Tag Archives: Science Fiction

Pan’s Labyrinth-2006

Pan’s Labyrinth-2006

Director Guillermo del Toro

Starring Ivana Baquero, Sergi López

Scott’s Review #1,156

Reviewed June 25, 2021

Grade: A

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) is a treasure of a film. I would classify it as a masterpiece for creativity alone.

It is not for children!

The fact that it has some fantasy trimmings and tells its story from a child’s perspective is misleading. The film deals with some heady and heavy stuff that will both frighten and be lost on the younger crowd.

A clue is that Guillermo del Toro directs the film, he of well-known note for creating films such as Hell Boy (2004), Hell Boy II: The Golden Army (2008), and The Shape of Water (2017) the latter winning the coveted Best Picture Oscar Award.

I adore that Pan’s Labyrinth is Spanish-Mexican. Somehow that makes the experience a bit mysterious and exotic right off the bat.

The frightening period of 1944, directly post World War II is also key to the good story since war and mayhem are themes.

The main character, Ofelia, meets several strange and magical creatures who become central to her story, leading her through the trials of the old labyrinth garden.

Young Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) and her pregnant and sick mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) arrive at the post of her mother’s new husband (Sergi López), a sadistic army officer who is trying to prevent a guerrilla uprising.

Lonely and feeling lost, Ofelia explores an ancient maze, encountering the faun Pan, who tells her that she is a legendary lost princess and must complete three dangerous tasks to claim immortality.

She is completely and utterly spellbound and intrigued all at once. Finally, she can escape the ravages of real life and immerse herself in a fantasy world all her own. She hates her stepfather, worries for her mother, and can’t wait to traverse her new world. If only life were that simple.

In a fairy tale, Princess Moanna, who Ofelia becomes, visits the human world, where the sunlight blinds her and erases her memory. She becomes mortal and eventually dies. The king believes that eventually, her spirit will return to the underworld, so he builds labyrinths, which act as portals, around the world in preparation for her return.

Enter Ofelia.

About that creativity, I mentioned earlier. Pan’s Labyrinth is Alice in Wonderland for adults, taking some similar points and adding the horrors of both reality and fantasy blended into an extraordinary, spellbinding fable.

The darkness of the forest is the best and most memorable part.

The art direction is astonishing to see. Bewildering forest trimmings and haunting lighting make their appearance as Ofelia immerses herself in her new world. The viewer sees her new world through her eyes, that is through the eyes of a child.

So authentic are the sets and ruins that it is impossible not to be thrust full-throttle into the fantasy sequences.

The story can be downright horrifying at times. Carmen eventually dies and Ofelia is taken under the wing of Mercedes (Maribel Verdú), Ofelia’s stepfather’s housekeeper, and also a revolutionary harboring dangerous secrets.

Ofelia and Mercedes team up to save Ofelia’s baby brother from the hands of the dastardly.

The strange fantasy world may confuse some viewers. It’s simply not the imagination of Ofelia (or is it?) because Vidal, Mercedes, and the baby all play a part in the eerie labyrinth.

Guillermo del Toro creates a world so imaginative and magnificent that we see this world through the eyes of a child but also the clear glasses of the adults.

Scenes of torture mix with scenes of innocence so well that it is impossible not to be transported to a magical world where reality often disrupts the pleasurable fairy tale.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2008) is a visionary film and must be experienced to be believed.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Original Screenplay, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup (won), Best Original Score

Tenet-2020

Tenet-2020

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring John David Washington, Robert Pattinson

Scott’s Review #1,149

Reviewed June 4, 2021

Grade: C

For those film lovers craving a plot that serves as a weaving puzzle that can never be figured out, Tenet (2020) is highly recommended. Others who desire a more defined and linear story and character development will be disappointed by the film.

Tenet is a visuals-only experience as I tuned in and out of the actual plot points after realizing they intersect past, present, and future elements.

I did try from the outset to understand, but ended up falling flat.

One’s enjoyment will depend on one’s cinematic desires and expectations.

I lean more towards a compelling story with excellent acting and a strong emotional connection to the project. I’m not as focused on brilliant CGI or dazzling visuals as some, but I recognize that Tenet has these elements.

However, I’m not sure I agree with the film’s Oscar win for Best Visual Effects or nomination for Best Production Design- thank goodness the terrific Mank (2020) won the latter award.

I’ll try to summarize the plot.

A secret agent named the Protagonist (John David Washington) embarks on a dangerous, time-bending mission to prevent the start of World War III.

The villainous Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh) is a Russian oligarch who communicates with the future and is intent on destroying the world. His wife, Kat Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), despises her husband and aligns with the Protagonist to stop him. They fall in love.

Along for the ride are an arms dealer, Priya Singh (Dimple Kapadia), and Robert Pattinson plays the Protagonist’s handler who may or may not be trusted.

Let’s start with the positives.

Tenet gets off to a terrific start with a scene at the Kyiv opera house in Ukraine. Though silly, the invasion of the theater and the massive sleeping effect of the theater attendees and performers is like a domino effect. The scene is fast and exciting.

Later, a daring car chase featuring a car speeding down a highway in reverse gear is pretty exciting. Add a character bound and tied in the passenger seat with no driver and no way to get out, which provides an incredible James Bond moment.

Another positive is the luscious locales like Estonia, Oslo, Norway, London, and the Amalfi coast.

That’s where the fun ends.

I have to admit that I expected more from Christopher Nolan, who wrote and directed the project. The man has churned out superlative efforts like The Dark Knight (2008) and Dunkirk (2017), but Tenet will not rank among his finest moments.

To that end, it’s a Nolan film. Sound and visuals are his trademarks, and the bombastic, booming score is tight and familiar. The mixing of loud, techy, thundering beats is commonplace, but sadly does little for the film. They almost become annoying.

The cast is seasoned and capable. With Washington, Pattinson, Branaugh, and Debicki onboard, there is a talent to be found. Even Michael Caine is cast in one wasteful scene.

Nonetheless, the actors drift through their scenes looking perplexed and stiff. Probably because they didn’t know what the hell was going on in the scenes.

Just like the viewer.

The dialogue is an issue because it’s not written well. Why would Kat want to kill a man who is already dying of terminal cancer? Why not wait out his demise? And the time travel was lost on me from the first sequence. I didn’t care.

The most laugh-out-loud line occurs when Kat exclaims to the Protagonist, “I just knew you’d have a backup plan. Wait, you do have a backup plan, right?” With juicy dialogue like this, it’s a wonder Tenet didn’t receive a Best Screenplay nomination. I jest, of course.

Minor details, such as the Protagonist and Kat having zero chemistry, despite the interracial romance having so much potential, are disappointing.

I can’t say I’d recommend Tenet (2020), but I can provide details of what you can expect from the experience. Some incredible visual moments can’t overcome the lack of any storyline, and the viewer will become lost in the tired moments.

By the final sequence, I thought I had watched a generic episode of a network television series like NCIS.

Ouch.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Visual Effects (won), Best Production Design

Westworld-1973

Westworld-1973

Director Michael Crichton

Starring Richard Benjamin, James Brolin, Yul Brynner

Scott’s Review #1,056

Reviewed August 25, 2020

Grade: A-

I have seen the film version of Westworld (1973) before and after having watched the current hit HBO television series, brilliant in its complexities.

Many are not even aware that the series is based on a film and that is a pity because the film is good stuff with lots to digest in a short time.

Admittedly, watching it in present times given the extreme psychology that the series offers, the film has so much more it could have offered but it’s still a great watch.

One must always remember the time-period a film is made for proper context and comparison.

Yul Brynner nearly steals the film in a spectacular and creepy performance as a wide-eyed futuristic android cowboy to Richard Benjamin and James Brolin’s regular guys out for an escapist good time.

Much of the film could be conceived as a buddy film with a bevy of homoerotic elements brimming beneath the surface if one is aware. These tidbits spice things up in an already escapist and futuristic world.

A titillating high-tech adult-themed amusement park is the backdrop of the film. Participants can choose any of the three worlds to embark on Western World, Medieval World, or Roman World. All contain lavish and realistic trimmings and ooze realism.

The inhabitants are robots, not real people, so they can be shot, stabbed, or made love to depending on the personal tastes of those who wish to indulge in their wildest fantasies.

The island is very exclusive, and the experience comes at a high cost.

Peter (Benjamin) and John (Brolin) are businessmen who adore the Wild West, so they select the Western World. They enjoy frolicking with desperadoes, gunslingers, and dance-hall girls who appear as if they are human beings.

Enjoying their adventures, the technicians notice odd behavior from the androids. Small at first, events escalate quickly when a gunslinger (Brynner) goes on a rampage with Peter and John as his targets.

Since the television series is fleshed out so well and the motivations and the stories of the androids are examined at length, it makes it easy to ask why the film does not, or rather, wish it had.

On the one hand, it is creepy not knowing what makes Brynner’s gunslinger tick, on the other hand, I want to know what makes him tick.

I also wanted to know more about the guests. Why were they there and what are their lives in the real world like?

One way in which the film is superior to the series is the way Peter and John are written.

Is it my imagination or do the pair seem a little closer than merely friends? Do they wish to escape their lives to be together? Are the wives and children waiting at home for them?

A scene of Peter bathing is erotic especially as he must abandon the tub mid-soak to battle a foe. He is the Marlboro man personified, though Benjamin’s too recent turn as the twit father from Diary of a Mad Housewife (1970) ruins any masculinity he has.

The climax is riveting.

Since we are unsure of the gunslinger’s motivations we are unsure what he will do. A frightening scene occurs when the gunslinger intently walks down a corridor with his expressionless eyes attentively stalking his prey. This still gives me the chills.

When the android is sprayed with acid his face becomes freakish and psychotic-looking this adds fright to an already frightening character. When Peter frantically traverses the park looking for help his peril is terrific as he finds dead guests and damaged robots everywhere.

The severity of the situation is finally realized.

Crichton deserves much of the credit since he not only directed but wrote the screenplay, and this was his debut! The pacing is excellent and something is going on all the time making the film feel as entertaining as it is intelligent.

The dazzling cinematography of the world allows the viewer to see the differences.

Westworld is riddled with intriguing questions that are left unanswered and this adds to the tension.

Impossible not to compare the film to the series as much as we might like not to, Westworld (1973) is a freakish, creative, adventure that I wanted so much more from having seen the complexities and story possibilities crafted for the series.

I am not a fan of remakes but in this case, a modern retelling is not a bad idea. Some accuse the film of being cheesy, over-the-top, or “too 70’s”, but I disagree.

I like the hidden trimmings and messages mixed with the good fun.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence-2001

A.I. Artificial Intelligence- 2001

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law

Scott’s Review #1,052

Reviewed August 13, 2020

Grade: B+

A bit of a history lesson about the film A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001).

The final cinematic version is based on the 1969 short story “Supertoys Last All Summer Long” by Brian Aldiss, which was purchased and developed by director Stanley Kubrick in the 1970s.

Left unfinished for years, and the subsequent passing of Kubrick after he had started to collaborate with Steven Spielberg, the film was finally carved into a final project by Spielberg.

Upon close study, the film possesses the mark of both directors with the edge going to Spielberg.

The tone of the story contains a creepiness and oddity familiar to fans of Kubrick, like he may have been thinking along the lines of a similar theme to the brilliant 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

Both center around robots and a futuristic world. Spielberg adds a humanistic, sympathetic, and slightly melancholy edge as he did with E.T. the Extra-terrestrial (1982) so that we adore the main character and want justice for him.

In contrast, Kubrick made his version of an extra-terrestrial in 2001: A Space Odyssey a scary villain. The results are mostly good, but uneven in parts.

The premise is solid and grasps our attention. The time is the twenty-second century when the polar ice caps have melted and submerged many coastal cities. It’s also a time when humans live side by side with “mechas,” or sentient robots.

Henry and Monica Swinton are suffering because their son Martin has a rare disease and is placed in suspended animation.

They are given a Mecha child capable of experiencing love. Henry and Monica fall in love with David and, in a plot twist worthy of a daytime soap -opera, Martin returns to life, becomes jealous of David in a plot reminiscent of The Good Son (1993), tries to frame David for monstrous deeds, and David is nearly shipped off to parts unknown.

This is Spielberg’s first crack at screenwriting in nearly twenty-five years, since Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and he does a decent job. No secret is that both films, along with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial have common themes so he feels comfortable with these subjects.

The humanity is there, but the screenplay is often too busy with story points coming and going at a rapid pace. I wanted a deeper dive into Henry and Monica to feel more about their characters and what makes them tick. I felt their pain of having (sort of) lost a child, but not why they needed to fill the void so quickly.

Osment is insanely good in a film so complex that his performance could have easily been overshadowed by the other elements.

Instead, he powers through adding complexities to a character the audience falls in love with, aching and yearning along with him. David is faced with terrible, life-changing news of not only being adopted but of not even being human.

His determination to find out who he truly is takes the viewer down a path of both entertainment and adventure, but also of bitter emotion.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) has a lot going on and critically speaking, maybe too much. Spielberg fleshes out the original short story and tasks the viewer with enduring a global warming message, important, but a trite overdone, and sympathizing with David, the lonely robot boy.

The story becomes an exciting adventure and the complexities between being human and being almost human are explored, but not quite satisfactory.

Osment and Law are terrific with dazzling chemistry and the visuals and musical score are astounding. Osment should have received a Best Actor Oscar nomination to follow the one he got for The Sixth Sense (1999).

Oscar Nominations: Best Musical Score, Best Visual Effects

Soylent Green-1973

Soylent Green-1973

Director Richard Fleischer

Starring Charlton Heston, Leigh Taylor-Young

Scott’s Review #943

Reviewed October 8, 2019

Grade: B

Soylent Green (1973) is a rather obscure offering starring then big-named star Charlton Heston in a dystopian science-fiction film.

The story is futuristic and eerily reminiscent of Planet of the Apes (1968), though not nearly as compelling nor as layered.

The result is admirable for its progressive message, cool colors, and sets, but feels dated and of its time and treats female characters more like props than characters, leaving an uneven result.

It’s a one-and-done sort of film.

The year is 2022 and because of the Industrial Revolution, forty million people live in New York City, suffering year-round from extreme humidity because of the greenhouse effect and shortages of water, food, and housing.

Only the wealthy are afforded necessities and residents of the rich (mostly female) are referred to as “furniture” and used as slaves.

Detective Frank Thorn (Heston) is tasked with investigating the murder of an affluent and prominent man, which leads him to dire details surrounding Soylent Industries and the food they produce.

The film seems like someone’s visionary idea turned Hollywood.

Loosely based on a 1966 novel entitled “Make Room! Make Room!” by Harry Harrison, Heston is cast as the lead while his career was slowly declining, but he is still the star and quite hunky for an older gentleman.

He plays a role similar to the character of George Taylor in Planet of the Apes, especially during the final climactic reveal, which will make viewers question what is contained in what they are eating for dinner.

Heston carries the film well and mixes wonderfully with character actor Edward G. Robinson, who plays Sol Roth in his final role. The old character decides to “return to the home of God” and seeks assisted suicide at a government clinic.

The final scene between the actors is poignant and heartfelt as they say goodbye to each other. Eagle-eyed viewers will spot a young Dick Van Patten in a tiny role during this scene.

Any romantic chemistry is lacking in Soylent Green as a potential love match between Frank and Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young) strikes out. Mismatched and having little thunder together, the couple does not appeal well.

Making matters worse is that Shirl is mere “furniture” limiting the character’s potential. She is reduced to assisting with Frank’s investigation.

The main detraction is that the film does not feel very futuristic or authentic. The characters look like actors from the 1970s dressed up to look like they are from the future always with a tint of Hollywood thrown in.

The story loses its way halfway through and teeters about between pure science-fiction and a standard detective story, seen nightly at that time on network television.

Still, the film does contain a robust amount of potential but is not reached. The progressive slant and social commentary are admirable, and the bright green nutritious synthetic canned food is almost a character.

The final scene will shock the viewer with horror and I wish more scenes this jaw-dropping existed within the entire experience and not simply at the end.

A film that attempts to do something different or provide a provocative message is worthy of a certain amount of praise.

Soylent Green (1973) carves a bit of thought provocation but seems more relevant for the 1970s than containing much interest decades later.

Heston is dazzling as the main character and the trimmings are impressive but Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) or The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) resonate more as similar genre films.

Scream and Scream Again-1969

Scream and Scream Again-1969

Director Gordon Hessler

Starring Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #899

Reviewed May 16, 2019

Grade: B+

Any film featuring horror heavyweights and great actors like Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing is well worth the price of admission for the name value alone. Each is a mainstay attraction in its own right and, combined, results in an orgy of riches.

Scream and Scream Again (1969) sputters by limiting the on-screen interaction between the actors. Still, after a reflective pause, I realize the picture is to be revered for its creativity and for its use of intersecting plotlines to build a thrilling crescendo into a surprise ending.

The audience is offered three segments of the story, each revisited periodically as a stand-alone segment that culminates in overlapping components.

An athletic runner trots along the streets of London, suddenly suffering from an attack, only to awaken in the hospital with no legs.

Elsewhere, a deadly intelligence operative reports back to his repressed Eastern European country, only to murder his commanding officer with a fatal paralyzing hold.

Finally, a London detective investigates the brutal deaths of several young women in metropolitan nightclubs.

Cushing, reduced to merely a cameo-sized role as the ill-fated officer, is barely worth mentioning and adds little to the film besides appearing in it.

Lee, like Fremont, the head of Britain’s intelligence agency, plays a straight role with not much zest.

Price, with the meatiest role as a mysterious doctor specializing in limb replacement, can give anyone the creeps with his scowl and eerie mannerisms. Still, the film misses the mark by wasting the talents of the other legendary actors.

The film is not at all what a fan of Hammer horror would expect, given the familiar horror cast and the gory-sounding title.

Heaping buckets of blood or ghoulish vampires were on the anticipated menu, but that does not mean the film fails to deliver. It may not please a fan of traditional horror films, as the genres of political espionage and science fiction come into play heavily.

However, the fantastic, peculiar nightclub-serial-killer storyline will satisfy fans eager for a good kill or two.

My initial reaction to Scream and Scream Again was that it was over-complicated and had too much going on at once, especially for a horror film.

After the film concludes and the surprise ending is revealed, I realized that the numerous tidbits are necessary to achieve the desired effect, and that the events will make the viewer ponder when the film ends.

Not to ruin the big reveal, but the filmmakers borrow a healthy dose of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) in a more macabre way, naturally.

Fans of the 1960s British television series The Avengers will be pleased with Scream and Scream Again, as a similar tone exists in both.

The distinctive musical soundtrack, popular in the 1960s, works well, and the nightclub sequences and some of the detectives feel reminiscent of the show.

The feel of the film is not limited to an episodic television story but contains a similar style.

High British 1960s fashion is also prevalent and pleasing to the eye.

A couple of supporting characters strike a fascination in small and almost entirely non-verbal performances.

A sexy red-headed hospital nurse with superhuman powers and a penchant for amputating limbs, combined with a brooding, mysterious serial killer, provides dubious intrigue about who the actual characters are.

What is their motivation? Do they work for someone or something sinister? Questions like these will keep the viewer occupied and thirsty for an explanation.

Bizarrely, British film and television director Gordon Hessler crafts an implausible yet fascinating story that keeps the viewer guessing.

Featuring horror superstars Price, Cushing, and Lee would seem like an assured horror masterpiece, but the stars’ limited time on-screen brings the overall project down a notch.

Scream and Scream Again (1969) still achieves a good measure of worthy entertainment.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1956

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-1956

Director Don Siegel

Starring Kevin McCarthy, Dana Wynter

Scott’s Review #895

Reviewed May 8, 2019

Grade: B+

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), released during the mid-1950s, a time of post-War World II unity and prosperity in America where neighborhoods snuggled cheerily by the fireplaces with nary a care in the world, sought to make the public paranoid, and it worked.

Thanks to a foreboding premise, audiences got to ponder the possibilities of pod people cloning human beings and invading the planet, scaring the daylights out of the masses, and resonating with critics.

Playing like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone, and to the film’s credit, it preceded the television series. The film successfully achieves thought-provoking post-film dialogue at a brief one-hour and twenty-minute running time. It has been crowned with cult-classic status and similar creepy-themed genre films that blossomed during the 1950s.

Set in the fictional sunny California town of Santa Mira, the film gets off to an exciting start as we witness a screaming man in an emergency room attempting to be calmed by staff. The harried man claims to be a doctor and recounts, via flashbacks, the events leading up to the present day.

Our main character, Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy), and his ex-girlfriend Becky (Dana Wynter) team up after several patients report relatives acting robotic and strange.

When half-created bodies in pods are soon discovered, Miles and Becky know something is amiss in their town and race to figure out the mystery of the “pod people” while others turn into emotionless human-like beings.

The epidemic is caused by extraterrestrial life. The intention is for humanity to lose all emotions and a sense of individuality, creating a simplistic, stress-free world.

An interesting facet of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is how time has changed the reaction to the film. In 1956, the thought of aliens taking over the world seemed plausible and frightening since the man had not yet walked on the moon, and astronomy was a new venture.

The peaceful tranquility of the United States of America was in danger of being overtaken, the film exclaimed, and viewers fell for the scare tactics.

The film was created to be a political allegory, and boy did this sure work.

Decades later, the United States’ vibe is more integrated and flourishes with more diversity and acceptance of other cultures and beings. The country is also more chaotic, so the invasion of the “pod people” is less scary and perhaps even more embraced by those living in Malcontent.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers suffers from poor aging and a message rethink and teeters on feeling dated.

The acting is marginally good, if not spectacular, but it does not need to be Oscar-worthy to have the desired effect. The actors deliver their lines with dramatic gusto, successfully conveying suburban Americans’ troubled paranoia to audiences who will surely be on the edge of their seats as the drama unfolds.

The characters never think outside the box, only in straightforward terms, so the motivations are earnest.

The black and white cinematography is palpable yet subdued, and the lack of colors provides substance. While the 1950s was a wonderful time for film, it was also a less edgy time for cinema.

The 1960s brought fewer restrictions and more shocking elements, but Invasion of the Body Snatchers is compartmentalized, feeling more like a long episodic television thriller.

Double-billed with the equally frightening The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) would make for delicious 1950s science-fiction viewing.

I remain partial to the stunning, vibrantly colored 1978 remake, which features superior filmmaking and more layered production values. The original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) holds its own and is a recommended watch.

Downsizing-2017

Downsizing-2017

Director Alexander Payne

Starring Matt Damon, Hong Chau

Scott’s Review #842

Reviewed December 14, 2018

Grade: B

Downsizing (2017) appeared on many critics’ top ten lists for the year, but it did not resonate well with the average viewer. Part of this discrepancy could have been the way the film was marketed.

Despite having Kristen Wiig among its cast, the film is NOT a comedy but a social commentary with some science-fiction and dramatic elements.

Downsizing has a wonderful and thought-provoking premise, but it ultimately fails to piece together all its parts in a completely satisfying way, leaving an erratic and disjointed result.

The elements are all there—a charismatic lead actor (Damon), an inventive, socially relevant premise, and a humanistic and beautiful message.

The film also contains some gorgeous cinematic treats of picturesque Norway that will make one melt if watched on the big screen.

The film has enough positives to recommend without it being truly great.

The story begins as a Norwegian scientist discovers a way to solve the world’s overpopulation state and global warming problems with a discovery that shrinks people, causing them to use few resources.

Paul and Audrey Safranek (Damon and Wiig) decide to undergo the procedure and begin a new life in a gorgeous community designed for small people. When Audrey bails at the last minute, leaving Paul alone, he must forge ahead with a lonely life, unable to be transformed from small to large.

He meets Ngoc Lan (Chau), a Vietnamese activist who, through her selflessness, changes his life forever. Paul realizes he does have a purpose after all.

The film’s positives are mostly in its individual components. It is true that the modern world suffers from overpopulation, and director Alexander Payne paints a dire picture of the eventual result. This gives the film a left-leaning environmental opinion that I relish.

I was immediately engaged in Payne’s humanistic approach and the possibilities of a new world with no suffering and riches for all. Of course, this is not sustainable or realistic, as the film shows.

The romantic dynamic is also a significant win.  The first half features Paul and Audrey as the romantic couple, a likable pair who struggle with bills and care for planet Earth.

Suddenly, this changes and Audrey is discounted from the equation in favor of Paul and Ngoc Lan. An unexpected item, their romance is a slow buildup, seemingly opposite types of people. He is laid-back and thoughtful, and she is brash and outspoken, yet they work wonderfully as a couple.

As a viewer, I became wholly invested in them by the closing credits.

Newcomer Huang Chau (Ngoc Lan) stands out and nearly upstages Damon. The young actress garnered a Golden Globe nomination for this role and deservedly so. There are far too few good roles for Asian actors, so Chau hits the jackpot with this part.

Her character is sympathetic yet tough. Once an outspoken advocate, she endured prison only to lose a leg and be reduced to a house cleaner in her new world.

Payne makes the point that a new society does not equate to joy, which is the film’s crux. At first, the community is lavish with luxurious homes and idyllic surroundings, but when Paul meets Ngoc Lan and sees her world of pain, starvation, and neglect, he is dumbfounded.

This sad reality leads him to make rash decisions about himself and his future.

Where Downsizing misses the boat is with the execution. As strong as the premise is, the story meanders. From Paul and Audrey’s mundane life in Nebraska to the new society to the slums to the introduction of the world ceasing to exist and finally, another world is created, there is too much going on.

The dots never connect, leaving the overall experience of Downsizing erratic.

Christoph Walz deserves a better role than Dusan, an aging Serbian party boy. His character is annoying and a weak attempt at portraying spoiled white men with all the advantages. He is unnecessary and does not work.

Downsizing (2017) is quite a brave effort, with an ingenious premise and a worthwhile message. I recommend the film for these reasons as Payne attempts to tell a story never told before, which is to be championed.

The elements do not add up, and the film lacks a solid structure, but as a whole, it is to be admired for what it intends to do.

Bride of Frankenstein-1935

Bride of Frankenstein-1935

Director James Whale

Starring Boris Karloff, Elsa Lanchester

Scott’s Review #825

Reviewed October 31, 2018

Grade: A-

After four long years as director, James Whale finally agreed to follow up on and resurrect his character, The Monster. Fortunately, Boris Karloff also returned to the role he made famous. In this installment, he meets a mate played by the gorgeous Elsa Manchester.

Critics argue that the sequel is superior to the original, but I am not so sure of that; I slightly prefer Frankenstein. Still, the aptly titled Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is a fantastic effort and a memorable classic in and of itself.

The plot picks up where the original Frankenstein ended and includes a sub-plot from the 1818 Mary Shelley novel. Having learned his lesson about the drawbacks of creating life, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is coerced into making a female mate for the Monster.

Much of the action follows the Monster, who is on the run from hunters as he encounters devious and kindly individuals. In clever form, Manchester plays the “Bride” and Mary Shelley, who is heralded for her masterful writing.

The main difference between Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein is that the Monster is more developed from a character perspective. Even more empathetic and now uttering some dialogue, the pained character contains more profound moments and a damaged quality.

Karloff reportedly despised this aspect, preferring that his character be more ambivalent, using grunts and facial expressions more than words, but to me, the development works well.

As the Monster traverses the forest looking for shelter while being pursued in a witch hunt style, a lovely sequence occurs between the Monster and a lonely blind man. Attracted by the gorgeous sounds of a violin playing “Ave Maria”, the blind hermit befriends the Monster and teaches him a few words like “friend”.

Harboring no ill will towards the Creature, the old hermit feels blessed and thanks God for sending him a friend. The tender moment is then shattered when a fire burns down the cottage.

The constant theme of loneliness and despair continues what Frankenstein did and is more in line with Shelley’s novel. The Creature is a tortured soul yearning for love and affection yet suffering from a temper. He is childlike and struggles to know the difference between right and wrong.

Like Frankenstein, the sequel contains high-quality special effects and ambiance. With a storm raging (naturally), the thunder and lightning qualities add so much to a horror film, filling it with suspense and a particular science fiction element.

When the Bride is hoisted to the sky and struck by lightning, the scene is both campy and terrifying.

How delicious a character is Manchester as The Monster’s Bride? The character is forever recognizable in pop culture with her statuesque seven-foot height (the actress used stilts), white-streaked hairdo, macabre white gown, and jerky, animal-like head movements.

Timeless in characterization, the beautiful woman possesses a macabre yet humorous quality. The moment she becomes alert, sees the monster, and shrieks is a memorable moment in film history.

Throughout cinematic history, few sequels ever live up to their predecessors, but Bride comes close.

Easily able to be watched in tandem with Frankenstein and perfect for a bit of Saturday afternoon nostalgia, Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is a wonderful trip down memory lane to a time when horror was as thrilling in simple black and white as it is with all the frills added.

Thanks to Whale’s brilliant direction, both films are legendary in their inspiration and achievements.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Recording

Frankenstein-1931

Frankenstein-1931

Director James Whale

Starring Colin Clive, Boris Karloff

Scott’s Review #822

Reviewed October 22, 2018

Grade: A

Those of us who treasure cinematic brilliance in films of the past need to look no further than Frankenstein (1931), a masterpiece in the horror genre.

Some consider it the greatest horror film ever made. The still frightening work is based on the legendary 1818 Mary Shelley novel.

Highly influential to later groupings of horror film sub-genres, the importance of this film must never be forgotten.

In a small European village, a scientist named Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is determined to create human life by stealing fresh body parts from cemeteries and using electrical shock as part of his creation.

He convinces his assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye), to steal a human brain from a former professor’s laboratory. Due to a clumsy mistake, Fritz must steal the brain of a criminal rather than a “normal” human being, the result being dire when Frankenstein’s monster is created.

The creation of the monster (and no, the monster’s name is not Frankenstein, as some might assume) is astounding, especially given the period of the early 1930s.

With a flattop, heavy eyelids, protruding neck terminals, and his hulking physique, he is a frightening figure with a yearning, childlike nature. The monster’s innocence makes him so tragic.

A compelling scene occurs when the audience sees the monster turn around and face the camera.

What separates Frankenstein from many other horror films is the underlying sadness and empathy we feel toward the monster. The “villain” in most horror films is clearly defined, but who is the villain in Frankenstein?

How can it be the monster when he, unaware of his strength, drowns a young child? We root for the beast when he hangs the dastardly dwarf, and we hate the town of peasants who seek revenge on the monster.

The complexities in this film are endless.

The main character is an interesting study. Title billed: the character is a genius while also teetering on the brink of madness- he is not the film’s hero, nor is he entirely sympathetic.

He is the ruin of a monster who has feelings and sadness in him. Frankenstein’s fiancée, Elizabeth (Mae Clark), is concerned for him, which adds a nurturing element to the dynamic. The intent is for the audience not to despise Frankenstein but to be enthralled with his complexities.

The term “monster film” can conjure feelings of silliness or over-the-top acting, but Frankenstein is more artistic than goofy.

The famous line “It’s alive!” was paid tribute to in later years, but an equally spectacular horror film, Rosemary’s Baby (1968), when Rosemary feels her haunted baby kick. To say nothing of the tribute Mel Brook’s classic Young Frankenstein (1974) paid to the original.

Given that the film was made in 1931, the effects and lighting techniques are beyond impressive. The overall tone of the film is stylistic, with a prevalent fairy-tale beauty unlike any films made at the time, save for perhaps Dracula, the 1931 horror-vampire masterpiece.

Frankenstein and Dracula would make a delicious double feature on Saturday evenings. Director James Whale creates a magical environment, holding up thriving generation after generation, never seeming dated.

Frankenstein (1931) was followed by numerous sequels, the best of which is Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Undoubtedly, the film influenced campy yet influential monster films to follow- most notably the “Hammer Horror films” of the same tone.

Despite teetering on the one-hundred-year-old mark, the brilliant film is timeless and must be introduced to young filmmakers everywhere (especially in the horror genre).

12 Monkeys-1995

12 Monkeys-1995

Director Terry Gilliam

Starring Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe, Brad Pitt

Scott’s Review #804

Reviewed August 21, 2018

Grade: B+

Bruce Willis stars in a 1995 science-fiction thriller named 12 Monkeys that is sure to confuse even the keenest of viewers. Containing a plot that is impossible to follow (at least with only one watch), the film is quite novel and filled with edge nonetheless.

With this film, Willis came into his own and proved to some naysayers that he is more versatile than a one-note action hero. He would develop even more as the years passed- think Sixth Sense (1999).

If I may begin to summarize the complex plot, 12 Monkeys is a film about time-travel (confusing enough), that traverses from the year 2035 to the year 1990, to the year 1996, with a bevy of dreams or memories thrown in, but I am still not crystal clear on that.

The time involved threw me for a loop and I was not able to comprehend where things shifted to……or was part of it a memory possessed by Willis’s character as a little boy?

Nonetheless, in 2035 James Cole (Willis) is a prisoner who is selected by “the powers that be” to go back in time to find a cure for a deadly virus that has wiped out a large part of the world. He is transported to the year 1990 instead of 1996 and lands in a psychiatric hospital, where he meets fanatical Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt).

Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) appears in both the 1990 and 1996 stories as a respected psychiatrist and author. Both she and Goines become central to the main plot and the story twists and turns as events move along.

The intention to make Willis and Stowe a romantic couple did not seem to quite work at first, but their chemistry grew on me. The duo never received a “happily ever after” finale as they deserved nor was their troubled romance ever fully realized to say nothing of consummated.

The flirtation and bond they share felt more like a tease than anything else, or rather, having two Hollywood heavyweights forge some sort of romance. Regardless, “romance” did not seem the point of this film.

Brad Pitt was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar award for the film. While he provides a quirky, showy style role (actually multiple roles or personalities), complete with tics resembling a Tourette syndrome patient, the role is not one of his best.

At this time (1995), Pitt was a rising star and the recognition helped him tremendously. But he seems slightly overact and makes the character too over-the-top.

I much prefer his more subdued work in Seven (released the same year), or future roles in Babel (2006) and Moneyball (2011).

Appealing in parts are the frequent exterior shots of the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, where the film is set. Treats include the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Pennsylvania Convention Center, and Eastern State Penitentiary filming locations as well as numerous highway and bridge shots, which add tons of authenticity.

A major score for the film, and Alfred Hitchcock fans everywhere, is the incorporation of classic film clips, specifically the mysterious Vertigo (1958) into the story.

As Kathryn and James camp out in a rustic movie theater and disguise themselves as different people, they watch a marathon of Hitchcock films (as evidenced by the many titles on the marquee).

Clever is that the characters of James and Kathryn begin to mirror the actions of Vertigo characters Scottie and Judy.

Blondes anyone?

12 Monkeys (1995) does sort of come together after the film as the dreams/memories are laid out pretty clearly. As we have witnessed these sequences throughout, it leads to a semi-satisfying conclusion.

A bit of a beautiful mess, the film has clever tidbits and is well-acted, and the baring of both Willis’s and Pitt’s butts might get some additional viewers.

I think I need to watch the film again to perhaps understand and connect all of the dots better.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Brad Pitt, Best Costume Design

Fahrenheit 451-1966

Fahrenheit 451-1966

Director Francois Truffaut

Starring Oskar Werner, Julie Christie, Cyril Cusack

Scott’s Review #728

Reviewed February 26, 2018

Grade: B+

Based upon the famous and fantastic classic 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, the film adaptation is futuristic and dystopian.

Directed by French filmmaker Francois Truffaut and starring Julie Christie, the “it” girl of the late 1960s, the film succeeds as an incredible, new wave, edgy, progressive hybrid. Various elements aid in making the film seem set in the future, all with hints of the great director Alfred Hitchcock sprinkled in the mix.

Indeed, the novel is superior, but Fahrenheit 451 is a worthy watch if only for Christie alone.

Christie plays a dual role as Clarisse, a young schoolteacher with progressive and forbidden views, and Linda, the vastly different spoiled wife of the central character, Guy Montag, played by German actor Oskar Werner.

The trio exists in a futuristic world where a totalitarian government has banned all literature, deeming it insufficient for society. A force called Firemen, where Guy works, can search anyone anytime and burn all books as needed.

Clarisse and Guy begin questioning the government’s motivations as Guy stashes a copy of Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield, which puts the pair in danger.

What I like most about the film is its mysterious and foreboding concept, which is downright scary. What if books were suddenly non-existent and forbidden?

Like the novel, the film references luscious and brilliant literary works of art, so much so that the viewer will undoubtedly feel how this reality would be devastating.

As with similar titles such as “1984” and “Brave New World,” the futuristic world and the “Big Brother is watching” theme is critical to its success.

Director Truffaut, an ardent fan of the master Hitchcock, seamlessly incorporates elements of suspense and key “Hitchcockian” moments, specifically with the musical score.

Truffaut used Bernard Hermann, the same composer Hitchcock used in 1966’s Torn Curtain, but more importantly, the prevalence of strings is reminiscent of classics like Psycho and Vertigo.

A fight scene behind frosted glass so that only shadows can be seen is a direct homage to Hitchcock’s famous style.

To accompany the Hitchcock comparisons, an exciting film anecdote is that legendary Hitchcock superstar Tippi Hedren was desired for the central dual role. Still, he would not allow it since she and Hitchcock were embroiled in a feud then, and she was under contract.

The possibilities this would have presented are endless. But alas, Christie is no slouch as the film’s female star.

Christie deserves significant kudos. She plays both characters to the hilt and is one of the film’s best aspects.

Anyone who has read Bradbury’s novel will understand how the character of Clarisse is expanded in the film. One wonders if this was done to showcase more of Christie.

Regardless, Clarisse and Linda’s characters are entirely different from each other, and the actress is superb. Unfortunately, this film is not among Christie’s most remembered films.

My main detraction of Fahrenheit 451, the film, is that having recently read the novel, there is no comparison, as the book is far superior. However, the film is perfect and contains some beautiful visuals and imagery.

So few times can a film usurp the beauties of the written word, and how ironic given the subject matter of the destruction of books.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966) is a stylistic, artistic film with a relaxed vibe. It features a tremendous performance from one of the ’60’s most considerable talents.

The film initially received fair to middling reviews and is now largely forgotten, but it’s nice to take down from the dusty old shelves of the Hollywood obscure now and then.

The Shape of Water-2017

The Shape of Water-2017

Director Guillermo del Toro

Starring Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins, Michael Shannon

Scott’s Review #705

Reviewed December 16, 2017

Grade: A

Director Guillermo del Toro created a lovely Beauty and the Beast-style film, The Shape of Water (2017). It is gorgeous to look at, and the story is intelligent and sweet to experience.

Thanks to a talented cast led by Sally Hawkins, the film is part drama, part science fiction, even part thriller, but touching to one’s heart and a lesson in true love regardless of outward appearances.

Vanessa Taylor co-wrote the story, giving it a needed female perspective to perfectly balance the traditional male machinations.

The setting is Baltimore, Maryland, in the early 1960s. The Cold War is ongoing, pitting the United States and the Soviet Union against each other.

Both sides are mistrustful of the other.

Kindly and mute, Elisa Esposito (Hawkins) is a curious and whimsical young woman who works as a cleaning lady at an Aerospace Research Center.

When she stumbles upon a mysterious “shape” being held prisoner for experimentation, she slowly communicates with and befriends the creature, eventually falling madly in love with him.

The “asset,” as the scientists like to call him, is an amphibian/humanoid that needs saltwater to survive. Elisa sees an opportunity to help her love escape captivity, and off she goes.

Hawkins exudes warmth and fills Elisa with courage and astounding determination. Not uttering a word is a tricky feat for an actor to challenge, but instead of words, Hawkins successfully provides a vast array of emotions to reveal how Elisa feels.

Despite her “handicap,” she is a strong woman who speaks her mind on more than one occasion, using sign language to express her frustration. Hawkins gives a fantastic and believable performance.

In excellent and vital supporting roles are Richard Jenkins as Elisa’s friend and neighbor, Giles, a closeted gay man who works as a commercial artist. Jenkins fills this character with intelligence, heart, and empathy as he struggles with his issues of alcoholism and loneliness- unable to be accepted for who he is.

Octavia Spencer shines as witty and stubborn Zelda Fuller, Elisa’s best friend and co-worker. Zelda has her domestic problems but is forever there for her friend, and Spencer gives her character zest, humor, and energy.

Finally, Michael Shannon plays the dastardly and menacing Colonel Richard Strickland, the man who found the “asset” in the rivers of South America and has a lovely family.

Each character is written exceptionally well and has a storyline rather than simply supporting Hawkins’s character.

The audience becomes involved in Giles, Zelda, and Strickland’s private lives, and we get to know and care for them—or hate them, as the case may be.

Giles, harboring a crush on a handsome pie shop owner, is afraid to reveal his feelings. Zelda, with a lazy husband, dutifully takes care of her man, though she is as sassy as they come. And Strickland lives in an all-American family with a pretty wife and two kids, unaware of his shenanigans.

The film is a gorgeous and lovely experience with a magical element. The opening and closing sequences, shot underwater, resound in beauty as objects float along in a dreamy way.

The narrator (Jenkins) takes us on a journey to explain the events of the story.

At its core, The Shape of Water is a romantic love story, and my favorite scenes—those of Hawkins and the “asset”—are to be treasured. Yes, the two do make love, which may be too much for some, but the scenes are tasteful and important, showing the depth of the characters’ love for one another.

Cherishing is how Elisa uses music and hard-boiled eggs to communicate with the “asset.” When Elisa imagines the two characters dancing, the sequence is an enchanting experience reminiscent of Beauty and the Beast.

Other underwater scenes involving Elisa and the “asset” are tender, graceful, and filled with loveliness.

A key part of the film involves a story of intrigue between the Americans and the Soviets. While both are portrayed negatively, the Americans are arguably written as more unsympathetic than the Soviets.

Thanks to Strickland—abusive and vicious—and his uncaring superior, General Holt, we do not root for the government officials at all but rather for ordinary folks like Elisa, Zelda, and Giles, who are outcasts.

Interestingly, Dmitri (Michael Stuhlbarg), a Soviet spy scientist, is the only character working at the center who wants to keep the “asset” alive and is written sympathetically.

My overall assessment of The Shape of Water is that it is a film to be enjoyed on many levels and by particular varied tastes- the film will cater to those seeking an old-style romance, complete with some tasty French music.

Then again, the film can be considered a political espionage thriller, with a cat-and-mouse chase and other nail-biting elements.

Overall, the film has heart and truth and will appeal to vast audiences seeking an excellent movie.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Guillermo del Toro (won), Best Actress-Sally Hawkins, Best Supporting Actor-Richard Jenkins, Best Supporting Actress-Octavia Spencer, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Village of the Damned-1960

Village of the Damned-1960

Director Wolf Rilla

Starring George Sanders, Barbara Shelley

Scott’s Review #701

Reviewed November 30, 2017

Grade: B

Village of the Damned is a 1960 black and white horror film released during a spectacular year for the film genre- and specifically for the horror genre.

With legendary films such as Hitchcock’s Psycho and Michael Powell’s British Peeping Tom making their debuts at the same time, what a coincidence that Village of the Damned (also British) shares the same year.

The film is a satisfying treat- certainly not on par with the aforementioned duo of masterpieces, but on its terms, it is a fine film with just enough suspense and intrigue to make it a memorable affair.

Anything in movie horror involving children is downright creepy, so German director Wolf Rilla is wise to adopt a film based on a 1957 novel entitled The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham.

I adore the title and wish Rilla had kept it for the film. Alas, he did not, but the story is well-written and almost like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone or a similar television chapter from the 1960s—it just seems like more of an episodic experience.

No disrespect, of course, but the film does not contain the bombast expected from a feature film, but rather a compartmentalized, small tale.

In the sleepy little town of Midwich, England, a polarizing force suddenly and without warning overtakes the city, causing all the inhabitants to fall unconscious and into a state of inactivity.

Attempts by the military to enter the town fail, even as an airplane crashes to the ground after attempting to cross into Midwich.

As quickly as these events occur, the townspeople “wake up” and resume normalcy. Two months later, all women of childbearing years suddenly become pregnant, causing gossip and intrigue. As the years pass, the children look similar, with platinum-blonde hair, piercing eyes, and rapid growth spurts.

Furthermore, they all are telepathic and communicate with each other in this manner.

The central characters include a prominent professor, Gordon Zellaby (George Sanders), and his wife, Anthea (Barbara Shelley). They are the parents of one of the children, named David, who appears to be the leader of the other children.

As the children become increasingly menacing and intelligent as they grow older, sometimes hurting or killing other townspeople by somehow “possessing” their thoughts, Gordon must race to find a way to trap and stop the children from more dastardly deeds.

The use of black and white cinematography and the small-town setting successfully give Village of the Damned an eerie and mysterious vibe, is little or no bloodshed nor the traditional horror-themed elements- hence the above Twilight Zone reference.

The film does not need these to succeed, as the psychological mystique is compelling enough. We wonder, “What is wrong with these kids?” and “Why do they act so strangely?” “Are they possessed?” and  “Is this some weird experiment?”

The answers are never really explained in detail.

Slight negatives to the film are the only limited character development among any prominent characters such as Gordon or Anthea, and these roles are one-dimensional- the children are the stars.

Sanders and Shelley are adequately cast, but I can think of numerous other actors who could have played these parts well.

The conclusion to Village of the Damned is unspectacular, and I was left with an unsatisfied feeling, especially as related to other more satisfying aspects of the film as a whole.

I felt like a bit of potential was not reached.

Gordon merely orchestrates a big event, sacrificing himself to destroy the children, and the film ends.

Village of the Damned was followed by a 1963 sequel entitled, Children of the Damned, which was not deemed a critical nor a commercial success.

Years later, in 1995, the film was remade and directed by John Carpenter but also received poor reviews.

The Faculty-1998

The Faculty-1998

Director Robert Rodriguez

Starring Josh Hartnett, Piper Laurie, Salma Hayek

Scott’s Review #648

Reviewed June 4, 2017

Grade: B

Having watched The Faculty, a  teenage horror/science fiction flick,  at the time of release in 1998 (now almost twenty years ago!), I fondly remember sitting in the movie theater watching this soon-to-be cult classic take hold of its audience.

Despite some now-dated (in 2017) special effects, the story holds up well, and what a treat to see some “stars of tomorrow” mixed in with some venerable veterans, take center stage.

The Faculty stirs up a strange hybrid of classic films (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Alien, and The Breakfast Club) to create a fun, and gory, horror film.

The action takes place in a small town said to be somewhere in Ohio, though the film is shot in Texas. A football town, and home to the Hornets, sports are central to Herrington High school- both to students and faculty.

It becomes immediately evident that some of the staff is not “right” after two of the teachers stab Principal Valerie Drake (Bebe Neuwirth) with a pencil and scissors and flee with no emotions late one night after a faculty meeting.

Later, student Casey Connors (Elijah Wood) confesses to his group of friends that he believes the teachers are being controlled by aliens. Naturally, they are skeptical until strange events among the staff begin to take shape once the students watch the staff’s activities closely.

The film then turns into a clever whodunit as one student after another is revealed to be infected and therefore an alien.

A highlight of The Faculty is its stellar casting- there is the younger set of actors, who share great chemistry- Josh Hartnett (Zeke), Wood (Casey), Jordana Brewster (Delilah), Clea Duvall (Stokes), Laura Harris (Marybeth), and Shawn Hatosy (Stan) all make up the troupe of characters thrown together due to unlikely circumstances to figure out the big mystery- who amongst the staff is an alien and where they come from?

All of the students are from different social classes, which makes their antics unique- Zeke, the rebel, Stan, the jock, Stokes, the “weirdo”, and Casey, the nerd. In this way, the film reminds me of The Breakfast Club, a mid-1980s “coming of age” high school film.

Additionally, the staff comprises some of the best in the business- stalwart Piper Laurie appears as the drama teacher, luscious Salma Hayek as the sexy school nurse, comic Jon Stewart as the science teacher, and rugged Robert Patrick as Coach Willis.

What a treat for film fans to watch a film such as The Faculty to see a bevy of popular film and television stars amongst the cast.

Director, Robert Rodriguez, most notably known for creative left-of-center work such as Machete (2010) and Sin City (2005) and for being a frequent collaborator of Quentin Tarantino in his edgy collection of films, helms a rather mainstream piece of work in The Faculty.

The film is targeted at your typical, mainstream audience, but with the right blend of clever quirks added in.

Delicious is the ode to the classic science-fiction classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 and 1978), only set in a suburban high school. Clever still is the revelation of the teachers as the robotic “pod people” or aliens from outer space.

This cute reference, in 1998, and still today is an innocent knock on authority figures as the high school kids slowly get their comeuppance against some of the staff.

There comes a point in the film where nearly everyone is an alien and the film runs out of gas. However, the final scene is wonderfully constructed as the film ends as just another day in the life of a small-town high school- life goes on and all is well.

The Faculty (1998) is a treat to watch in present times as a “trip down memory” lane experience.

10 Cloverfield Lane-2016

10 Cloverfield Lane-2016

Director Dan Trachtenberg

Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead,  John Goodman

Scott’s Review #643

Reviewed May 11, 2017

Grade: B+

10 Cloverfield Lane is a 2016 psychological thriller billed as somewhat of a successor to the 2008 hit Cloverfield, though I fail to see the apparent correlation between the films.

Furthermore, the two stories seemingly have little or nothing to do with one another.

Despite these pesky details, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a perfect, edge-of-your-seat type film that is unpredictable and thought-provoking.

By the time the credits roll, it is a film worthy of discussion—an excellent quality for a movie.

Without any dialogue during the opening sequence (a clever move), we meet Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a twenty-something woman presumably on the outs with her boyfriend, who we never see.

Alone, she flees their residence and drives into the night to parts unknown. The couple is metropolitan, living in central New Orleans.

Now in the middle of Louisiana, and hearing radio reports of strange blackouts, Michelle is soon involved in a terrible car accident. When she awakens, she finds herself chained to a bed inside a small bunker inhabited by two men, Howard (John Goodman) and Emmitt (John Gallagher, Jr.).

They insist that the outside world is no longer and all human beings are dead as a result of a catastrophic attack. Initially skeptical, Michelle slowly uncovers various clues that baffle her about the truth.

10 Cloverfield Lane may very well be John Goodman’s best film performance.

He plays Howard with gusto and mystery, and the audience is primarily baffled about whether to trust this man. Is he a vicious abductor, creating a make-believe world to keep Michelle hostage-or is he telling the truth?

He plays the character as creepy and surly but with a tinge of vulnerability and sadness.

I certainly was both fascinated and confused by Howard and could not determine his true motivations.

Winstead also deserves credit for portraying a strong yet sympathetic female character who is never reduced to playing a victim, a testament to the actress’s ability.

Over the years, Winstead has appeared in several duds (Black Christmas, 2006, and The Thing, 2011), so seeing her in a film worthy of her talents is nice.

Michelle is intelligent and determined to deduce her surroundings and formulate a clever escape plan. However, in a nice twist, the filmmakers ask whether she wants to leave the safety of her bunker after all.

Producer J.J. Abrams weaves a story with twists and turns, keeping the tension and interest high throughout the film. The primary question that reoccurs is, “What on earth lies outside of the bunker?”

I enjoy that this film is not the typical, cookie-cutter fare in which we root for the female victim to escape the clutches of a male maniac—it is much deeper and more complex than that.

Most enjoyable is how events slowly unfold, and we, the audience, begin to question thoughts we have harbored throughout the run of the film.

A perfect example of this comes in the final chapter, when events take off in an entirely different direction than the rest of the film. I felt a bit suffocated inside the bunker. What a relief to finally have some action occur outside of this location and into the fresh air.

But what lurks in this new setting?

One slight oddity is that the film includes Bradley Cooper’s voice as Michelle’s boyfriend, Ben, who is heard only by telephone. I did not notice this until the credits rolled, and it seemed like a silly and unnecessary inclusion.

Also, we never know the turmoil between Michelle and Ben. Is their domestic trouble simply plot-driven antics, or does it have a deeper meaning?

In a nutshell, 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) is a film best watched when one does not know the first thing about the plot or circumstances surrounding events.

The film was enjoyable because I did not know the twist, the conclusion, or even who starred in it. This kept all of the elements of surprise from me, making it more enjoyable.

Arrival-2016

Arrival-2016

Director Denis Villeneuve

Starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker

Scott’s Review #642

Reviewed May 9, 2017

Grade: B-

Arrival (2016) is the latest in a recent trend of science fiction-themed films garnering Academy Award praise, either for technical achievements or, in the case of Arrival, a surprising Best Picture nomination in addition to the more traditional awards notice for categories like sound effects and editing.

Traditionally, science fiction gets little or no recognition in significant categories; this makes the inclusion of films in the under-the-radar style with the big guns all the more surprising.

Similar in style to recent films such as Interstellar (2014) and Gravity (2013), Arrival ultimately proves a disappointment as a complete film, succeeding only in specific avenues like its musical score and a sort of surprise twist ending that the film presents, but at times is downright to say nothing of its tedious moments.

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with its Best Picture nomination.

I am not claiming to be the world’s greatest science fiction fan. At times, Arrival does have glimmers of success (mainly in the first act) and some high points in the vein of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), the greatest of the greats in the genre. However, the good moments ultimately fade as the story lumbers on, only to show a brief resurgence in the final act.

Sadly, the rest of the film is rather middling.

In a role seemingly written just for her, Amy Adams stars as Louise Banks, a linguist professor living and teaching in Massachusetts.

One day, a series of twelve extraterrestrial aircraft appeared across the world. Louise is summoned by an Army Colonel (Forest Whitaker) to travel to a remote area of Montana where one aircraft has taken up residence and assist a physicist, Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), in communicating with the aliens.

Their goal is to determine why they have come to planet Earth.

Interspersed with the main story are strange flashbacks of a life Louise briefly spent with her daughter, who appears to have died of cancer as a teenager.

The film’s premise is reminiscent of another film named Contact, made in 1997, starring Jodie Foster.

The film seems to borrow aspects from several other famous science fiction films, such as the creepy, ominous score that harkens back to 2001: A Space Odyssey in its mysteriousness to the oddity of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951).

So much so that the film reminds me too much of other films, it, therefore, has little identity, especially throughout the film’s mid-section.

Other than Louise’s character, there is no character development, and this is glaring among the male cast of top talents like Whitaker and Renner. The roles are glorified throwaway roles.

Except for Renner’s limited involvement in the film’s climactic “twist,” which admittedly barely raises the movie above mediocrity, neither character serves many purposes and could be played by any actor.

Whitaker’s G.T. Weber has little motivation other than convincing Louise to participate in the mission. The film also seems unsure whether to fully explore a romantic entanglement between Louise and Renner’s Ian.

Indeed, a flirtation exists on the surface, but the film never hits a home run with it. Couldn’t a meatier story be created for these two storied actors?

The unique extraterrestrial, a hybrid of tentacles, fingers, and funny eyes appearing as a pair humorously nicknamed Abbott and Costello, is impressive from an artistic perspective, and this does help the film.

The characters’ unsureness about whether Abbott and Costello are friends or foes is also slightly intriguing. However, the film’s main negative is that nothing much happens other than Louise’s repeated attempts to communicate, whimsically staring into the camera in wonderment and ultimately figuring out the alien’s messages and purpose.

Worthy of mention is a fantastic and ominous musical score that gives the film some climactic and dark elements that feel like its highlights. It adds chilling, practical elements, bringing the movie up a notch from complete blandness.

The film’s best part is its ending, which sent a chill down my spine. The unique and inspired big reveal made me a bit shiver.

This way, Arrival saves itself from being completely lackluster, but too little, too late. I would have preferred the film to balance the emotions, surprises, and thrills more rather than exist mainly as a tedious, uninteresting film.

Overall, the outcome of Arrival (2016) is more of a retread than anything new or original.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Denis Villeneuve, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

The Fourth Kind-2009

The Fourth Kind-2009

Director Olatunde Osunsanmi

Starring Milla Jovovich, Will Patton

Scott’s Review #583

Reviewed January 4, 2017

Grade: B-

I went into the theater to see The Fourth Kind (2009) not expecting a classic, but rather, a few frights, chills, and something compelling. I ended up completely entertained and believing it was a good movie.

However, after the credits rolled, I was left with an unsatisfying and misrepresented feeling.

The premise of the film is admittedly a bit trite. An Alaskan female psychiatrist, Dr. Abigail Tyler (Milla Jovovich) videotapes her therapy sessions with patients and discovers some sort of alien has possibly abducted them.

Yes, this sounds crazy, but the film is well-made and rather believable.

The look of the film is similar to the Paranormal Activity films, a craze that was happening when the film was released in 2009.

The documentary look and the interviews with the actors will be looked back on as “of its time”, to be sure.

The style and interspersing of “real” events with fictitious events were interesting. However, I was disappointed when I read that the supposed “real” events were entirely made up, a fact the movie never admits, and, in fact, time and time again reminds the audience are real events.

I enjoyed the movie but felt duped afterward, rendering The Fourth Kind (2009) trivial and forgettable.

Avatar-2009

Avatar-2009

Director James Cameron

Starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana

Scott’s Review #572

Reviewed December 29, 2016

Grade: A

Acclaimed director James Cameron has done it again- similar to Titanic, he has created a masterpiece, but, oddly in one facet of the film, not the entire ball of wax.

Avatar (2009) has two main factors to evaluate- the story and the visual aspect. Both are crucial, but the visual experience is immeasurable, so much so that the story is nearly irrelevant.

Futuristic in the timeline and set in the Twenty-second century, human beings begin to colonize Pandora, a lush planet, filled with lavish forests and creatures who flutter about.

Planet Earth has become depleted of resources, causing scientists to utilize Pandora for their gain. Poisonous to humans, visitors must wear protection.

Sam Worthington portrays Jake Scully, a paraplegic former Marine, who visits Pandora and falls in love with Neytiri, a native creature of the planet.

From a story perspective, Avatar is very ordinary and nothing separates the story from others that have come before it.

At the center is a love story and a rather predictable one in nature, but this is not the reason to view Avatar. Jake and Neytiri are sweet together, but I had much more fun watching the film than caring what happened between the pair.

Visually, Avatar is one of the most amazing films I have ever seen. The intricate style and the attention to detail are astounding- this is my favorite aspect of Avatar and why I feel that the story is not the reason to see the film.

Everything, from the art direction to the background pieces is perfectly made. Natives of Pandora are all CGI- blue/green in color and are gorgeous, peaceful, and moving.

Avatar will likely go down in history as a groundbreaking film- it is a visual feast.

The anti-war slant is also impressive to me, but the creative, and technical achievements set this film over the top.

James Cameron creates a magical, absorbing film that must be cherished.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-James Cameron, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

Splice-2009

Splice-2009

Director Vincenzo Natali

Starring Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley

Scott’s Review #564

Reviewed December 26, 2016

Grade: B-

If you are looking for a realistic, character-driven movie, this film is not for you. Rather, Splice, a 2009 effort, is a science-fiction, thriller, that must be viewed while suspending all disbelief.

It’s not a work of art and has lots of plot holes, but it provides decent entertainment, bordering on fluff.

The two main characters, Clive and Elsa, played by Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley, while admittedly neurological scientists are not the brightest people in the world, and their motivations change with the weather.

The basic plot involves a married couple (above-said scientists) who conduct an experiment to splice human and animal DNA into a new creation, a female hybrid named Dren.

Predictably, things go awry, once Dren is let loose on the world.

The plot is thin and there are questionable actions, motivations, and subplots, but somehow I still found it entertaining once I simply went with it.

There are cliches such as the scientists ignoring instructions, the one-dimensional supporting characters, and so on.

As a comical aside, I overheard the guy sitting behind me in the theater mutter as the closing credits rolled,  “This was the worst movie ever”. I understand where he is coming from, but did not think the film was that bad.

For fans of horror or thrillers I recommend it, anyone else might want to skip this one.

Inception-2010

Inception-2010

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page

Scott’s Review #558

Reviewed December 22, 2016

Grade: A-

Inception (2010) is the type of film that will leave you astounded, baffled, confused, bewildered, and many other adjectives. To put it more simply, this film needs to be pondered after the fact.

This is a high compliment as it is tough to remember such a complex (in a good way!), savory film.

Inception is visionary and meant to be processed.

A highly intelligent film, of sorts, that will leave you thinking afterward. The story is immeasurably complex and will leave many completely confused, but just go with it.

In a nutshell, it tells the story of a man who intercepts people’s subconscious minds through dreams. Different layers of their minds are revealed as the film goes along. There are also virtual levels to each person’s mind- complex, yes.

The film reminds me quite a bit of The Matrix- but better.

The film has many twists and turns throughout and will keep the viewer both perplexed and fascinated. My only slight criticism is the dream sequences do not feel like dreams at all but are highly stylized action sequences.

Many props have been given for being so inventive, though.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

Never Let Me Go-2010

Never Let Me Go-2010

Director Mark Romanek

Starring Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley

Scott’s Review #555

Reviewed December 21, 2016

Grade: A-

Offering a unique experience in creative story-telling, Never Let Me Go (2010) is an excellent film that I was happy to discover.

A mixture of romance and science-fiction, tells of young love and tragedy interestingly- sacrifice and science can lead to dire results.

Based on a 2005 novel of the same name.

A small British drama about a private school where the children are raised as typical children, but at a certain point are expected to donate organs to save other lives, the concept is quite fresh and original.

The film deals with both the moral and psychological effects of the chosen ones as they attempt to allude to ending their lives- if they can prove they are in love.

My initial reactions were multiple emotions-thought-provoking, touching, and sad is what I felt.

This film will make you think. It is equally evocative and thought-provoking- many times I imagined myself in a similar situation.

As Andrew Garfield’s character gets out of his car on the side of the road and screams up at the sky, it is the most powerful scene in the film.

Excellent acting by the three leads (Mulligan, Garfield, and Knightley), with special praise for Carey Mulligan.

Charlotte Rampling as the mysterious headmistress of the school is brilliant.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Cinematography

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens-2015

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens-2015

Director J.J. Abrams

Starring Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill

Scott’s Review #540

Reviewed December 8, 2016

Grade: B

As a youngster who grew up exposed to the original three Star Wars films (admittedly, I cannot keep track nor care enough to learn the exact chronological order of the franchise), the 2015 reincarnation is very nostalgic.

Star Wars (1977), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), and Return of the Jedi (1983) were magical films for a kid to enjoy.

I saw each one in the movie theater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He resembles deceased actor Alec Guinness, made famous again in the 1970s when he appeared in the first Star Wars.

A coincidence?

Filmmakers are going for a modern reboot of Episode IV (the 1977 Star Wars).

The main character of Rey (Daisy Ridley) is meant to be the new Luke Skywalker, who is known as a Jedi hero in the land and has been missing for years. Rey has special powers and is accompanied by her sidekick droid, BB-8, a similar character to R2-D2.

The villain is Kylo-Ren, son of Han Solo and Princess (now General) Leia, and reminiscent of Darth Vader.

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

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

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

I could not help but notice the Nazi similarities of the First Order and their soldiers, the Stormtroopers. Possessing a red quality and a Nazi-like salute to their supreme leader, they even look German in appearance.

Kylo-Ren, raven-haired, pale, and clad in a dark black cape, was derived from Darth Vader, especially when he appeared in mask attire.

He almost could have been his son.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) will undoubtedly please fans and introduce new ones to a world of galaxies, and the “force”.

A satisfying trip down memory lane.

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

Lifeforce-1985

Lifeforce-1985

Director Tobe Hooper

Starring Steve Railsback, Peter Firth

Scott’s Review #516

699938

Reviewed November 11, 2016

Grade: F

Lifeforce, a film made in 1985, is a film that I did not enjoy at all.

It tells the story of a team of astronauts who find three pods of seemingly human bodies, who eventually return the bodies to Earth and turn said humans into zombies.

That is it in a nutshell.

The story makes no sense whatsoever and there is no rhyme or reason for the actions of the characters except to further the plot.

No mention or details as to why they are in outer space or anything that drives the character’s motives.

The film is way too complicated for its good and would have been wiser to go for a straightforward action film rather than what we are treated to (a combo sci-fi/horror mess).

The special effects are completely dated and very cheesy.

Lifeforce (1985) is completely plot-driven and I did not find it gripping at all and is a waste of time that deserves to be completely forgotten.

Safety Not Guaranteed-2012

Safety Not Guaranteed-2012

Director Colin Trevorrow

Starring Mark Duplass, Aubrey Plaza

Scott’s Review #440

70227946

Reviewed July 3, 2016

Grade: B-

Safety Not Guaranteed is similar in style to another 2012 independent film, Ruby Sparks, in that they pose the question of “Is this fantasy or reality”?

The film deals with the subject matter of time travel.

The story centers around a magazine journalist, who, along with two interns, follows a man convinced that he is building a time travel machine.

The story then develops into a romantic comedy of sorts and the audience is unsure if the guy is crazy or purely a genius.

It’s an interesting concept, intelligently written, and Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass are both quite likable in the lead roles.

The one flaw for me was, at times, the movie dove into slapstick territory with a silly secondary story of a stereotypically written Indian character attempting to lose his virginity.

Besides that, Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) has intriguing intentions.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best First Screenplay (won), Best First Feature