Category Archives: Drama

American Sniper-2014

American Sniper-2014

Director-Clint Eastwood

Starring-Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller

Scott’s Review #223

American_Sniper_poster

Reviewed February 22, 2015

Grade: A-

American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood, is a war film that is told from the viewpoint of the soldier- or in this case a sniper.

A character study if you will.

Starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, deemed the deadliest marksman in U.S. military history, he has 255 kills to his name. The film begins pre-9/11 as Kyle views coverage from the 1998 U.S. Embassy attacks and enlists in a grueling training program to become a Navy Seal sniper.

Flashbacks reveal Kyle as a child being taught to hunt deer and shoot a rifle by his demanding father. He is eventually sent to Iraq following the 9/11 terror attacks and the film continues to showcase Kyle’s military career and multiple tours of duty ending years later. His loyal wife Taya is played by Sienna Miller.

I am personally not sure the bevy of controversy that American Sniper has stirred is entirely warranted- I looked at the film simply as a very good mainstream, action movie. Yes, it does have the overdone Americana machismo and Texas swagger, but it is an Eastwood film! This masculinity is at the heart of many of his films.

I do not view the film as politically charged.

The film leans neither Republican nor Democratic and seems to take a middle-of-the-road viewpoint.

It is a tale of a war hero, but it questions the wars fought and the casualties involved both American and otherwise. Sure, Kyle is a good ole, red-blooded American, but as he and Taya watch the 9/11 attacks on television, they are watching CNN, not Fox News. His close military buddy asks “why are we here?” referring to Afghanistan- there is a clear inference by Eastwood to question what this is all about.

I hope audiences keep this in mind.

One concern I do face as I ponder the film is whether American Sniper will send some audience members back to a time when the world was fearful of Muslims and at risk by the recent ISIS terror situations, I hope that people are smart enough to realize that NOT all Muslims are terrorists- it is only a minuscule portion that is evilly inspired.

Certainly, the major terrorist in American Sniper, known simply as The Butcher, is despicable, but plenty of other Muslims are innocent and victims of The Butcher’s brutality.

I love how the film has depth to it- Cooper is resilient as the troubled sniper. He is portrayed as human- a nice, all-American guy. He wrestles with the choice of shooting a woman and a young boy died at the risk of them carrying a bomb and killing members of his squad- he does not want to kill them, but rather is excellent at his job.

He is a perfect shot.

In the heat of the moment, under extreme pressure, he must ask himself, “should I pull the trigger and end their lives”? “what if they are innocent pedestrians?”. He becomes, in a sense, addicted to his duty of going overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan and justifies his service as “protecting Americans”.

This leads to his personal life being affected as Taya becomes frustrated with his frequent tours of duty, which he readily chooses to do. He suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress disorder but refuses to acknowledge this fact. He almost kills the family dog in a fit of uncontrolled rage; he temporarily confuses sounds from an auto shop as military warfare.

My admiration for the acting ability of Bradley Cooper increases with each role I see him in he is a marvel. From recent dynamic performances in American Hustle and The Place Beyond the Pines to this role, I am convinced he can play any part successfully and convincingly.

He has sure come a long way from The Hangover films.

American Sniper is an enormously creative and commercial success and deserves to be. Layered, character-driven, it is worlds above the typical male-driven action film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Bradley Cooper, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing

Once Upon a Time in America-1984

Once Upon a Time in America-1984

Director Sergio Leone

Starring Robert De Niro, James Woods

Scott’s Review #218

60028306

Reviewed January 19, 2015

Grade: A

An epic film, the extended directors cut at more than four hours in length, 1984’s Once Upon a Time in America is a film directed by Sergio Leone, who also directed the 1968 masterpiece Once Upon a Time in the West and numerous other westerns starring Clint Eastwood.

This particular film is in a different vein and not to be confused as any sort of sequel or related to the aforementioned film- this time Leone explores the crime drama genre rather than the western and does so in remarkable fashion.

The film tells the story of a group of Jewish friends who became involved in organized crime during the 1920s in New York City.

The main story is told via flashbacks as the central character, Noodles, played by Robert De Niro, returns to Brooklyn thirty years later to reunite with his former mobster friends.

In this way, the film is sectioned- the group of youngsters and kids and the same characters as adults.

Once Upon a Time in America has been met with much controversy since it was made. At the time of its release, the film was butchered as over an hour of footage was cut by the studio heads making the film largely uneven.

Fortunately, the restored version, at over three hours in length, is available for viewing. Furthermorethe director cut clocks in at well over four hours, and is the best version to watch. Due to so many cuts, other versions appear shoddy and out of order making the viewing experience difficult.

Once Upon a Time in America is largely underappreciated except for the die-hard cinema lovers most patient with the film, and deserves mention as an excellent crime epic drama.

The film contains many similarities to The Godfather and The Godfather Part II and the role De Niro plays is not too different from Vito Corleone in Part II.

However, the greatest contrast is that Once Upon a Time in America is more visually artistic than The Godfather films.

The film centers mainly on Noodle’s perspective as he enjoys youth in the Lower East Side of Manhattan where he meets his group of lifelong friends.

The focal point is his friendship with Max, the adult character played by James Woods, and his undying love for Deborah, played by Elizabeth McGovern as an adult.

As kids, they are worry-free, but gradually fall in with a group of older mobsters, first doing their dirty work, followed by venturing out on their own.

The themes of the film are loyalty, childhood friendship, betrayal, and greed as all of the characters change (or die) in the time that the film takes place.

When a mysterious letter forces Noodles to resurface in Brooklyn, we begin to understand the back story and the history between the friends as layers are slowly peeled back.

The film drags slightly in the middle section, but the first part and last parts are very well-made and absorbing.

Leone has a way of pacing the film that works- it is methodical, and nuanced, with wonderful set pieces and each period explored- 1920s, 1930s, and 1960s seem equally as authentic as the next one does.

I especially enjoyed the 1920s art direction- it revealed such a state of genuineness and felt like truly there in that period.

The relationship between Noodles and Deborah is an interesting one worth mentioning. Falling in love as youngsters (when Deborah was played by a very young Jennifer Connelly) they had an innocent, puppy-love relationship.

As adults, due to a violent, disgraceful act, their tender relationship is subsequently ruined and one might argue one of the characters turns quite unsympathetic.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984) is a sprawling epic film sure to be enjoyed by intelligent fans of the crime epic drama genre and specifically Sergio Leone fans- an underappreciated gem.

Boyhood-2014

Boyhood-2014

Director-Richard Linklater

Starring-Ellar Coltrane, Ethan Hawke

Scott’s Review #217

70301281

Reviewed January 19, 2015

Grade: A

Boyhood is a family drama directed by Richard Linklater that tells the story of a family’s trials and tribulations over twelve years, ranging from approximately 2002-2013.

The film uses the same actors over the entire period which enables the viewer to see the characters change over that period. What a novel idea? In this day and age of special effects, super-heroes, and animated animals, how refreshing to see a simple tale of a family told over a while.

The film’s main character is Mason Evans, Jr. played by Ellar Coltrane. We are introduced to Mason when he is six years old and in the first grade. He lives with his older sister Samantha, played by the director’s daughter Lorelei Linklater, and his mother Olivia, played by Patricia Arquette, in Texas. Mason’s father (Mason Sr.) is played by Ethan Hawke, who is divorced from Olivia.

As the years go by we see situations arise and the characters grow and develop over time similar to real-life.

After the film, Mason Jr. is headed off to college following years of life experience including his first relationship. The other characters develop as well as we see Olivia and Mason Sr. delve into relationships with other partners, some successful, others less successful.

Where Boyhood succeeds is that it is a film about real-life that feels like a slice of Americana.

It’s a wonderful film.

The audience invests in the characters because we grow to love and care about their lives. It is comparable to seeing cousins or friends once a year and seeing what becomes of their lives over time.

This film fascinates me because it is so basic and so real that it does not need contrived dramatic situations to warrant attention. It is simply authentic and that is what makes a great film.

The film is certainly left-leaning politically speaking and I just love the current events that are brought up throughout the years by the family members.

As the film progresses we are treated to Mason Sr. commenting on his distaste of the Iraq war, the children’s anticipation of the new Harry Potter film, Mason Sr. taking the kids to a Houston Astros game, and The Beatles and Star Wars are mentioned.

Another scene sadly focuses on a returning soldier from Iraq who suffers from Post-traumatic stress disorder. These nuances make the film seem so authentic and rich.

As wonderful a job as Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke did neither of them had a huge, bombastic, emotional scene which would have been splendid given the talents of each, but this is a small criticism. Both are superb as struggling parents trying to do the right thing for their children as well as carve out a life for themselves.

Boyhood re-defines realism in the film as we see a family unit hope, struggle, and dream as it’s played out before our eyes.

The film does not need any overwrought dramatics as it is simply a slice of life of a group of people we come to know and love.

Everyone can relate to Boyhood.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Richard Linklater, Best Supporting Actor-Ethan Hawke, Best Supporting Actress-Patricia Arquette (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Richard Linklater (won), Best Supporting Male-Ethan Hawke, Best Supporting Female-Patricia Arquette (won), Best Editing

Big Eyes-2014

Big Eyes-2014

Director-Tim Burton

Starring-Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #216

70095129

Reviewed January 18, 2015

Grade: B

Big Eyes tells the true story of Margaret Keane, a talented artist, famous for the “big eyes” waif collection, whose husband manipulated her and took credit for her works during the 1950s and 1960s.

A con artist, he passed himself off as a talented artist, but in truth, he scammed other artists and had no artistic talent of his own. He was also mentally unstable.

Due to his charisma and ability to wine and dine, influential people, combined with his marketing talents, he was able to make millions in profits from his wife’s art.

Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz portray Margaret and Walter Keane.

Tim Burton directs the film.

Adams and Waltz are the main appeals in this film. They share tremendous chemistry, both when they are courting one another and subsequently when they despise each other and fight a bitter divorce battle in court over the rights to Margaret’s paintings.

I just love Christoph Waltz in whatever he appears in as his charisma and acting ability astound me. Adams is quite effective and believable as the passive, loyal, and talented Margaret Keane.

As compelling performance as Adams gives, one issue I have with the film is that I do not feel as sympathetic towards Margaret Keane as the film probably intended.

Certainly, I like the character very much and was rooting for her in the courthouse scenes to be awarded rights to her paintings and cheered when she escaped to Hawaii with her daughter to begin a new life.

But, she willingly went along with her husband’s plot, as they both decided a female artist would not sell like a man could (it was the 1950’s), and they were able to make millions from her art. They lived in a gorgeous house, had wonderful dinners, and were able to maintain an extravagant lifestyle- not so bad.

It was not as if Walter stole all of her money and left her homeless. She enjoyed a nice lifestyle.

So, my sympathy for her was affected.

A positive of Big Eyes is how Margaret continues to uncover Walter’s deceptions one by one. She first learns he has taken credit for her work- she then finds out that he is not even an artist and has conned another painter into giving Walter credit for their work. The buildup to these reveals is excellent.

The film is a change of pace for Tim Burton. Big Eyes is not a dark film and is quite bright and colorful. Some of the interesting sets and art direction are similar to some of his other works- Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice.

Big Eyes is an enjoyable film largely made successful by the talents and appeal of its two stars.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Screenplay

Pride-2014

Pride-2014

Director-Matthew Warchus

Starring-Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton

Scott’s Review #215

80013480

Reviewed January 17, 2015

Grade: B-

Pride, based on a true story, deserves props for delivering a nice message about inclusion and groups of vastly different people coming together as human beings, but while it is a nice film, the filmmakers play it a bit too safe and it has a definite formulaic feel to it.

Surely, the real story of Pride was not as simplistic as this film felt at times.

The setting is 1984 England where a group of British miners goes on strike in a dispute over wages. A group named Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners made up of gay men and women develop an interest in the strike and decide to help the miners and families.

Why they decide to take on this cause is not fully explained- they just do. The National Union of Mineworkers is hesitant to accept funds as they worry about the publicity caused by a group thought to be perverts.

The film is certainly riddled with clichés- the macho miners resist the help from the gays- many of whom are portrayed as effeminate. The characters who are lesbians look as though the filmmakers wanted to “butch them up”, thereby overdoing the stereotype.

There is a subplot of one gay young man who has not come out to his parents- a well-to-do, pretentious couple. When inevitably the truth is revealed, the parents are angry and turn their backs on the teen. He leaves home to join the gays and lesbians who accept him into their lives with open arms.

The prudish, female head of the committee is homophobic and vows to do everything in her power to make sure the gay and lesbian group does not succeed in aligning with the miners.

These clichés seemed way overdone for the sake of making the film more dramatic. Some of the characters, therefore, come across as one-dimensional.

Even the story revolving around a character with AIDS seems watered down and soft.

On the plus side, the casting of the brilliant Imelda Staunton as the sympathetic, maternal, Hefina is a plus.

A huge supporter of gays and lesbians she comically befriends all of them and is curious about their lifestyles. Bill Nighy is also excellent as Cliff, the older miner who turns out to be gay himself.

Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister at the time, is presented as greedy and selfish with little regard or use for the miners or labor unions.

Pride is an earnest, sentimental, feel-good film that deserves adoration for the coming together of different communities.

I would have liked to see more risks taken by the film to perhaps obtain a darker edge to it.

The Imitation Game-2014

The Imitation Game-2014

Director-Morten Tyldum

Starring-Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley

Scott’s Review #213

70295172

Reviewed January 15, 2015

Grade: A

The Imitation Game tells the story of Alan Turing, a confident and brilliant British mathematician who was responsible for cracking Nazi Germany’s Enigma code, which led to the Allied forces winning World War II.

The film also delves into Turing’s complex and sad personal life and the audience grows to know his upbringing largely told via flashbacks as a small boy at boarding school.

The film is tragic yet wonderfully made and is a powerful viewing experience in human storytelling.

The film has two aspects going on. The first is the hiring of Turing by the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park to crack the code and the numerous struggles faced in accomplishing this feat.

Turing is not an easy-going man- he is arrogant, quick-witted, and even smug. However, through his friendship with Joan (Keira Knightley), an intelligent woman on the team of scholars, we see a human side to him as they forge a lifelong bond.

The other is of his personal life which is a bit more mysterious and comes more into play during the second half of the film. Keeping a secret about his personal life- he is homosexual, which in the time the film is set (1940’s England), is illegal. Alan and Joan agree to marry, in large part to appease her parents, but circumstances change these plans.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who portrays Turning, deserves heaps of praise for his impressive portrayal. He successfully gives depth and a wide range of emotions to the character. He begins as a self-centered man, but becomes layered, guarded, and protective due to his private life of which he is forced to hide a great deal.

Keira Knightley’s character gives support to Cumberbatch’s character of Alan as she becomes engaged to him and later in life becomes his biggest champion. Her character, besides being quite intelligent, is also kind and giving.

The ending of the film will give the viewer many tears and cause to think of the enormity of World War II in terms of the vast amount of casualties. The facts listed just before the credits roll are awe-inspiring and gut-wrenching.

The Imitation Game is not a war movie per se as it does not deal with battle scenes. It is more of a drama dealing with the effects of war and many figures are presented and some of the characters are affected in a second-hand way.

For instance, in one scene, the group (led by Turing) must make a heartbreaking decision not to stop an impending attack, which will cause many deaths- including a character’s brother- instead of choosing to keep mum to save thousands more. It is a powerful scene.

The film successfully and heartbreakingly tells a story of a heroic figure who received no accolades while he was living, instead of being ostracized, and not until posthumously, did he receive his due.

Sadly, this was too little too late.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Morten Tyldum, Best Actor-Benedict Cumberbatch, Best Supporting Actress-Keira Knightley, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Production Design, Best Film Editing

The Conformist-1970

The Conformist-1970

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Jean-Louis Trintignant, Stefania Sandrelli

Top 100 Films #28

Scott’s Review #212

70054715

Reviewed January 10, 2015

Grade: A

The Conformist, directed by Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci and based on the 1950s novel by Alberto Moravia, is a complex film that tells the story of one man’s complicated life throughout the time of Italian Fascism (the 1920s until 1943).

Due to a traumatic childhood event, he is troubled and strives to “conform” to a “normal”, traditional lifestyle despite his underlying wounds and desires, which he struggles to repress.

The character in question is Marcello Clerici, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, who works for the secret police supporting the Fascist government.

Marcello yearns for a quiet life that everyone else seems to have. He is set up with a beautiful new wife and is ordered to assassinate his college professor who is a leader of an anti-Fascist party.

Throughout the story, Marcello is tormented, via flashbacks, by his troubled childhood and the film delivers a marvelous, creative use of camera angles, style, and design.

It is a dreamlike film that makes full use of childhood memories from the perspective of the protagonist.

The film is a character study in the highest regard yet is also beautiful to look at making it very multi-faceted. Marcello is troubled as evidenced by his backstory. In many ways he is weak, refusing to accept who he is or admit his deepest desires.

Mixed in with the complexity of his character is a unique character named Anna (Dominique Sanda), the college professor’s gorgeous blonde wife who appears to be bisexual, enticing both Marcello and his wife, Giulia, played by Stefania Sandrelli. Marcello, in particular, becomes transfixed and obsessed with Anna.

A truly heartbreaking moment arrives later in the film and is my favorite scene in The Conformist. As the assassination attempt is made on a lonely and secluded, yet picturesque country road, the result is murder, betrayal, and surprise.

When one character non-verbally speaks to another with mostly facial expressions and emotionally and pathetically pleads for their life through a car window it is as tragic as it is poetic.

The scene is wrought with drama and sadness.

Additionally, Marcello’s troubled childhood involving a homosexual experience involving a chauffeur named Lino resurfaces years later in an unlikely way and leads to the shocking conclusion of the film.

The very last frame of the film leaves the viewer pondering what is to become of Marcello next.

Marcello’s mother and father add mysterious layers to the film. His father is securely an inmate in a mental hospital while his mother is a boozy older woman who sleeps until noon.

While these characters are not explored as completely as they might have been, it does lead one to ponder why Marcello is the way that he is and if his parents have any bearing on his persona.

In a particularly fascinating scene, Anna seductively dances with Marcello’s wife at a crowded dancehall, they do the tango, as amidst her affair with Marcello, she is clearly in love with his wife, making the dynamic confusing yet at the same time fascinating to view.

The Conformist heavily influenced storied directors such as Frances Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg. A beautiful scene of leaves blowing in the wind almost mirrors a similar scene contained in Coppola’s The Godfather Part II.

A film that is as captivating as it is filled with influence, The Conformist is an interesting watch for both the style and the mystique that surrounds it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Barry Lyndon-1975

Barry Lyndon-1975

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Ryan O’Neal

Top 100 Films #34

Scott’s Review #211

284790

Reviewed January 4, 2015

Grade: A

Barry Lyndon (1975) is a sprawling, beautiful film by famed director Stanley Kubrick. The film is set in the 18th century.

Extremely slow-paced, yet mesmerizing, every shot looks like a portrait, and the inventive use of lighting via real candlelight in certain scenes makes this film a spectacle in its subdued beauty, to say nothing of the gorgeous sets and costumes.

The film is nothing short of a marvel to view.

The story centers around Ryan O’Neal, who plays an Irish man named Redmond Barry.

Redmond is a poor Irish man but is an opportunist. The film follows his life travels throughout Ireland, England, and Germany, as he becomes involved in duels, is robbed, impersonates an officer, is reduced to becoming a servant, gambles, marries a rich widow, and feuds with his stepson.

When he woos and marries the wealthy Countess of Lyndon, he settles in England to enjoy a life of wealth and sophistication. He changes his name to Barry Lyndon. His ten-year-old stepson, Lord Bullingdon, becomes a lifelong enemy as their hatred for each other escalates and is the focal point of Act II of the film.

The supporting cast is filled with unique characters and in particular, the three sinister characters (Lord Bullingdon, Mother Barry, and Reverend Runt) are delicious to watch especially when they square off against one another as is the case with Runt and Mother Barry.

Barry’s two love interests (Lady Lyndon and a German war widow) are entertaining to watch and Lady Lyndon’s costumes are exquisite. Furthermore, Chevalier de Balibar, a wealthy gambler who takes Barry under his wing is a delight.

As with many masterpieces, if not for the great casting, the film would not be as wonderful.

My three favorite scenes include the vicious confrontation between Mother Barry and Reverend Runt- an initially polite conversation between two selfish characters gradually spins into viciousness, the duel between Barry Lyndon and Lord Bullingdon- bitter rivals square off in an awkward yet dramatic duel, and when Barry passionately kisses his dying friend- an unexpected homoerotic scene.

Barry Lyndon delves into the issue of class and class distinction and clearly defines the haves and the have-nots and the struggles of the poor to obtain wealth by any means and for the wealthy to retain their good fortunes.

At a running time of over three hours, it may initially turn viewers off, but as time goes on the film will grip hold of the viewer and not let go.

Having now seen Barry Lyndon (1975) four times, each time I enjoy the film more and more as I become more absorbed by and immersed in the masterpiece.

It’s like a fine wine- it gets better with each taste.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Stanley Kubrick, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material, Best Scoring: Original Song Score and Adaptation or Scoring: Adaptation (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Foxcatcher-2014

Foxcatcher-2014

Director-Bennett Miller

Starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum

Scott’s Review #210

220px-Foxcatcher_First_Teaser_Poster

Reviewed January 2, 2015

Grade: A

Foxcatcher is a dark, disturbing, psychological thriller that achieves greatness based on its bleak look and great acting.

It is a superb character-driven story, based on true events, led by the talents of actors Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum, and Mark Ruffalo, each of whom gives an excellent performance. It is a sports film, but hardly predictable as many in this genre typically are.

The film is set in 1987. Brothers Mark and Dave Schultz (Tatum and Ruffalo respectively) are former Olympic gold medal-winning wrestlers attempting to compete in the upcoming 1988 Olympic competitions.

Despite having won a gold medal, Mark lives in squalor and is reduced to giving pep rallies at elementary schools- meant to be done by Dave- for very little money. Dave is the more successful brother- a family man living a happy existence. He is more talented than Mark and very driven. One day Mark is contacted by wealthy philanthropist John du Pont (Carrell) and invited to live with him at his expansive estate in Pennsylvania and train in his facility with other aspiring Olympic wrestlers.

John’s attempts at wooing Dave as well initially fail. From this point in the story, the film delves into psychologically dark territory, mainly the controlling, disturbing behavior of John, as he attempts to control Mark and woo Dave. John has a damaged relationship with his mother, Jean, wonderfully played by Vanessa Redgrave, in a small yet crucial role. Jean feels that John’s obsession with the wrestling world is far beneath him and their relationship is tense and unloving.

The three principal actors involved in the film are worthy of discussion as without these performances the film would not be as complex or compelling. Let’s begin with Channing Tatum- known primarily as a hunky movie star with questionable acting ability, he proves the naysayers wrong.

I cannot help but compare him to a younger Brad Pitt- it took years and many films for him to be recognized as more than a pretty face and abs to die for.

His performance is understated and calm, but nuanced in his laid-back demeanor. Sometimes anger bubbles under the surface.

Carrell is downright creepy as the affluent yet insecure Du Pont.

Throughout the film, the character just seems off somehow. Known mostly for silly comedies he is a breakout performance that, I hope, leads to similar meaty roles. Carrell shows he has what it takes to appear in quality films.

Lastly, Mark Ruffalo, who always plays interesting, everyman type characters, again emits much emotion from his character of Dave Schultz, a successful, driven, athlete who is also a dedicated husband and father.

With lesser casting, Foxcatcher would not have been as interesting.

Questions at the end of the film will arise- What were John du Pont’s motivations? What effect did his mother have on his actions? How could a man with all his power and wealth end up this sad? Were there inappropriate sexual overtures made towards the wrestlers by John?

Foxcatcher excels at portraying a dark, layered, moody, true story and teaches that wealth does not equate to happiness and in many instances, quite the contrary occurs. Foxcatcher is an immense success.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Bennett Miller, Best Actor-Steve Carell, Best Supporting Actor-Mark Ruffalo, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Special Distinction Award (won)

Eastern Promises-2007

Eastern Promises-2007

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts

Scott’s Review #205

70059994

Reviewed December 15, 2014

Grade: B+

Eastern Promises is a 2007 Russian mafia thriller directed by David Cronenberg (The Fly, A History of Violence) that stars Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, and Vincent Cassel.

The film is an uneven experience, seemingly meshing two stories together- one fascinating, one unnecessary.

Watts plays a British-Russian midwife named Anna, who works at a London hospital. She attempts to find the family of Tatiana, a fourteen-year-old girl who dies during childbirth leaving a diary written in Russian along with her newborn.

Anna struggles to unravel the mystery surrounding the girl which ends up involving the mafia.

Mortensen plays Nikolai, the mysterious chauffeur to crime lord Semyon, and Cassel plays Kirill, the disturbed, alcoholic son of Semyon.

The plot segues into a story of a somewhat relationship between Nikolai and Anna that is not quite romantic and also a much more intriguing relationship between Nikolai and Kirill as a brotherhood of sorts develops between them.

This relationship is complex- Kirill wants Nikolai to prove he is a straight male by having sex with one of several female prisoners he and his father keep as part of a sex trafficking group.

During this scene, and a few others, the two men seem close, almost too close, given the sexual nature of what is happening during the scene, so this relationship is left vague, but intriguing nonetheless.

The latter story holds more interest to me, whereas the former seems contrived and rather uninteresting. Was the intention of the film to imply a romantic interest between Anna and Nikolai?

I found zero chemistry between the two and wondered if the audience was supposed to root for them as a couple or not.

The four principal characters in Eastern Promises are interesting to unravel. I found the characters of Nikolai and Kirill complex and interesting.

Not so much with the character of Anna. Why did I not find her so compelling? Besides a skimmed over the mention of how she lost a baby what vested interest did she have in mixing with the Russian mafia and putting her mother and uncle in harm’s way?

Sure, anyone would want to find an orphaned baby’s family, but why not just call the police? This seems like a large plot hole. Conversely, Nikolai is a fascinating, layered character played wonderfully by Mortensen.

What are his true motivations? Is he a good guy or a bad guy? His attempts at being accepted by Semyon and the family to join the mob family make him seem dangerous- but his kindness towards one of the Ukrainian prostitutes is sweet.

Kirill is a despicable character, but what is his sexuality? Does that make him get so drunk and angry? How does one explain his conflict over the baby shifting his character too sympathetic?

Ultimately, Nikolai and Kirill are complicated- Anna and Semyon are more one-note.

I would have preferred the story solely revolve around the mafia family and the Godfather-type scenes, specifically the two throat-slashing scenes violently done, and perhaps leave out Watts’s character and story altogether.

A gritty scene that takes place in a steam room pits Nikolai against two rival mafia men. The scene is long and intense. Mortensen performs the scene completely naked, which adds to the rawness and the brutality of the fight.

It is one of the most masculine scenes I can remember watching.

At times compelling, but riddled with plot holes and requiring some suspension of disbelief, Eastern Promises (2007) is an entertaining Russian mafia film that remains a decent watch.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

Director Cecil B. DeMille

Starring Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, James Stewart

Scott’s Review #204

60034703

Reviewed December 14, 2014

Grade: B+

Considered by some critics to be one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time, The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) is quite an impressive Hollywood spectacle and tells the story of the world’s largest railroad circus as they launch a tour and travel throughout the United States, with plenty of drama to experience throughout the film.

The film stars Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, and James Stewart as the general manager, acrobat, and clown of the show, respectively.

The film used over 1400 real Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey’s people in the production as well as hundreds of animals giving it an authentic circus feel.

Unfortunately, the film also has a schmaltzy quality to it and does not have the best acting, which surprisingly does not bother me and, strangely enough, sort of works in a melodramatic way.

Various characters have affairs with each other or fall in and out of love rather quickly- it makes for good drama anyway.

The main appeal is the extravagant show, of course. While the drama sometimes takes center stage, the lavish production and real circus events shine through.

My favorite, and arguably, only interesting character with any depth in The Greatest Show on Earth is Buttons the Clown, played by James Stewart.

Buttons wears his clown costume complete with full makeup at all times. He is kind and mysterious. We learn that he “mercy killed” his dying wife and has joined the circus for protection from the police.

A wonderful human being, he was once a Doctor and tends to anyone in the circus troupe who needs assistance. Later in the film, he plays a very important role after a tragic accident occurs.

His heartbreaking, tender conversation with his elderly mother, whom he only sees secretly once a year for seconds as she tearfully and discreetly visits him in the audience, is painfully sad to watch and is such a sweet scene.

The Greatest Show on Earth’s best scene by far though, which still impresses today, is the massive train wreck, close to the conclusion of the film.

Made in 1952, the special effects and direction of Cecil B. DeMille are brilliant. The way that the train derails one night is just perfect- highly effective in its enormity, crashing into an approaching train and derailing.

The scene does not look silly.

The way that all of the drama comes together in this scene- Harry, the crooked midway concessionaire and the vicious elephant trainer, Klaus, responsible for the accident, Button’s true identity being revealed, and a major character in peril, make this scene top-notch and a satisfying conclusion to the film.

The film’s stories involving Brad, Holly, Sebastian, and Angel are soapy and melodramatic and the weakest point of the film- as a viewer I couldn’t care less which character lusted after which or who wound up in bed together, but the film itself is a spectacle and that is my main enjoyment of it.

The brightness, the revelry, and the circus performances are all wonderful.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Motion Picture (won), Best Director-Cecil B. DeMille, Best Story (won), Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing

Gone With The Wind-1939

Gone With The Wind-1939

Director Victor Fleming/George Cukor

Starring Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland

Top 100 Films #15

Scott’s Review #201

70020694

Reviewed December 4, 2014

Grade: A

Gone with the Wind is the grand masterpiece of the sweeping epic drama.

The film is based on Margaret Mitchell’s best-selling novel. Set in the South (Georgia) during the Civil War era, it centers on the life of Scarlett O’Hara, a southern belle of cotton plantation Tara, and how she must struggle to keep her plantation alive after the South loses the war.

Initially, Scarlett cares little about the war, instead enjoying her spoiled, narcissistic lifestyle, and romances with many men in the town, all vying for her attention. She revels in one sunny picnic and ball after another with all eyes on her.

As war decimates the South, however, Scarlett must take over the plantation and survive the ravages of war.

Mixed in with the war theme is a romance between Scarlett and Rhett, one of cinema’s most recognized and enduring couples. Having gone through three directors (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood), the film is as extravagant and precise in its style, attention to detail, and set design as films come.

At close to four hours in length, Gone with the Wind is a lavish production that can take an entire afternoon or evening to watch and is divided into two halves- interestingly the first half directed by Cukor, and the second primarily directed by Fleming.

It is a film that can be viewed and analyzed over and over again and the set pieces and flawless perfectionism alone marveled at. The first half is superior to the second, but that is like comparing prime rib to filet mignon- it’s a preference for goodies.

The first half is brighter, cheery, and fantastic. The wonderful Tara and neighboring plantation Twin Oaks host southern balls and parties and are filled with romance, gossip, and beautiful costumes. War is coming, but it is a delightful time of merriment.

The Southerners embrace going to war they assume will last for two weeks and they will be victorious. They party and they celebrate.

The second half has a much darker tone.

By the beginning of the second half, Atlanta has burned, thousands of men have died, Tara is decimated, Scarlett’s mother died, and her father went batty.

The rebuilding of the south is explored, the troubled Rhett and Scarlett marriage commences, their daughter dies, and the world-famous line uttered by Rhett to Scarlett, “Frankly my dear…. I don’t give a damn”.

Having been now directed by a different person (Fleming), the first and second halves almost seem like two separate films.

Vivien Leigh plays a wonderful role. In 1939 women were rarely strong characters in the film, so for that reason Gone with the Wind is groundbreaking for female characters.

Scarlett is selfish, yes, but she rises above, is strong, saves her plantation, and succeeds as a successful businesswoman- almost unheard of in cinema for 1939. Her undying love for Ashley Wilkes, but unable to obtain him (he is married to his cousin Melanie) gives her a sympathetic vulnerability.

Clark Gable, already a huge star and the people’s choice to play Rhett, is charismatic and handsome. The fact that he and Leigh did not get along makes their fights and sexual tension electric. They love each other but also hate each other and this is transmitted on screen.

Rhett is his own man- he defines himself as not a Northerner, but not a Southerner either. He is a vagabond and spends many nights at the local brothel in the company of Belle Watling. The character of Rhett is independent and strong.

The supporting characters are colorful, lively, and humorous. Aunt Pittypat with her dramatic worrying and smelling salts and Prissy with her insistence on expert child-birthing when in reality she knows nothing, are moments meant to lighten the mood.

Mammie, a mother figure to Scarlett, is a moral, kind, yet tough character. Melanie (Olivia de Havilland) is an even sweeter character in her caring and selflessness.

Lesser characters such as Dr. Meade, Suellen, Carreen, India, and Frank Kennedy all serve their purpose and are no throwaway characters.

Bothersome is that over the years Gone with the Wind has been unfairly “feminized” once it began airing as an alternative to the annual Super Bowl, the assumption being that only women would enjoy it, which is silly.

I do not find this film to be a female film and frankly, some of the battle scenes are quite masculine, with epic fires and guns galore. Is Gone with the Wind now considered a racist film?

Perhaps so, and time has made the political incorrectness much more glaring- this point can be debated endlessly. Ashley participates in a hooded Klan organization and is a hero of the film!

Certainly, the slaves are portrayed as happy, kindly, and comfortable with their place in life throughout the film, vastly different from what surely transpired. However, Hattie McDaniel (Mammie) won the first-ever Oscar for a black actress so that was monumental progress and influence.

Using seemingly thousands of extras, the war-torn Atlanta scene where the camera rises up and up and up panning down on hundreds of wounded and dead Union soldiers as Scarlett defeatedly walks among them is still heartbreaking to watch and is a reminder of the power and destruction that war is.

Gone with the Wind is an epic masterpiece from long ago that still holds up amazingly well. The sets, the rich characters, and the costumes can be admired and still inspire today.

Oscar Nominations: 8 wins-Outstanding Production (won), Best Director-Victor Fleming (won), Best Actor-Clark Cable, Best Actress-Vivien Leigh (won), Best Supporting Actress-Hattie McDaniel (won), Olivia de Havilland, Best Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Sound Recording, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Effects

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?-1966

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? -1966

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton

Top 100 Films #41

Scott’s Review #200

1120753

Reviewed December 3, 2014

Grade: A

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate), is a dark film based on the play from the early 1960s.

Thankfully, by 1966, the Production Code had been lifted, allowing for edgier, darker films to get made- think The Wild Bunch or Bonnie and Clyde from the same period.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is dreary, bleak, and with damn good acting by all four principles.

George and Martha (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) are an associate history professor and daughter of the college president respectively, living in a small New England town.

They have a bitter love/hate relationship.

One night they invite young newlyweds, Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis), a new professor and his wife, over for drinks at 2:00 in the morning.

From this point, a destructive night of verbal assaults and psychological games ensues with damaging and sad results for all parties involved, as their personal lives are exposed and dissected.

At the forefront are George and Martha, who have a relationship based on insults, neediness, secrets, and booze. After an evening out, they return home and have a vicious fight.

When their young friends arrive, the tension is thick.

Eventually, the young couple becomes sucked into the older couple’s web of dysfunction, aided by endless drinks throughout the night.

The film is shot very much like a play and filmed in black and white, which I found highly effective- most scenes take place in George and Martha’s house.

While all four actors are great (and were all Oscar-nominated), the standouts for me are Taylor and Dennis.

This role is Taylor’s finest acting performance in my opinion- she is overweight, bitter, angry, frustrated, drunk, and at times vicious to her husband. It is a different performance from many of her other film roles and it is just dynamite.

As her anger flares up, one can feel the heat and intensity oozing from the screen. She goes from vulnerable and soft one moment to a grizzled, bitter woman the next.

Dennis, conversely, is a pure innocent- kind, vulnerable, impressionable, and somewhat of a ninny. Having had too much brandy and spending more than one occasion in the bathroom, Dennis successfully plays giddiness and innocence to the hilt.

Both Martha and Honey harbor dark secrets, which eventually are revealed.

The ambiance is just amazing- black and white cinematography, a hot, suffocating feel to the film, it feels like a quiet little college hamlet, and the setting of the eerily quiet wee hours of the morning is conveyed successfully.

Each story told- mainly by George and Martha- is captivating in its viciousness (both usually belittling the other) that the film becomes mesmerizing in its shock value at the insults hurled.

What will they say or do next?

I loved the scene where Honey does an awkward dance at a late-night bar that the four of them go to. Also, the shotgun scene where George obtains the gun from the garage during one of Martha’s insulting tales is disturbing- what will he do with the gun?

The stories involving George and Martha’s son are sad and mysterious- the viewer wonders what is going on.

The final reveal still gives me chills.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) is one of the greatest film adaptations of a play that I have ever seen.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Mike Nichols, Best Actor-Richard Burton, Best Actress-Elizabeth Taylor (won), Best Supporting Actor-George Segal, Best Supporting Actress-Sandy Dennis (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Original Music Score, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White (won), Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

The Theory of Everything-2014

The Theory of Everything-2014

Director-James Marsh

Starring-Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones

Scott’s Review #199

80000644

Reviewed December 2, 2014

Grade: A-

The Theory of Everything tells the uplifting true story of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (played by Eddie Redmayne) and his lifelong battle with a debilitating illness- motor neuron disease, which he was diagnosed with in college.

He and his future wife, literature student Jane Wilde (played by Felicity Jones), meet in 1963 at the prestigious Cambridge University in England and fall madly in love.

From this point, the film focuses both on their life-long love affair and Stephen’s subsequent health battles.

Redmayne is wonderful in the lead role. Portraying a character with both speech and mobility deterioration is not an easy task, especially as the problems become worse and worse over time forcing the actor to portray varying levels of disability.

Redmayne rises to the occasion with both believability and conviction making his portrayal as real as possible. The performance fondly reminded me of another great physical performance- that of Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot from 1989. Redmayne is certainly a rising star in Hollywood.

Felicity Jones is also very good- though I feel many actresses could have handled the role and there is certainly not as much meat in her part as Redmayne’s.

The remainder of the cast is comprised of very British actors making the film an authentic feeling. Emily Watson, who plays Jane’s mother, shamefully receives only one scene- was this talented actress’s role cut? One wonders.

I get the sense that the filmmakers had Oscar on the mind as the film certainly is geared towards mainstream audiences with a wholesome slant to it.

The film skims past the complex theories and mathematical aspects-sure to confuse most- and focuses more on the inspirational tale of a person overcoming an immense challenge. Furthermore, the subsequent quadrangle between Hawking, Jane, Jane’s choir leader (Jonathan), and Hawking’s nurse (Elaine) is very toned down and safe from what transpired- Hawking’s family accused his nurse of abusing him which is never mentioned in the film.

The film presents their relationship as wonderful, so clearly some facts have been softened or omitted altogether- another example of how the film goes for a moral feel.

The situation involving the four real-life characters was messy, but the film makes it seem sweet- presumably, this is because all the characters are still alive.

This is an interesting aspect of the film and is not necessarily a criticism as much as a perception- certainly many films embellish reality for entertainment value.

A few thoughts I was left pondering- the pairing of Jane and Jonathan seemed inevitable to me from the moment they laid eyes on each other- they had much in common (religion), whereas Stephen and Jane were complete opposites- she catholic, he atheist.

The sexual chemistry between Stephen and Elaine was evident from the moment they laid eyes on each other. Elaine’s energetic sexiness perfectly contrasted with Jane’s at that point in the film- haggardness and weariness.

The film is not designed to be a downer as it very well could have been- the focus might have been more downtrodden than it was. Rather, it is sentimental and empowering.

The Theory of Everything is a heartwarming, conventional, human story about a man rising above adversity, and at the center of the film is one dynamic performance by Eddie Redmayne.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne (won), Best Actress-Felicity Jones, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score

The Normal Heart-2014

The Normal Heart-2014

Director-Ryan Murphy

Starring-Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer

Scott’s Review #198

70302186

Reviewed December 1, 2014

Grade: B+

The Normal Heart is a 2014 HBO television movie based on the true story of Ned Weeks, an openly gay AIDS activist/writer, played by Mark Ruffalo.

The film is set during the period when the epidemic first surfaced, from 1981-1984, and the challenges and frustrations faced, mostly within the gay community, to bring exposure and assistance to the disease.

Weeks was famous for establishing a group of passionate members who banded together to attempt to hurdle these struggles.

The film was produced by Brad Pitt- wonderful to know as films with this content (AIDS) are often tough to produce- nice that Pitt’s wealth and influence were used effectively.

Certainly, at a vastly different time in the country to be gay, the government did very little to assist with financing funding for treatment or researching a cure for it, which is the main point of the story.

The talented cast makes this film what it is. Matt Bomer plays Ned’s closeted gay lover, Felix Turner, one of the many casualties of the deadly disease. Bomer lost 40 pounds in preparation for the role.

Julia Roberts plays polio-stricken doctor, Emma Brookner, who was instrumental in helping the sick when few others within the medical community wanted to.

Other actors providing support are Alfred Molina, who plays Ned’s supportive, and powerful, attorney and brother, and Joe Mantello, who has a terrific meltdown scene as his anger and anguish over the disease not being taken seriously by the government finally bubble to the surface.

Finally, Mark Ruffalo plays Ned competently, but why the slight feminization of the character? The real Ned Weeks was masculine. A needless stereotype the film (or Ruffalo) chose to pursue.

The film shows the discrimination faced by the AIDS victims- from an airline pilot refusing to fly a plane carrying a sick patient, to an electrician refusing to enter a sick patient’s hospital room to fix a television set- sad when one realizes how ridiculous these unfounded fears proved to be.

According to the film’s statistics, and a major point of the film is how the United States Government, specifically President Reagan, did very little in the way of funding or even wanting to discuss the issue for years following the initial outbreak, resulting in thousands of lost lives.

And why exactly is Reagan considered a great President?

It makes one ponder. It was only due to beloved Hollywood star Rock Hudson acquiring and dying from the disease and Elizabeth Taylor using her star power to get people involved that finally led to the topic being discussed and action taken on a federal level.

My one slight criticism of the film is that it looks and feels like a television movie similar in texture to Behind the Candelabra, another HBO film.

The colors are bright and vivid and it looks television-like and could have used darker lighting and perhaps a gloomier more dower feel, especially given the subject matter involved in the story.

Otherwise, thumbs up and respect for bringing this story to millions of viewers and hopefully educating the many who were not there at the time.

The Godfather: Part II-1974

The Godfather: Part II-1974

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro

Top 100 Films #3

Scott’s Review #197

60011663

Reviewed: November 25, 2014

Grade: A

Frances Ford Coppola’s sequel (and technically also a prequel) to the highly regarded and successful The Godfather (1972) is one of the rare sequels to equal and even surpass the original in its greatness, creativity, and structure.

The Godfather Part II (1974) feels deeper, more complex, and ultimately richer than The Godfather- and that film itself is a masterpiece. Part II is much darker in tone. Ford Coppola had complete freedom to write and direct as he saw fit with no studio interference.

The results are immeasurable in creating a film masterpiece.

The film is sectioned into two parts, which is a highly interesting and effective decision.

The story alternates between the early twentieth century following Don Corleone’s life, now played by Robert DeNiro, as his story is explained- left without a family and on the run from a crime lord, Don escapes to the United States as a young boy and struggles to survive in the Little Italy neighborhood of New York City.

He obtains a modest job as a grocery stockboy and finally celebrates his eventual rise to power in the mafia.

The other part of the film is set in 1958 as Michael Corleone is faced with a crumbling empire, through both rivals and the FBI- investigating him and holding Senate committee hearings in Washington D.C., and a failing marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton).

Betrayal is a common theme of the film from Michael’s wife, brother, and mobster allies revealed to be cagey enemies. Michael grows uncertain and mistrustful of almost everyone surrounding him. Is Kay a friend or foe? Is Fredo plotting against him? He even begins lashing out at Tom Hagen on occasion.

What makes The Godfather Part II so brilliant, and in my opinion richer than The Godfather, is that it is tougher to watch- and that is to its credit. Now, instead of being a warm, respected member of a powerful family, Michael is questioned, analyzed, and betrayed.

New, interesting characters are introduced- Hyman Roth, played by Lee Strasburg, a former ally of Don’s, and Frankie Pentangeli, played by Michael V. Gazzo are intriguing characters and their allegiances are unknown throughout most of the film- are they loyal to the Corleone’s or deadly enemies?

The character of Michael goes from conflicted to all-out revenge-minded, including revenge sought on members of his own family. Michael is now a dark, angry character- gone is the nice, decorated war hero with his whole life ahead of him. He is much older and a changed man.

Similar to the original Godfather, the opening scene is a large celebration- this time Anthony Corleone’s first communion celebration. Also in comparison, the finale of the film involves major character deaths one after the other.

Unique to this film are the multiple location scenes- New York, Nevada, Italy, Florida, and Cuba are all featured making for an enjoyable segue throughout and a bigger budget.

The blow-up confrontation between Michael and Kay is devastating and shocking in its climax. When Michael punches Kay in a sudden rage, the audience also feels punched.

The wonderful scene at the end of the film with the entire family gathered around for Don’s fiftieth birthday in 1942 is a special treat for viewers; familiar faces make cameo appearances.

I love these aspects of the film.

The rich history of Don is the greatest aspect of The Godfather Part II simply known as “Godfather” and patriarch of the family, his life as a boy and young father are explained so we see how he became one of the most powerful men in the crime world.

I love how he remains a decent man and helps the poor and the victims of ruthless Don Fanucci, his predecessor. He loves his wife and children, but also loves his neighbors, and helps them, believing in fairness.

Ultimately, the characters of Don and Michael are worlds apart.

The Godfather Part II (1974) is one of the most complex and well-written films in movie history- studied in film school, discussed, imitated, and championed. It remains vital and should be viewed and analyzed again and again and again.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Al Pacino, Best Supporting Actor-Robert De Niro (won), Michael V. Gazzo, Lee Strasberg, Best Supporting Actress-Talia Shire, Best Screenplay Adapted from Other Material (won), Best Original Dramatic Score (won), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction (won)

The Godfather-1972

The Godfather-1972

Director Frances Ford Coppola

Starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan

Top 100 Films #10

Scott’s Review #196

60011152

Reviewed November 24, 2014

Grade: A

The Godfather (1972) is one of the most identifiable and brilliant film masterpieces of all time. It is so ingrained in pop culture and film history and was such a blueprint of 1970s cinema that its legend deservedly lives on.

The film has not aged poorly nor been soured by over-exposure. It is as much a marvel today as it must have been when originally released in theaters.

The film revolves around the Corleone family- a mob family living in New York. They are high-powered, wealthy, and influential with politicians and law enforcement alike. They are the cream of the crop of organized crime families.

The patriarch of the family is known as “The Godfather”, the real name is Don Corleone, played by Marlon Brando.

The eldest son is hot-headed Sonny, played by James Caan. Middle son Fredo, played by John Cazale, is dim-witted and immature and the weak link in the family.

Finally, the youngest son is the central character in the film. Michael, played by a very youthful Al Pacino, has just returned home from World War II, a decorated and Ivy League-educated hero.

Throughout the film, Michael wrestles with either steering the Corleone family business toward the straight and narrow or continuing the death, blood, and corruption that currently encompasses the family.

Rounding out the Corleone family is Tom Hagen, an Irish surrogate son of sorts, who serves as the family attorney. Connie- the temperamental and emotional sister, and Mama Corleone, the passive wife of Don complete the main family.

The various supporting characters are immense, from family friends, relatives, corrupt mob figures, and characters introduced when Michael lives in Italy.

The brilliance of The Godfather is the richness of the enormous amount of characters on the canvas and the structure and pacing of the film.

Even small characters are vital to the film and every scene is important and effortlessly paced so that they neither seem rushed nor dragged, and the film is immeasurably character-driven.

My favorite character is Michael Corleone as he is the most troubled and complex. Pacino plays him to the hilt as, initially, a nice guy trying to do the right thing, going against the grain, and non-traditional- he proposes to a waspy woman who has no Italian heritage.

When events develop in a particular way, Michael suddenly becomes the leader of the family, despite being the youngest son, and the complexities of the character deepen from this point.

Specifically, the revenge killing sequence is brilliant as the viewer is kept on the edge of their seat through a car ride, a meal in a restaurant, and a men’s room scene, until finally, all hell breaks loose, all the while Michael is conflicted, unsure, and intense.

Has he veered too far from being a nice guy? Can he salvage the family business without being ruthless? Michael faces a battle of good vs. evil.

The scenes are brilliantly structured- the grand opening scene alone is beautiful as the audience is introduced to the entire family- cheerfully dancing and frolicking during a bright and sunny outdoor wedding (Connie’s) at the Corleone estate, while inside a dark interior study, a man begs Don Corleone to help avenge his raped and beaten daughter by having her attackers killed.

Several scenes in The Godfather are my personal favorites- the aforementioned restaurant scene, where Michael is faced with a dilemma involving a corrupt policeman and a high-powered figure, one can feel the tension in this extended scene.

The scene in a Hollywood mansion where poor, innocent, horse Khartoum meets his fate in the most gruesome way imaginable.

Later, Michael’s beautiful Italian wife, Apollonia, has an explosive send-off.

Towards the end of the film, the improvised tomato garden scene with an elderly Don Corleone playing with his young grandson.

Finally, the brutal scene involving Corleone’s son Sonny at the toll booth is mesmerizing, brutal, and flawlessly executed.

The lack of any strong female characters and how women are treated (either beaten or passively following their husbands) is bothersome, but unfortunately, circa 1940s mafia, this is the way things were.

One could make the argument that Kay Adams, played by Diane Keaton, is the strongest female character as she questions the Corleone family’s motives and attempts to keep Michael honest and trustworthy. She has little in common with the other female characters.

Lines such as “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse” and “Don’t forget the cannolis” are unforgettable and quote-worthy.

The finale of the film is breathtaking- a combination of bloody kills mixed in with a peaceful scene of Michael accepting the honor of becoming his nephew’s godfather. As he pledges his devotion to God and denounces Satan, the murders he orchestrated are simultaneously being executed.

The character, while complex, suddenly becomes a hypocrite.

Some view Michael as strictly a hero whose choices should not be questioned or analyzed- others view Michael as not a hero, but rather a complex, tortured, bad guy.

One simply must watch The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (1974) as companion pieces, as Part I is slightly more straightforward and easier to follow than the more complex and layered sequel.

The Godfather (1972) is storytelling and filmmaking at its absolute best and continues to influence films to this day.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Francis Ford Coppola, Best Actor-Marlon Brando (won), Best Supporting Actor-James Caan, Robert Duvall, Al Pacino, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Film Editing

Mommie Dearest-1981

Mommie Dearest-1981

Director Frank Perry

Starring Faye Dunaway

Top 100 Films #44

Scott’s Review #195

60020629

Reviewed November 20, 2014

Grade: A

Camp, camp, camp!

By this point in film history, Mommie Dearest and this description go hand in hand, but when made in 1981, it was meant to be a much more serious film than it turned out to be.

Sadly, due to a few very over-the-top lines, it is forever inducted into the halls of cult classic memory.

Based on the scandalous tell-all book written by Christina Crawford (Joan’s adopted daughter), Mommie Dearest tells the story of Joan Crawford, a Hollywood screen legend, from her heyday in the 1930s, until she died in 1977, and mostly focuses on the tumultuous relationship with Christina- played as an adult by Diana Scarwid.

Convinced a baby was missing from her life and unable to conceive after several miscarriages with a former flame, Crawford’s beau at the time, an attorney, wrangles a way for her to adopt both Christina and later, Christopher Crawford.

Dealing with her mother’s demands and abuse, Christina goes from a happy little girl to a rebellious teen sent to live in a convent and later struggling to find her way as an actress in New York City with no financial support from Mom.

The film also wonderfully describes the career of Crawford- from highs (winning the Academy Award for Mildred Pierce) to lows (being cut from MGM and reduced to screen tests). The film also recounts Joan Crawford’s continuing battles with booze and neuroses.

From start to finish the film belongs to Dunaway as she simply becomes Crawford- the eyelashes, the mannerisms, every detail is spot on.

Unfortunately for Dunaway, due to the unintentional comedic view of this film, she was robbed of an Oscar nomination, shamefully so. The film was awarded several Razzies- a derogatory honor given to the year’s worst films. Dunaway must have put her heart and soul into this performance.

During the infamous wire hanger scene, Dunaway looks frightening as her face, caked with cold cream, reveals a grotesque mask- reminiscent of Batman character The Joker- as she shrieks at her daughter in the middle of the night, during a drunken tirade, after finding beautiful clothes on wire hangers.

She then trashes her daughter’s bathroom insisting it is already filthy.

One will shriek with gales of laughter as Crawford berates her maid Helga for not scrubbing beneath a potted plant, only to insist, “I’m not mad at you Helga, I’m mad at the dirt”.

In another haunting scene, Joan throws a birthday party for Christina complete with a merry-go-round, balloons, presents, and the paparazzi. Joan’s attire is a little girl dress matching young Christina’s- a morbid foreshadowing of the competition that is to exist between them as the years go by.

The secondary characters are merely an extension of Dunaway’s character and do their best to support her- her harried live-in assistant, Carol Ann, played by Rutanya Alda, both of her love interests, lawyer, Greg Savitt, played by Steve Forrest, and later, Pepsi-Cola mogul Alfred Steele, played by Harry Goz.

The actors do their best with the material given and are neither exceptional nor flawed. None of these supporting characters have any backstory other than to react to Crawford’s drama and, if written better, may have given the film a bit more depth.

The look of the film is pleasing- Crawford’s house is beautifully decorated with lavish furniture and the colors throughout the film are both bright and vivid. The now-legendary lines of “No wire hangers ever!”, “Christina! Bring me the ax!”, and “Don’t fuck with me fellas, this ain’t my first time at the rodeo” are hysterical in their melodrama and effect.

Crawford is portrayed as an obsessive-compulsive, demanding, control freak. One may debate the authenticity of the claims Christina made against Joan Crawford until the end of time.

Not the masterpiece it was intended to be, Mommie Dearest (1981) can be enjoyed viewing after viewing for some campy silliness, with one hell of a great performance by Dunaway mixed in.

Whiplash-2014

Whiplash-2014

Director-Damien Chazelle

Starring-Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons

Scott’s Review #192

70299275

Reviewed November 13, 2014

Grade: A

Whiplash is a film about an aspiring nineteen-year-old Jazz drummer- Andrew Neyman, played by rising star Miles Teller (known for 2013’s indie teen drama The Spectacular Now), who is attending one of the most revered musical schools in the country, the Schaffer Conservatory in New York.

There, he is both mentored and terrorized by his intense and sometimes sadistic conductor- Terence Fletcher, portrayed by J.K. Simmons.

Andrew aspires to be the best drummer that he can be and worships Buddy Rich- a famous Jazz drummer from the 1930s and 1940s, who he constantly listens to and emulates.

While Andrew aspires to make the school orchestra that desperately needs a new drummer, he meets a cute girl, Nicole, at the concession stand of his favorite movie theater, and they bond.

Also in the mix is Andrew’s father, played by Paul Reiser. Once an aspiring writer, who never made it big, he struggles as a high school teacher. Andrew’s mother left the family when Andrew was just a toddler leaving just father and son.

The film mainly centers on the tumultuous relationship between Andrew and Terence and Andrew’s determination to be the best drummer in the world.

J.K. Simmons is simply mesmerizing in his role of Terence and this is wonderful to see as Simmons has struggled as a character actor for years. He gives a powerhouse performance and plows full steam ahead in his viciousness and extreme brutality towards the students, and on more than one occasion reduces a student to tears- if the tempo is not to his liking he shakes his clenched fist in disapproval.

The audience wonders if Terence is simply mean and sadistic or is tough on the students simply to make them work harder and achieve all that they are capable of.

Throughout most of the film, I wondered if I should hate this character or have sympathy towards him for wanting the students to excel. The sexuality of Fletcher is ambiguous.

He belittles and ridicules the students with fat jokes- he hatefully taunts an overweight student about Mars bars and happy meals, uses Irish digs, and inevitably gay slurs on other students, but is he hiding something in his personal life? Is he a closet case? His private life remains a mystery.

As brutal as Terence can be, there are moments of sensitivity that the character exhibits- he tearfully tells the orchestra a heartbreaking story of a former student, whom he admired, who recently died in a car accident.

In another scene, he warmly bonds with a friend’s young daughter.

As brilliant as Simmons is we must not forget to recognize the immense talent of Teller. The young actor does a fantastic job of portraying determination, drive, anger, and vengeance.

Andrew has a wonderful relationship with his dedicated father, a love/hate relationship with Terence, (are they bitter enemies or do they have the respect of a mentor/student?), and a sweet yet uneven relationship with Nicole. He successfully portrays a myriad of different emotions throughout the film.

Paul Reiser is wonderful in an overlooked and, quite frankly, thankless role as Andrew’s unsuccessful, yet forever faithful father.

Thankfully the film chose to center on the conductor/student dynamic and Andrew’s romantic relationship with Nicole did not take center stage and usurp the main point of the story, as I felt that the dynamic between the two was of lesser importance to the greater whole of the film.

The finale, an intense concert performance scene focusing on the intensity between Terence and Andrew, is superbly done. The close-up camera shots of the two added much to the climax of the film.

In fact, throughout Whiplash, extreme close-up shots of sweat and blood and intensity during performances and practices add to the overall rawness of the film.

Whiplash is an intense, sometimes brutal, assaulting experience, but what an amazing film it is.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-J.K. Simmons (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Damien Chazelle, Best Supporting Male-J.K. Simmons (won), Best Editing (won)

Birdman-2014

Birdman-2014

Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu

Starring-Michael Keaton, Edward Norton

Scott’s Review #190

80000643

Reviewed November 6, 2014

Grade: A

Birdman is a very unique art film, which happily, has garnered major exposure and publicity because a movie like this runs the risk of receiving praise and notice only from the art-house crowd itself.

The film’s star-Michael Keaton, portrays Riggan Thomson, a former action hero superstar from the 1990s, who was made famous for the “Birdman” character he created. Having made sequels to the film, his career has since dried up and he hopes to establish credibility and prove himself a real actor by writing, directing, and starring in his play.

The film is set in and around the Broadway theater in New York City.

As opening night approaches, he struggles to pull everything together and emit a successful production while faced with an injured terrible actor, a difficult actor, his insecurities, and a miserable theatre critic destined to ruin his big chance.

To make matters worse, his daughter Sam, played by Emma Stone is a recovering drug addict who hangs around the theatre distracting actors with her charm and good looks.

Naomi Watts and Edward Norton play Leslie and Mike, other cast members in the production. Watts is sympathetic as the emotional actress with the heart of gold who finally has her dream of performing on Broadway realized. Norton, outstanding as Mike, is blunt yet socially awkward and can only perform truthfully on the stage.

Keaton is simply a marvel as he plays a dark and vulnerable man-hating and wishing to shed his ridiculous movie persona of yesteryear and secretly cringes when recognized by fans. He communicates with a voice inside his head, the voice he used when he played “Birdman” years earlier.

The uniqueness of the film is the use of what seems like one long take as the action rarely stops and seems to be ongoing. In my opinion, the film belongs to Keaton- he wonderfully relays vulnerability, pain, and fear within with an outward persona of bravery and masculinity.

Throughout the film I wondered, is Riggan suicidal? What is real and what is imagined? Are certain scenes foreshadowing for later events?

The film has much depth.

One marvel at how art imitates life- Is Keaton portraying himself? Keep in mind that Keaton was the original Batman in the successful superhero franchise beginning in 1989 and his career tanked shortly thereafter.

Birdman is a comeback film for him and he is devastatingly good.

Norton’s character Mike impressed me- blunt and honest he is also flawed and scared and in some ways addicted to the stage.

Stone has one particularly brilliant scene as she lambasts her father and with regret, later on, tells him that the world has moved on without him and that he is irrelevant just like everyone else- it is a powerful scene.

In another, Riggan is locked outside of the theater during the performance, clad only in his underwear- how on earth will he return to the stage and complete the show? The quick slights at current Hollywood superstars playing superheroes, specifically Robert Downey Jr. are deliciously naughty.

A dark comedy for sure, it is impossible to predict what will come next and the film is very New York theater style. Keaton’s run-in with a theater critic in a cocktail bar is the best scene in the film as the critic’s vicious critique of “You’re a celebrity, not an actor” resonates with both pain and tremendous anger for Riggan.

Riggan is a sensitive, struggling man and Keaton so wonderfully shows his vulnerability in every scene.

Bravo!

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu (won), Best Actor-Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu, Best Male Lead-Michael Keaton (won), Best Supporting Male-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Female-Emma Stone, Best Cinematography (won)

Kiss of the Spider Woman-1985

Kiss of the Spider Woman-1985

Director Hector Babenco

Starring William Hurt, Raul Julia

Scott’s Review #187

60010547

Reviewed October 24, 2014

Grade: B+

1985 was not the best year for film nor was much of the 1980s, as I think about it, but unique standouts do exist and Kiss of the Spider Woman is an unusual and artistic film.

Set in present-day South America (Brazil) two men are imprisoned for very different reasons and are cellmates in the prison where they are captives.

Complete opposites, they form an unlikely bond, centering on friendship, but also skirting toward romance, flirtation, and at times, love.

Luis Molina is outwardly homosexual and extremely flamboyant and perhaps out of touch with reality as he fantasizes and describes romantic Nazi films. He is imprisoned for not only being homosexual but for having sex with an underage male.

The other man, Valentin Arregui, is a liberal, political activist, who has been beaten, tortured, and interrogated due to his revolutionary-leaning politics. He has a rough, macho edge to him.

On the surface, the two men have nothing in common, but due to proximity, forge a close bond and mutual respect as their lives pre-imprisonment are explained to each other as well as to the audience.

The true strength of this film is the performance, very against type, of William Hurt- the best performance of his career by a mile. He completely embodies the character of Luis in his effeminacy, yearning, pain, and obsession with escaping reality through film.

Raul Julia has the same effect, though in a completely different way, as he portrays Valentin. Luis tenderly comforts Valentin, who is being poisoned by prison officials, by incorporating his stories of films into Valentin’s real life, as he yearns for his separated lover, Marta.

As Luis begins falling in love with Valentin, and one is seemingly double-crossed by the other, it leads to a test of courage and dedication to each other.

The ending of the film is a sad one, dark, yet thought-provoking, and shows love, tenderness, and bravery.

My only negative from Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) is at moments, using the flashback series or through the film that Luis explains, it is tough to follow and surmise what is exactly going on in the story, but the performances of Hurt and Julia, and the chemistry between them, are the films major strengths.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Hector Babenco, Best Actor-William Hurt (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best International Film (won)

Dog Day Afternoon-1975

Dog Day Afternoon-1975

Director Sidney Lumet

Starring Al Pacino, Chris Sarandon

Scott’s Review #185

450423

Reviewed October 13, 2014

Grade: A-

Director Sidney Lumet successfully sets the smoldering hot summer afternoon in New York City for his 1975 film Dog Day Afternoon, as Al Pacino plays Sonny, an unemployed, desperate man who, while married with two kids, has a gay lover, Leon, (brilliantly played by Chris Sarandon) who he is attempting to help finance a sex change operation.

Based on a true story, Sonny, along with his dimwitted friend Sal- played by John Cazale, decides to rob First Brooklyn Savings Bank.

Predictably, their plans go awry when Sonny burns a ledger during the robbery attempt and a pedestrian sees the smoke and alerts the police.

As the police become aware of the attempted heist, a standoff ensues between Sonny and the cops, led by Detective Moretti, played by Charles Durning, and the robbery receives media coverage.

Most of the action is set inside the stifling hot bank and directly outside on the street and gradually the supporting characters come into play- the hostages, Sonny’s mother, wife, and lover all make contact with Sonny in some way or another and his motivations become clearer to the audience.

Dog Day Afternoon is a somewhat message movie that is anti-establishment, in this case, anti-police and questioning of the government and the financial establishment, (Lumet also directed Network, challenging establishment).

This is evidenced when after a standoff with police, the crowd sides with Sonny as he chants Attica! Attica!, which is a direct reference to a recent prison riot.

Sonny speaks for the working class- the poor, struggling, underpaid workers who cannot afford to feed or adequately take care of their families.

The heat and humidity compare perfectly to the pressure felt by most middle-class people that still resonates today and leaves the viewer contemplating his or her life.

Sonny relates to the bank tellers who do not make much money. Besides, Sonny is sympathetic to the audience in another way. Leon, recently hospitalized at Bellevue Hospital, is emotionally dependent on Sonny. He would be lost without him.

They share a lengthy and heartfelt phone conversation that is the heart of the film- gay romance had not been explored this way by 1975 in cinema, and the romance was neither shoved down the audience’s throat nor was it looked past entirely.

Their relationship is tender and deep, yet still somewhat ambiguous.

Would they stay together? What would become of Sonny’s wife and two children? Would he leave them for Leon in a world that was not ready to accept two homosexual men together? Is that the reason for Leon’s desire for a sex change operation?

Chris Sarandon, in too small a part, is wonderful as the gay lover, struggling with a sexual identity crisis. Al Pacino gives, per usual, a brilliant portrayal as he takes on a complex character who is far from one-dimensional.

Perhaps not a masterpiece, Dog Day Afternoon, is a very good film, but neither is it strictly a gay-themed movie nor an action/thriller- it’s more complex than that.

Ironically, Sonny is portrayed as the hero of the film as it is not a standard good police versus bad bank robber type of film- quite the contrary. It is much, much more than that.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Sidney Lumet, Best Actor-Al Pacino, Best Supporting Actor-Chris Sarandon, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing

Go for Sisters-2013

Go for Sisters-2013

Director John Sayles

Starring Edward James Olmos

Scott’s Review #177

70272916

Reviewed September 27, 2014

Grade: B-

Go for Sisters is a 2013 independent feature film about a female parole officer (Lisa Gay Hamilton) with a troubled, missing son named Rodney, feared to be mixed up with the murder of a drug dealer.

The film takes place in California and Mexico.

Hamilton plays Bernice, a middle-aged black woman, who has always done the right thing. Widowed and recently dumped by a new boyfriend, she runs into ex-convict Fontayne, played by Yolonda Ross, at her parole office.

Initially wanting nothing to do with her former high school friend, Bernice decides to use Fontayne’s criminal connections to locate Rodney.

From this point, they hire retired Mexican police officer Freddy Suarez, played by Edward James Olmos, and the trio embarks on an adventure across the border of Mexico.

I love the story involving the two female leads (Hamilton and Ross) who share a Thelma and Louise-type bond.

The characters reconnect with each other and develop independently. Straight-laced Bernice toughens up and breaks a few rules while Fontayne, determined to go straight, struggles to keep her head above water, resisting drugs and attempting to hold down a job.

The two forge a bond based on trust, respect, and loyalty, and their friendship grows throughout the film.

One gripe about Fontayne’s character- she admits to being a lesbian but then mentions she is not sure if she is or if she is not. This sexual identity crisis seems strange- why couldn’t the film make her a lesbian? Why the hedging?

The remaining aspects of the film are mediocre to weak.

Adding the character of Freddy to the mix is unnecessary. He adds little to the plot except helping the women get into Mexico and being male comic relief.

Either way, I didn’t find the character very interesting or care about him and the film would have been better off without Freddy.

What was the reasoning behind making him have poor eyesight? What was the point of Freddy taking a young woman and her daughter to breakfast and realizing they were crossing the border to find her estranged husband? Who cares?

It had nothing to do with the plot.

All the audience knows about Freddy is that he is retired due to a misunderstanding, accepts money to help Bernice and Fontayne, and tags along with them for the rest of the film.

The stereotypes should have been eliminated. The Chinese dragon lady and the corrupt Mexican police officers have been played to death in films and are rather insulting to smart and serious movie-goers.

I found the plot a bit tough to follow and I still don’t understand how or why Rodney was involved with the Chinese mob in the first place other than to help Chinese immigrants cross the border.

Was he involved in the money or wanted to help the immigrants cross to the United States?

The film mentions countless times how Rodney is a decent person so what’s his motivation? The film never wholly explains why he is kidnapped and a suspect in a murder case.

Also, countless characters are introduced to help the women on their journey with some connection to the kidnap victim but are written haphazardly with no character development.

The ending of Go for Sisters (2013) is too predictable and leaves the audience not caring about the outcome.

Despite numerous negatives, the heart of the film belongs to the talents of Hamilton and Ross and their characters’ interesting and warm friendship that develops throughout the film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female-Yolonda Ross

A Star Is Born-1954

A Star is Born-1954

Director George Cukor

Starring Judy Garland, James Mason

Scott’s Review #175

995474

Reviewed September 25, 2014

Grade: B+

A Star Is Born was, at the time, considered Judy Garland’s much-touted comeback film and was very expensive for Warner Bros. to produce.

Garland delivers her finest career performance in my opinion (yes, even better than her portrayal of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz). The performance is multi-faceted and complex- it is comical, silly, poised, emotional, dramatic, and heartfelt.

Playing Esther Blodgett- later changed to Vicki Lester for more Hollywood potential, she is a struggling lounge singer who meets a successful actor, named Norman Maine, played wonderfully by James Mason.

Esther saves Norman from public humiliation at a function where he attempts to take the stage while inebriated.  They strike up a friendship and he convinces her to pursue films and, through a series of misunderstandings, she assumes he has ditched her.

Determined to become a star anyway, Esther forges her path to success on her own. Norman and Esther reconnect and Norman recognizes her talent and pursues her both professionally and romantically. They marry and she becomes a star while his career hits the skids, largely due to his alcoholism.

The talented Mason and Garland are at the forefront of the film and are the reasons for its success.

A few key scenes stand out to me as powerful or important- The scene involving a musical number over a dinner of sandwiches in their posh living room is wonderfully merry and light; a delivery boy who does not know who Norman is ruins the mood and causes jealousy to come to a head in his marriage to Esther.

Garland’s emotional scenes are excellent- especially the scene in her dressing room where she crumbles, realizing that Mason has hit rock bottom.

And the best scene of all is the Academy Awards scene where a drunken Norman causes a public spectacle as Esther receives her top honor, spoiling her night, and accidentally hitting her in the face in front of millions.

What a forgiving woman Esther is for staying with him and ultimately choosing him at the risk of ruining her career.

An interesting aspect of the story is that Garland’s character is not some ugly duckling that is transformed into Hollywood royalty- she has the talent already, she just needs a break, but is not down on her luck or starving- she makes a decent living with a touring band and she is torn about leaving them.

The musical numbers are inspiring and one is reminded why Garland is such a star as she belts them out of the park like nobody’s business, however, they do little to further the plot.

At times, more often the case in the first half, the film drags a bit, but the second half (post-intermission) is brilliant, and the ending is tragic yet heartwarming.

Will Esther’s career continue to flourish?

A major, major flaw with the film is the usage of still frames with dialogue overlapping due to lost footage. This makes following the story very tough and the continuity is affected. It also looks ridiculous and for the viewer to be captured by the story only to suddenly view a discolored still shot with audio is disappointing.

Surely, this can be corrected.

A Star Is Born (1954) is the perfect vehicle for Garland to return to her grand position among the Hollywood treasures.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-James Mason, Best Actress-Judy Garland, Best Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Song-“The Man That Got Away”, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Costume Design, Color

Love Is Strange-2014

Love Is Strange-2014

Director-Ira Sachs

Starring-John Lithgow, Alfred Molina

Scott’s Review #174

70299861

Reviewed September 24, 2014

Grade: B

Love Is Strange is sweet, though not nauseatingly sentimental, look at many different types of relationships, but at the forefront is the same sex couple, Ben and George, played by John Lithgow and Alfred Molina respectively.

They are a successful New York City couple of a certain age, who have been together for nearly 30 years and finally legally wed in a low-key ceremony surrounded by friends and family members.

George teaches music at a strict Catholic high school where the students and staff know and love both him and his new husband. The bishop, however, is not supportive of his marriage and he is unceremoniously fired.

This causes Ben and George to become homeless and rely on family and friends for a roof over their heads.

The film features several secondary character relationships- Ben’s nephew and his wife balance busy careers with a temperamental, rebellious, confused son; Ben’s niece from Poughkeepsie seems neurotic.

Neighbors who are gay police couples have loud parties seemingly every night. Marisa Tomei, who plays Ben’s niece by marriage, Kate, and Charlie Tahan as Joey, Ben’s great-nephew are probably the most prominently featured of the supporting cast.

Kate, while well-meaning and accommodating, oftentimes bottles her anger and comforts herself with nightly consumption of red wine. Joey lashes out at his great Uncle in frustration criticizing his artwork and scolding him for using his teen friend in a portrait, a friend whose sexuality is unclear.

Most of the other characters are not fleshed out well and simply are there to move the plot along. This is slightly disappointing. I would have preferred a bit more backstory regarding the rest of the cast.

Throughout the film, a few clues are dropped surrounding Joey and his friend’s sexuality, but never pursued further than on the surface. I was curious about the cop’s back story. How long have they been together? Do they face conflict at work? Numerous scenes show both cops in uniform while running errands or visiting the hospital, which seems to be the film’s desire to emphasize that cops can be masculine and gay- a fact I love, yet the characters are only one dimensional.

Why is Ben’s niece neurotic? This is also not pursued at all.

The film belongs to Lithgow and Molina. The two of them have such effortless, natural chemistry that the audience instantly believes they have been together for decades- the fact that Lithgow and Molina are lifelong friends in real-life surely adds to the realism and naturalness.

Ben is the yin to George’s yang. The performances of Lithgow and Molina are so understated and calming that one might overlook how excellent they are since they are both low-key characters.

At its heart Love Is Strange is a film about strength, courage, loyalty, and perseverance through life’s challenges.

It is a sensitive and lovely film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Male Lead-John Lithgow, Best Supporting Male-Alfred Molina, Best Screenplay