spirit through a reflection, and since the film is set almost entirely at night, this tactic is successful.

Cardellini, garnering recent fame for her role in the Oscar-winning film Green Book (2018), undoubtedly signed on for The Curse of La Llorona before all the Oscar wins.

The actress gives it her all but can hardly save the film, though she does provide the professionalism that raises the film above a terrible experience. Not nearly enough praise will be given to the young child actors playing Anna’s kids.

Largely one-note and lacking any evident experience, ironically, they mirror Chavez’s inexperience. They react to the scenes as they are directed, but never add any depth or authenticity to their performances.

Besides Cardellini and the horror elements, The Curse of La Llorona lacks much shine or substance. The plot and characters are forgettable, and the viewer is left shrugging their shoulders once the film concludes, essentially forgetting the production thirty minutes later.

The story, based on folklore, is weak.

The audience is expected to believe the spirit killed her children and now roams the earth looking for other sacrificial pairs of children so that she may bring hers back from the dead?

In one perplexing sequence, the Weeping Woman softens when looking at Anna’s kids, her demonic face reveals how she once was a beautiful woman. She suddenly changes course and reverts to the evil spirit she had been.

Granted, the special effects are impressive, but this is one example of a missed opportunity. Why couldn’t we be given a meatier backstory of the motivations of the woman?

Other misses include the 1970s Los Angeles period, featuring a feathered hairstyle and a tight sweater worn by Anna, a clip of an old television show, and a car or two overlooking the City of Angels, which hardly appreciates the decade or the metropolis.

Especially laughable are the modern hairstyles and looks of the children, including the kid from the seventeenth century.

Any connection to The Conjuring (2013) or Annabelle (2014) is limited, as one character (Father Perez), appearing briefly holding the Annabelle doll, barely warrants mention.

The Curse of La Llorona (2019) may only be a blueprint of what director Chaves can build on in his career, and a bright future for him is not out of the question.

Building on the Conjuring franchise is a good place to start with a specific audience, who are sure to see this film. He should focus on developing his basics and creating films with more depth, character development, twists, and turns.

Charlie Says-2019

Charlie Says-2019

Director Mary Harron

Starring Hannah Murray, Sosie Bacon

Scott’s Review #936

Reviewed August 28, 2019

Grade: B

With the very high-profile release of Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) centering around the sadistic Manson murders of 1969, Charlie Says (2019) is another film that delves into the same story, though in a very different way.

The latter takes the perspective of the followers, victimizing them and examining the choices they made that affected the rest of their lives.

The angle is of interest, but the production never completely takes off, resulting in an uneven experience that requires more grit and substance.

Karlene (Merritt Wever), a female graduate student focused on women’s studies, takes an interest in three followers who were viciously killed in the name of their “god”, Charles Manson.

A few years after their arrests, they co-exist together in relative solitary confinement in a California penitentiary. They remain under the delusion that Manson is their leader and their deeds were all part of a grand cosmic plan until Karlene slowly brings them out of their haze of unreality with heartbreaking results.

The casting of the real-life figures is as follows: Charles Manson (Matt Smith), Leslie Van Houten (Hannah Murray), Patricia Krenwinkel (Sosie Bacon), and Susan Atkins (Marianne Rendon).

Each is a prominent character, with the central figure being Leslie “Lulu” and her complex relationship with Manson.

The newest to be recruited, the audience witnesses her hypnotic possession and her occasional uncertainty about the cult. For a fleeting moment, she is even tempted to leave, which the film hammers home to the audience.

Murray plays the character well, but does not resemble her enough for praise, though we read the conflict on her face very well. She is meant to be the thoughtful member of the Manson Family, whereas Patricia and Susan are more reactionary and temperamental, especially Susan.

Whether this is how things were is not known. Still, I always had a gnawing feeling throughout the running time that historical accuracy may have been secondary to the story points and dramatic effect.

Charlie Says is bothersome because of the realization that the girls were recruited and fed lies, falling for the deceit, hook, line, and sinker.

The followers were indeed brainwashed into Manson’s disturbing version of reality, and that fact is alarming, as the girls were not dumb people, only vulnerable young women.

Decades later, it is easy to think of other victims polarized by a central or controversial figure, whether it be in politics or another arena. The lesson learned is that people can be easily influenced.

The actual “murder night” and the death of Sharon Tate are featured, but up-close and personal gore is thankfully avoided. The actress, well known to have suffered a terrible fate, to say nothing of her unborn baby, is a small but crucial aspect of the film.

When one of the girls watches one of Tate’s films in her cell, another girl clamors for her to turn off the film, beginning to feel pangs of guilt and remorse.

The film questions the girl’s responsibilities for their actions, a fact that in real life many wrestled with, including the courts and parole boards. Were they merely duped in the cleverest of ways, or do they deserve their fates?

Spared of the electric chair due to a California law, a positive aspect of the film is a current update of the happenings of each girl, now over forty years later, as mature women. Lulu and Patricia remain incarcerated while Susan has died in prison.

After the film closed and a good measure of time was left to ponder the movie, I was left feeling slightly less than fulfilled and desiring a bit more.

Charlie Says (2019) feels safe and lacks enough grit or bombast, although it is well-intended. The film is clearly from a feminist point of view and is an interesting watch, though, given the subject matter, I had hoped for more substance.