Tag Archives: Biography

Colette-2018

Colette-2018

Director Wash Westmoreland

Starring Keira Knightley, Dominic West

Scott’s Review #888

Reviewed April 20, 2019

Grade: B+

Colette (2018) is a French period drama and biopic based on the life and times of the novelist Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette.

The film is directed by Wash Westmoreland, who also directed Still Alice (2014), so the man is successful at creating a film from a strong female point of view.

With a prominent and cultured French style and sophistication, the film pairs well with and ultimately belongs to star Keira Knightley.

The glaring British accents, rather than French, and the formulaic approach bring the experience down a notch from grandeur in a film likely to be forgotten.

Knightley plays the title character, whose upbringing in a rural area of France is pleasant but hardly sophisticated and utterly country.

When Colette meets a handsome literary genius named Willy (Dominic West), successful but employing ghostwriters to fill his creative void, the pair marry and combine forces to create popular novels based on Colette’s naughty schoolgirl experiences.

The duo embarks on frequent dalliances with feminine and masculine women (Colette is bisexual) and faces the trials and tribulations of seesawing finances and competitiveness until their ultimate divorce.

Along the way, Willy and Colette enjoy the excesses of late nineteenth-century Paris.

Besides a few quick exterior shots of the Seine River and fabulous Parisian landmarks such as Notre Dame, the filming likely did not take place in France at all, though you’d never know it.

Both cozy and flamboyant scenes of Parisian eateries and lavish nightclubs, like the Moulin Rouge, and one wealthy socialite’s love nest, are featured, giving the film an authentic French flair.

The costumes are decadent, and stage shows with Colette and her partner crackle with daring artistic merit.

Knightley, a household name but still teetering on the brink of one definitive significant role, comes close with her portrayal of Colette.

Westmoreland is wise to climax the film with photos and a summary of the real-life writer and her husband.

If only the film had received marginally good reviews and achieved great reviews, then perhaps the actress might have secured an Oscar nomination, but alas, the opportunity was missed. Nonetheless, Knightley plays the role with delicious and naughty delight, sinking her teeth into a character who wants to live and have fun.

Despite the rich French flavor, Colette is marred by a jarring flaw: the actors all have English accents rather than French. All in favor of occasional suspensions of disbelief to elicit the desired effect or manipulation, it is assumed that Westmoreland decided, since most of the actors are British, to let the detail slide in favor of comfort with the language.

Perhaps this misfire is why the sets and locations are overcompensated and decorated in such lovely French style.

The story is formulaic and silly, to be honest, while Knightley and West share great chemistry. As Willy and Colette paint the town, they also have repeated misunderstandings or outbursts of rage and jealousy (mostly on her part) before deciding to accept and enjoy each other as they are.

Unfortunate is how, through the affairs and celebratory nights, Colette accepts her role as a ghostwriter to his name recognition, only to divorce and never see Willy again, based on his sale of the treasured Claudine series.

Hopeful was I for a happily ever after result.

A crisp and polished offering of the life and times of a complex and peculiar French figure Colette (2018) has its share of ups and downs.

Unknown how true to real life the story is, the acting is compelling and reaches a high point, while the cultural flavor is zestful and spicy.

The film may not be well remembered, but it is ultimately a success due to a few above-par qualities that outweigh the negatives.

Vice-2018

Vice-2018

Director Adam McKay

Starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #849

Reviewed December 31, 2018

Grade: A

Following 2015’s The Big Short, Adam McKay once again creates an intelligently written, thought-provoking political film based on facts and historical accounts.

With Vice (2018) he focuses on former Vice President Dick Cheney and his rise through the political ranks to second in command.

Brilliant and wise in every way, the film is fair-minded in its approach. Predictably, in this era of “fake news,” it will be embraced by liberals but shunned by conservatives.

In the first seconds of Vice, a disclaimer appears stating that Cheney was a private man with secrets, but the filmmakers did their best to relay accurate information. The salty language in this clip will likely elicit chuckles, but McKay stays the course with his statement.

Immediately, the film flashes to the September 11 attacks with Cheney sitting in crisis mode, about to make an important decision.

Vice then retreats to 1963 Wyoming as a drunken college-aged Dick Cheney (Christian Bale) is pulled over for erratic driving after a barroom brawl. He is nearly dumped by his girlfriend and future wife Lynne Cheney (Amy Adams), who threatens to find another man if Dick does not straighten out.

He manages an internship and an admiration for Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell), a staunch Republican and White House Chief of Staff, and begins his political climb.

In clever form, the film is narrated by a character named Kurt (Jesse Plemons), who we do not know is connected to Cheney until the end of the film. This adds an added measure of intrigue to the overall film, as we know a secret will be revealed.

Vice is also unique in direction, with constant back-and-forth timeline scenes and quirky humor throughout. Are the Cheneys portrayed as ridiculous? No, but sardonic humor is directed at them as their ambitions and power-hungry motivations are completely exposed.

The film does a great job of taking the viewer through the political state of Cheney’s administration, roughly the early 1970s until 2008, when Obama took office. The Clinton years are completely skipped, but that is more to do with Cheney being in the private sector rather than an intentional slight.

The Nixon years and the George W. Bush years are given hefty screen time and the latter is portrayed as nearly a buffoon as Rockwell portrays him as a boozy, dumb frat boy.

Bale is startlingly good as Cheney and deservedly steals the show. In addition to the forty-pound weight gain, the actor endured the facial and hair treatments (props to the makeup department!) and became the man.

His body movements, smile, and speech patterns are daringly good. With a sneer and a calculating grin, we see the wheels spinning in Cheney’s head numerous times, and Bale is incredible at portraying these thoughts to the audience.

The film contains many well-known actors in vital supporting roles worth noting. The depictions of the following are examples of excellent casting with spot-on representations: Tyler Perry as Colin Powell, LisaGay Hamilton as Condoleezza Rice, Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush, Alison Pill as Mary Cheney, and Lily Rabe as Liz Cheney.

All portrayals are excellent to watch, especially for viewers who remember the real-life people involved.

Some will undoubtedly complain that the film has a “liberal slant” and portrays Cheney as power-hungry and self-serving. While this is a valid point, and McKay makes left-leaning choices, the director bravely carves the film into an experience that goes both ways.

More than a few scenes (including the final scene) justify Cheney’s actions, in his mind anyway. Claiming to do what is suitable for the people and be a true American, his actions and yearning for power can be understood to some degree, or perhaps by some people.

Vice (2018) is controversial and undoubtedly divisive, which is unsurprising given the current state of American politics. It tells an inspiring and rich story of an elusive politician’s life and policies, daring to be forgotten, that still resonate across the United States.

The more I ponder this film’s importance, the greater it becomes, but stay past the credits for arguably the best moment in the movie and of monumental importance in 2018.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director- Adam McKay, Best Actor- Christian Bale, Best Supporting Actor- Sam Rockwell, Best Supporting Actress- Amy Adams, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won), Best Film Editing

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool-2017

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool-2017

Director Paul McGuigan

Starring Annette Bening, Jamie Bell

Scott’s Review #840

Reviewed December 11, 2018

Grade: B+

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool (2017) showcases a compelling performance by stalwart actress Annette Bening as she plays faded, insecure Hollywood glamour girl Gloria Grahame.

The film focuses only on Grahame’s final two years of life as she battles breast cancer and begins a relationship with a much younger man, Peter Turner (Jamie Bell).

The film is a sad yet poignant dedication to the star, featuring enough performance gusto from its actors to compensate for a limited period. However, there is too much back-and-forth within the timeline, which complicates the film too much.

As a result, Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool is endearing but does not hit it out of the park.

The entire film takes place between 1979 and 1981. In 1979, actress Gloria Grahame, with her best days behind her, resides in a rented Liverpool room. She finds some success in local theater and befriends her much younger male neighbor.

The pair become romantic partners and experience trials and tribulations as the film teeters back and forth between Grahame’s ailing final days in 1981 to happier times in Los Angeles and New York. Gloria also befriends and finally lives with Peter’s parents, who care for her unflinchingly.

The story is enveloped in sadness but is not a downer either.

The film begins towards the end of Gloria’s illness, though the audience is not yet aware of her disease’s seriousness. Insisting she has painful gas, the tender relationship between the actress and Peter is explored.

The story begins in 1979 when Peter and Gloria first met. He is an aspiring actor who is unaware of who she is until a bartender makes the connection.

In this way, the film makes it clear that this is not a story about a young man seeking the fortunes of a presumably wealthy woman. I like this point, as the story is about romance, not money-grubbing.

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool belongs to Bening.

The supporting roles are well cast, and they do not diminish Bell’s performance or Julie Walters’s nice turn as Peter’s mum.

However, Bening does wonders emulating Grahame’s mannerisms with an innocent, damsel-in-distress nature (mirroring the roles she made famously).

Bening was amazing at revealing the actress’s insecurities, fear of aging, and older appearance. During a fight, Peter cruelly refers to her as an “old lady,” and we see the comment strike a deadly blow as if she had been physically slapped.

Bening is so good at portraying a myriad of emotions throughout the film.

Another high point comes towards the end of the film. I love how the film connects Gloria and Peter’s earlier argument (and breakup) with a later sequence.

Peter assumes she is carrying on with another man when he learns she has lied about her whereabouts. The haunting reality is later revealed, changing the audience’s perception of the events.

This is good writing by the screenwriters.

To counter the above point, the constant back and forth from 1981 to 1979 and everywhere in between detracts from my enjoyment of the overall film.

Although the film spans only two years, it spends way too much time in multiple locations without enough explanation. Suddenly, G, Loria, and Peter are in Los Angeles having dinner at Gloria’s modest house, and they are in New York City in her lavish Park Avenue apartment.

The film would have been better suited with a straightforward approach chronicling events from 1979 to 1981 in sequence.

Another negative is the omission of any scenes before 1979.

The actress’s career thrived during the 1940s and 1950s, so capturing those earlier days would have been interesting. If the fear was that Bening was too old to pass for a younger Grahame, another actress could have been used for those scenes.

While a clip of the real Grahame winning the Oscar and a few clips of her starring in films are nice, way more time could have been spent on more stories.

Thanks to a brilliant performance by Bening and an emotional story that in large part succeeds, Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool (2017) is a win.

The film was not recognized during awards season as initially anticipated. This could have been due to the overly complex timeline, which produced a limiting feeling. The production and writing are excellent but lack greatness.

Green Book-2018

Green Book-2018

Director Peter Farrelly

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Mahershala Ali

Scott’s Review #839

Reviewed December 10, 2018

Grade: A

To be candid, it was not originally on my radar to see Green Book (2018) despite the high regard and the bevy of award nominations reaped upon the film.

From the trailers, and admittedly my assumptions, the production looked somewhat like a Driving Miss Daisy (1989) role reversal with the standard over-saturation and glossy view of racism.

I confess to being wrong in my initial assessment. Green Book is a wonderful film with a multitude of worthy efforts. It successfully crosses the drama and comedy barriers and delivers an astounding message of compassion and benevolence.

Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali exhibit tremendous flair and fine chemistry as an Italian blue-collar driver and an astute African-American classical pianist.

The men travel together in the Deep South circa 1962 on a concert tour requested by the renowned musician despite the dangers of southern racism and prejudice.

Mortensen’s Tony Lip is a struggling New York City bouncer who needs any gig for two months while the club he works for is closed for renovations. Ali plays a sophisticated musician who needs a driver with a measure of toughness, and Tony comes highly recommended.

The two men initially are strangers but form a close-knit bond and a deep understanding of each other as they become better acquainted during their journey.

The first half of the film focuses on Tony.

As viewers, we experience his Italian lifestyle. He possesses a strong family unit and a dedicated wife, Dolores (Linda Cardellini). He loves to eat and won a hot dog eating contest for $50 to pay the rent. He thinks nothing of beating an unsavory character to a bloody pulp if they are out of line and have more than one link to the mafia.

Still, he is a decent man, with a salt-of-the-earth mentality, and loves his family.

“Doc” Don Shirley (Ali) is the opposite of Tony. Raised as a highly gifted musical prodigy, he surrounds himself with high culture, is well-versed in many languages, and is of affluent means. Nonetheless, he is a wounded soul and drinks himself into oblivion each night, frequently deep in thought, pondering life and its problems.

Despite being black, he knows nothing about black culture.

Don is highly uncomfortable in his skin, while Tony is happy with who he is, a significant point that the film hits home on as the men have conflict. Don feels Tony can do much better to educate himself, while Tony sees nothing wrong with being who he is. The men forge a middle ground as they come to respect each other.

Ferrelli does a fantastic job in showing Tony as Don’s protector as he is accosted by rednecks or is caught with another man at the YMCA.

In turn, Don helps Tony write warm love letters to Dolores.

Green Book is a film about friendship and how different backgrounds can result in closeness and respect.

The film is humanistic in its approach to an overall message and is the feel-good film of 2018 without the slightest thread of sappiness or contrived situations. It is best about two real-life men who remained friends until their deaths.

Director Peter Farrelly, known chiefly for silly films such as Dumb and Dumber (1994), finds breakthrough success with Green Book.

The film is mainstream material, but of a sort that can be appreciated for the good it exudes. Don exhibits racism on more than one occasion- Birmingham and Mississippi specifically- but also experiences kindness from other folks.

Worth noting is that Don experiences discrimination and abuse not only from whites but also from blacks. Farrelly avoids the usual stereotypes or elicits humor from them as in the scene where Tony teaches Don to enjoy fried chicken, a foreign food to Don.

A key point of the film occurs early on when Dolores graciously invites two black workers to repair, thinking nothing of treating the men to a refreshing lemonade.

Seeing the empty glasses in the sink, Tony throws them in the trash, not wanting to drink from the same glasses. Is Tony, along with his family, racist or uncomfortable with blacks? Regardless of the answer, they think very differently after the film, which is monumental.

The final sequence of Green Book is teary, heartfelt, and provides a feeling of incredible warmth.

In the tumultuous times of current American history, Green Book (2018) is sentimental and inspirational in a day when racism once again reared its ugly head, thanks to the chaotic political environment.

The film is a lesson in how far we have come as a society, but also in how things have not changed so much and how much further we need to go to create equality for all.

Farrelly creates a timely and wonderful film that everyone can appreciate.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins- Best Picture (won), Best Actor- Viggo Mortensen, Best Supporting Actor- Mahershala Ali (won), Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Film Editing

Beautiful Boy-2018

Beautiful Boy-2018

Director Felix Van Groeningen

Starring Steve Carell, Timothée Chalamet

Scott’s Review #835

Reviewed November 23, 2018

Grade: A-

Beautiful Boy (2018) tells a humanistic and vital story about the ravages of drug addiction and how the issue affects not only the person with an addiction but the entire family unit. Nestled within the powerful writing is a lovely father/son relationship and the duo’s trials and tribulations over the years.

The film feels pure and honest, with rich storytelling and many good acting performances.

Beginning in the present, David Sheff (Steve Carell) realizes that his son Nic (Timothée Chalamet) has been missing for two days. When Nic finally arrives at the Sheff household, he is strung out and sick.

David suspects Nic has been abusing drugs, and all parties agree that Nic needs professional help and a stint in a rehab facility. However, nobody realizes the depths of Nic’s addiction.

When Nic checks out early and goes on a bender, the film begins to segue back and forth between periods of Nic’s recovery and his many relapses. It also presents scenes of David and Nic’s relationship during their childhood years.

The best parts are the conversations and moments between father and son, and their enduring love. David’s second wife, Karen (Maura Tierney), and Nic’s mother, Vicki (Amy Ryan), are also in the mix.

The screenplay is based on memoirs written by David and Nic Sheff. The chronicles of their journey include triumph and heartbreak over many years as recovery and relapse become frequent parts of their lives, threatening to tear them apart or result in Nic’s ultimate death.

The road to recovery is not an easy path.

Carell and Chalamet wonderfully portray the primary characters, David and Nic. The fact that the actors do not resemble each other is quickly forgotten as their dynamic is emotional and palpable, and they share easy chemistry.

Carell is a strong actor, capable of infusing his character with strength and calm while slowly falling apart at the seams.

He loves his son and wants him to recover, but he finally accepts that he needs to let him go. This moving realization is Carell’s best scene.

Chalamet, boyish and innocent-looking, is perfectly cast. With kind blue eyes and a mop of raven hair, the actor could easily pass for twelve years old. This only enhances the tragedy of youth ravaged by drug abuse.

These qualities are mirrored by those of his girlfriend Lauren (Kaitlyn Dever). She also possesses a fresh-faced, clean look, which strengthens the message.

Ryan’s and Tierney’s performances in what could easily be throwaway “wife roles” must be mentioned.

For a while, I thought Tierney was in a marginal role until she finally had a wonderful scene in which her frustration reached a boiling point. Fuming with rage, she attempts a car chase with Nic, only to finally crumble into tears, realizing how the mess has changed her as a person.

Ryan also sinks her teeth into a teary role, almost blaming herself for Nic’s problems.

The film wisely presents statistics to hit home further, mainly the low percentage recovery rate of most crystal meth users. A single-digit success rate on this note is frightening; the user requires more and more substance to feel anything close to the first high they experienced.

A pivotal scene occurs at the film’s end as David and Karen attend a support group. As they tearfully listen to a woman’s story of the recent death of her addict sister, we are left to wonder if Nic has also died.

Kudos to a powerful cameo performance by actress Lisa Gay Hamilton.

The sunny California setting benefits the film and starkly contrasts the darkness of New York City, where Nic attends school. With multiple exterior shots of San Francisco and Los Angeles, the metropolitan scope is vast and cruel for drug users.

Easily accessible to anyone with the motivation to obtain drugs, the streets of San Francisco are portrayed as hard and drug-infused, mainly when David drives around desperately looking for Nic.

Featuring a story told before but rarely from the family perspective, Beautiful Boy (2018) does what it sets out to do and does it splendidly.

Careful not to soften the challenges and sufferings of the person with an addiction, the devastation they bring to their loved ones is also showcased. The sound and emotional father/son relationship may be the film’s best part.

Boy Erased-2018

Boy Erased-2018

Director Joel Edgerton

Starring Lucas Hedges, Nicole Kidman, Russell Crowe

Scott’s Review #834

Reviewed November 22, 2018

Grade: A

Before I ventured to the movie theater to view Boy Erased (2018), I heard from more than a few folks who decided not to see the film due to the complicated subject matter.

While parts of the film are challenging and the true story stifling, the overall message is poignant and hopeful. The central character is one to be championed.

In other words, while the subject is serious, director Joel Edgerton (who also co-stars) is careful not to make the overall experience dour or wholly downtrodden.

The setting is rural Arkansas, based on Garrard Conley’s 2016 memoir of the same name and taking place as frighteningly recently as 2004.

Our main character is a handsome, popular young man, renamed Jared (Lucas Hedges) for the film.  Interspersed with numerous flashbacks, then back to present times, we see Jared as a high school kid and blossoming as a first-year college student, interested in writing.

He is expected to follow the word of god since his father, Marshall (Russell Crowe), is a respected preacher at their local church, and his mother, Nancy (Nicole Kidman), is a housewife.

Jared’s college experiences are both good and bad. He befriends fellow runner Henry, who ultimately rapes him, and embarks on an enlightening friendship with Xavier, who challenges Jared’s belief in god.

These scenes are preceded by the point of the film, in which Jared admits his thoughts about men to his parents and is sent to a Love In Action gay conversion therapy program. His experiences there are chronicled.

Many scenes involve the treatment the school provides the students (or instead makes the students endure), and Jared’s realization that he is gay and cannot change.

He ultimately questions and challenges the school. The chief therapist, Victor Sykes (Edgerton), teaches that God will not love anyone who is homosexual. In a bit of rich irony, the film reveals that Victor finally denounced his teachings and married a man.

Fellow students’ lives are featured, one suffers a terrible fate as he cannot come to terms with his sexuality, nor can he change.

A comparison to the popular film Love, Simon (2018) is fun to draw.

Both were released during the same year, and both feature a young, popular coming-of-age character who struggles with the repercussions of revealing their sexual preference.

Boy Erased is the heavier of the two, as Love, Simon has many comic elements, but it is worth noting that both are mainstream films garnering large audiences- a win for the LGBT community.

The acting in Boy Erased is flawless and perfectly cast all around.

With Hedges, Kidman, and Crowe in the mix, we know the performances will be outstanding, and all three characters possess their share of empathy.

Jared is the most important character to be concerned about, and Marshall and Nancy are support players. However, the film does not portray either as bad people, which is interesting. They are nurturing towards Jared and want him to be happy.

While Nancy is more instrumental in rescuing Jared, Marshall also comes around in the end, as his son’s sexuality is tougher for him to accept.

The main song used in the film is appropriately named “Revelation” by Troye Sivan. The singer also appears in the film as Gary, a student made to be “cleansed” of his sexuality.  The tune is sentimental, smoky, and acoustic, perfect for the southern setting.

Heartfelt and fraught with meaning, it encompasses Jared’s struggles and strong will to question the school’s motivations, powering through the school’s toxic approach.

As with many recent biographical films telling stories of real-life people, Boy Erased features a young Jared in homemade video clips as the movie begins. This immediately triggers a rooting value for the character as we see the child, cute, happy, and full of life, without a care.

Additionally, the conclusion shows the real adult Jared, Marshall, and Nancy.

Boy Erased (2018) is an important film firmly nestled in a crucial time period for the LGBT community. As LGBT awareness is now commonplace in cinema, this film does not necessarily share a gay character’s “coming out” story but rather depicts a brilliant story of how perilous and repressive being gay can still be for some people.

Jared is the main character who will undoubtedly be a hero to many young people wrestling with their identity.

Can You Ever Forgive Me?-2018

Can You Ever Forgive Me? -2018

Director Marielle Heller

Starring Melissa McCarthy, Richard E. Grant

Scott’s Review #829

Reviewed November 13, 2018

Grade: A

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) is a biographical drama that successfully provides its audience with sly writing and fruitful chemistry among the lead actors.

A rare dramatic turn for star Melissa McCarthy, she proves that she has the chops as she immerses herself in a role that showcases her acting talent when she is provided a good script. Grizzled, angry, and sometimes depressed, she infuses a character we should hate with gusts of humor and sarcasm, so much so that we fall in love with her.

That is a testament to an outstanding performance.

The film begins in the 1990s in Manhattan, where we meet a once successful but now down-on-her-luck author, Lee Israel (McCarthy). Famous for works now deemed dated, she is angry, boozy, and brazen, certainly not afraid to tell someone off for not holding the door for her or prank-calling a vicious bookstore owner.

We quickly learn that Lee is three months behind on her rent and cannot afford to take her sick, elderly cat to the vet. She fights with her publisher, Marjorie (Jane Curtin), who refuses to advance her $10,000.

As she sits in a bar contemplating her future, she reconnects with an acquaintance, Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant), a flamboyant gay man who once caused a stir at a party for urinating on rich women’s furs.

Lee and Jack are in stitches over the past incident and immediately form a deep bond, though Jack’s unreliability and dishonesty challenge Lee’s patience.

When Lee concocts a scheme to forge letters supposedly written by famous deceased literary people, Jack quickly becomes her accomplice as the two begin to profit.

The film belongs to McCarthy in a challenging role. By all accounts, we should dislike Lee—she attends Marjorie’s parties for the free booze and steals a new jacket from the coat check on her way out.

She distances herself from relationship commitments and alienates most people. But despite these flaws, we adore her and root for her.

When she embarks on a cautious date with quiet bookstore owner Anna (Dolly Wells), she gets through her meal with trepidation, unsure whether to open herself up to another potential suitor.

In McCarthy’s best and most emotionally raw scene, we see her raw collapse in tears when she finds her beloved cat under the couch, dead.

Viewing the feline as her only true friend, she is devastated beyond belief, and McCarthy will pull at the heartstrings in this poignant scene.

Grant is equally as impressive as McCarthy in the central support role. An aging party-boy in a city that can embrace the young and discard the old, he still dazzles with his dashing smile, but his best years are behind him as he still lives a young man’s life.

He flirts with a handsome waiter and still has the charm and humor that have aided him through the past few decades. However, he is also ravaged by decades of abuse, and his luster has become tarnished.

A health secret revealed at the film’s end adds further layers to the character’s complexity and richness.

Beyond the great acting performances, the screenplay, written by Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty, crackles with rich dialogue and fantastic aplomb.

The writers write with confidence and smarts and provide the goods in spades. The proof is in the proverbial pudding as Lee cackles with glee as she types her latest Dorothy Parker forgery in the words of the deceased satirist, writing what she imagines the famous author would write.

These added intelligence touches and quick-witted dialogue make the film fantastic to view.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) is a fabulous undertaking made spectacular by two actors with bold chemistry. Combined with intelligent writing, a grand yet gritty New York City setting, and an authenticity unrivaled, the film succeeds on all levels.

Heart, drama, compelling situations, and dark, sardonic humor make this a dynamic film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress- Melissa McCarthy, Best Supporting Actor- Richard E. Grant, Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins- Best Supporting Male- Richard E. Grant (won), Best Screenplay (won)

BlacKkKlansman-2018

BlacKkKlansman-2018

Director Spike Lee

Starring John David Washington, Adam Driver

Scott’s Review #802

Reviewed August 14, 2018

Grade: A

Spike Lee’s latest offering, BlacKkKlansman (2018), is a brilliant effort and oh so timely given the tumultuous political climate in the United States in 2018.

Despite the film being set in the early 1970s, the racial issues and tensions that Lee examines are sadly still an enormous problem today. Lee infuses some humor and even romance into the drama, so the film is not too preachy or heavy.

A grand and relevant effort that all should watch.

As the film commences, we are treated to a clip from the 1939 classic Gone With the Wind, and BlacKkKlansman concludes with prominent clips of racial tensions circa 2017.

The timeline is crucial and influential, as the film clearly demonstrates that racism is still alive and well.

Lee, a known liberal, clearly puts a left spin on his work. BlacKkKlansman will likely not be seen by conservative filmgoers, which is sad, as valuable lessons can be learned by viewing this piece.

The story is based on a true story memoir written by Ron Stallworth, the first black police officer to be hired by the Colorado Springs police department. He successfully infiltrates the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan with startling results.

The film begins with a speech by a doctor (Alec Baldwin) offering a “scientific explanation” of white superiority in 1957. Fast-forward to the early 1970s, where the rest of the film occurs.

Ron is initially hired by the police force as part of a progressive initiative for diversity, but he quickly moves into a detective role. He manages to pose as a KKK member via telephone while another detective, Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver), goes to meetings in person.

Lee’s focus is clearly on the overall content and message of the film, and therefore, little character development is achieved. I admittedly did yearn to know the “hows ” and ” whys” of many of the characters, but the film is not really about the characters individually, and I am okay with this.

Why did Ron desire so much to become a police officer? What was his childhood like? How did Patrice become President of the black student union? What was her childhood like? What upbringings did some of the KKK members have?

Indeed, not enough time would have been allowed to answer these questions—minor gripe.

Lead actor John David Washington, son of Denzel Washington, was unknown to me before watching this film. He is tremendous in his role, as is Driver in his supporting role of Zimmerman, but again, these are not character-driven roles.

Washington has tremendous chemistry with his love interest, played by Laura Harrier. Ron and Patrice discuss politics and dance the night away, but she is an activist and a cop, making their chances of a happily ever after tough to imagine. Their romance is atypical of most films as it is based on intelligence and not silly, melodramatic aspects.

On the acting front, Topher Grace as the racist David Duke is tremendous. With a kindly demeanor mixed with a bubbling under the hatred of blacks and Jewish people, Lee makes sure he is the foil.

A delicious scene towards the end of the film, when Duke gets his comeuppance of sorts, is well done and received a thunderous roar from the theater audience.

Lee is careful to ensure the bad guys get their just due and are all portrayed as complete fools. With a false sense of nationalism, many hate minorities simply because they feel they are taking over their beloved country.

Not to harp on this, but BlacKkKlansman will attract those who already agree with Lee’s beliefs and politics. If only those who disagree would give the film a chance. Unlikely.

The final five minutes of BlacKkKlansman arguably are the most pivotal experience of the entire film, but they have nothing to do with the actual story portrayed in the rest of the production.

Lee concludes the 1970s portion of the film satisfyingly, then fast forwards to the horrific events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 when protesters clashed with a racist group, resulting in an innocent woman’s death.

The controversial remarks of President Trump, refusing to cast blame on the racist group, are shown. Sitting in a crowded movie theater, these clips had the most significant reaction from the audience, with some flipping Trump the finger, while others sobbed in anguish and disbelief that we have achieved so little as a nation.

Rarely has a more pertinent or meaningful film been made for the current political climate in the United States. BlacKkKlansman (2018) brilliantly ties racism spanning one hundred and fifty years together and shows how it still exists.

Amid this message, however, lies a great drama containing humor and importance.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Spike Lee, Best Supporting Actor-Adam Driver, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Film Editing

La Vie en Rose-2007

La Vie en Rose-2007

Director Olivier Dahan

Starring Marion Cotillard

Scott’s Review #790

Reviewed July 18, 2018

Grade: A

As a true fan of French actress Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose (2007) is the tremendously talented lady’s finest role to date- and I would venture to say one of the best in film history.

She immerses herself into the pivotal role of singer Edith Piaf and churns out a breathtaking performance.

Besides the vehicle to showcase her acting chops, the film as a whole is lovely, offering the poignant life story of the troubled star, adding enough French zest to offer more than just a biography.

The way that the plot is constructed is quite interesting as the story of Edith Piaf is told in a non-linear fashion. The highly complex singer’s biography is recounted first telling elements of her childhood and concluding with events occurring shortly before her death.

Her childhood is difficult so she is raised by her grandmother in a bordello and discovered on the streets to begin her meteoric rise to acclaim. The events of the film are known to be fairly accurate making the song-stresses life story awe-inspiring.

The visual aspects and cinematography elements of La Vie en Rose are lovely.  With soft, muted tones, the film is rich with culture and has a wonderful French way about it.

Since the story commences in 1918 the period is fraught with a rich history including World War II and a lavish trip to New York City where Edit performs.

To say nothing of the lavish Parisian settings, the “look” of the film is enough reason to watch in wonderment.

Enough praise cannot be reaped upon Cotillard as Piaf and as enjoyable and profound as the film itself is, the casting of the French actress is both perfect and unimaginable to think of anyone else in the role.

As treasured a performance as Cotillard gives, the filmmakers wisely choose to leave Piaf’s actual voice in the musical numbers. Anyone else mimicking her would be unimaginable and frankly insulting. And an imitator would not have served the film well.

Regardless of the voice-overs, Cotillard delivers such a flawless and brave performance that it makes the film what it is. Piaf was known as a very difficult woman to deal with both personally and professionally, though there were many sympathetic qualities to her given her tough life.

Cotillard’s facial expressions and mannerisms perfectly mimic the star’s qualities so much so that the actress seemingly becomes the singer. The actress deservedly won the Best Actress Academy Award for her layered performance.

The final scene of the film is both profound and ghastly. A very ill Edith, looking haggard, clown-like with heavy makeup, decides to take the stage for the final time, aware that she is dying.

Refusing to cancel her show, she performs her well-known number, “Non, Je ne regrette rien”. She then exits the stage in a frail manner and dies shortly thereafter. She was the consummate professional and star until the moment of her death. This particular scene is a wonderful culmination of the film.

La Vie en Rose (2007) solely judged as a biopic is a very good piece of filmmaking that tells a graceful, sometimes moving story of incredible talent.

With a performance such as Cotillard’s the film goes to another level and the performance becomes the main event. The emotions and the characteristics the actress undertakes are astounding and go down as one of the finest depictions in cinematic history.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Actress-Marion Cotillard (won), Best Makeup (won), Best Costume Design

The Disaster Artist-2017

The Disaster Artist-2017

Director James Franco

Starring James Franco, Dave Franco

Scott’s Review #781

Reviewed July 2, 2018

Grade: B

The Disaster Artist (2017) is a biography-comedy that I found to be middle of the road to primarily good if I’m judging in overall terms- most I liked with a bit of criticism.

Due to the many accolades, I confess to having anticipated a bit more from the finished product and hardly finding it a masterpiece.

Still, I was both impressed and unimpressed by James Franco’s performance in the lead role. I was awed at the actor’s emergence as a director, and the Los Angeles setting is great.

At times the film teeters almost into bad slapstick or shtick, and a bit silly, and as much as I respect his performance, this criticism is directed at Franco. Nobody can deny his acting talent if he chooses the right films.

His attempt to make his character peculiar is noticeable within seconds, so it seems Franco also makes him a bit of a goof, and I was not able to take the character seriously all of the time.

And the weird accent threw me.

This film is based on the nonfiction book The Disaster Artist. The book chronicles the making of 2003’s The Room, not to be confused with the 2015 film Room. The Room was considered amateurish and one of the worst movies ever made.

Told repeatedly that his acting stinks, oddball Tommie Wiseau (James Franco), a European-American aspiring actor, decided to screw Hollywood and produce, direct, and star in his film.

Wiseau has an endless amount of bank funds, which he uses towards the film. Roommate and friend Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) stars in the movie and thus gets his big break. The duo and various others pitch in to create the project, which suffers from ineptness on the part of Wiseau.

The Los Angeles setting resonates with me, as does the recurring theme of struggle in the Hollywood scene. These are significant pluses of the film as a whole.

Los Angeles can appear to be a sunny and glamorous town, but beneath its shiny exterior, it always has a gloomy, dark underbelly.

The film realistically depicts struggle and success, from the central characters to the supporting players, making it resemble an ensemble.

Thousands struggle daily for a break, and no respect or appreciation is given. The Disaster Artist scores a win by focusing on this.

When Tommie brazenly approaches an influential producer in a restaurant, he is unceremoniously dismissed for having no talent and told he will never get anywhere. In addition to Tommie, several actors associated with the film struggle.

In a fantastic scene, an older actress states that being on a bad movie set beats any other job by miles. The message here is that people in Hollywood are there because they genuinely love it.

The sweet, empowering theme of friendship and empowerment is also to be celebrated, especially given the cutthroat backdrop. Tommie and Greg are best friends and have each other’s backs through thick and thin.

Neither gives up on the other, even during the initial audience reaction to The Room premiere.

Could the film have been slightly darker? Yes, indeed, as very few scenes of drug destruction or the porn that many hopeful talents turn to are mentioned. But the film is not about that. It’s an enchanting tale of hope and fun.

It is interesting to note, and not evident to me while watching the film, that brothers James and Dave Franco play opposite one another. While there is somewhat of a physical resemblance, the chemistry works between the two actors as best friends.

James delivers a worthy portrayal of an unusual character with a strange dialect, long, stringy brown hair, and seemingly cross-eyed. The role is comedic and ideally suited for an unusual actor like Franco- he must have had a ball with the part.

Movies about movie-making always fascinate me. What goes on behind the scenes?

The Disaster Artist (2017) provides enough good film meat to make it an overall good experience. It stays true to some fine Hollywood history—the famous James Dean is referenced, and the spot where he died is even visited—nice touch! Franco is both good and disappointing in the main role.

All in all, this one is worth watching for those who enjoy filmmaking, Hollywood, or L.A.-set films.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-James Franco

The Social Network-2010

The Social Network-2010

Director David Fincher

Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer

Scott’s Review #753

Reviewed May 3, 2018

Grade: A

When released in 2010 The Social Network was a timely and brazen look into the world of social media and the powers and dangers it encompassed.

Any film of this nature that chooses to incorporate either a current event or a current fad runs the risk of either being forgotten soon after or becoming irrelevant as the years go by.

So far, almost a decade later, The Social Network is even more of an interesting film in the age of embattled political turmoil involving the social media world- with Twitter and Facebook constantly in the headlines.

Director David Fincher (Zodiac-2007, Fight Club-1999) creates a stylistic piece masked behind the biography of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (still relevant in 2018) and tells of his rise to fame from a Harvard student to an internet genius.

Throughout all of his meteoric success, the driven young man let his relationships suffer as feuds and backstabbings encircled his life resulting in bitter legal entanglements.

The film is flawless in every way- the screenplay, the score, the acting, the cinematography, and especially the editing all lend themselves to a memorable experience.

We first meet Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) as a teenager, recently dumped and bitter, he posts a scathing editorial on his blog and somehow hacks into the college site to allow the student body to read.

Along with his friends Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) and Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss  (both played by Armie Hammer), they came up with the initial concept of Facebook.

This leads to others becoming involved in the project including Napster co-founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) as events spiral out of control due to deceit, jealousy, and conflicting accounts.

Fincher’s style is riveting and fast-paced with snappy edits and lightning-fast scenes giving the film a crisp and sharp look. The story is told via the Harvard events interspersed with the numerous courtroom scenes as each of the principal characters is represented by legal counsel adding drama.

The point of the film is cynical and despite being a biography of Zuckerberg’s rise to fame, the overall theme is the effects that social media has had on the entire world- in this way, the film elicits a message without being preachy.

Trent Reznor, from the industrial rock band Nine Inch Nails, creates an amazing musical score that adds a modern touch with both techno and electronic elements.

This is not so overdone as to take away from the main theme of the film nor is it too distracting, but rather provides a moody yet intensive element that is highly effective to the overall film.

What riveting acting The Social Network provides!

Young upstart Eisenberg is perfectly cast as Zuckenberg and the similarities between the two are uncanny. With his quick wit and neurotic mannerisms, intelligent yet insensitive to others, Eisenberg not only looks the part he seems to embody the character and deservedly received an Oscar nomination for the role.

Garfield and Timberlake are nearly as compelling in supporting yet important roles. Finally, Hammer portrays indistinguishable twins with a smug, cutting edge perfect for the way the parts are written.

The Social Network (2010) is a tremendous film with modern technologies and a brilliant screenplay. Beyond the spectacular writing, the film contains other top-notch qualities that make for a memorable experience.

The film holds up exceptionally well with current relevance and features a stellar cast of young actors (Eisenberg, Garfield, Hammer, and Timberlake) who all went on to become heavy hitters in the world of cinema years later.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-David Fincher, Best Actor-Jesse Eisenberg, Best Adapted Screenplay (won), Best Original Score (won), Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

Milk-2008

Milk-2008

Director Gus Van Sant

Starring Sean Penn, Josh Brolin

Scott’s Review #744

Reviewed April 18, 2018

Grade: A

Milk is a 2008 film that successfully teaches its viewers both a valuable history lesson about the introduction of gay rights into the United States culture, as well as to the prolific leader associated with this, Harvey Milk.

The film belongs to Sean Penn, who portrays Milk, but is also a fantastic biopic and learned experience appreciating his wonderful journey through the 1970s- mainly in San Francisco and New York City.

Moreover, Milk portrays a gay character not played for laughs as many films do but portrayed as a hero.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay person ever to be elected to any political office, winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977.

The film, however, opens in 1978, after a stunning announcement of Harvey Milk’s assassination along with the Mayor of the city, which was met with much heartbreak.

The film then returns to 1970 as we meet Penn as Milk and follow his decade-long battles and prosperity of changing the gay culture.

Having seen actual footage of Harvey Milk, Penn perfects the mannerisms and the speech patterns of Milk giving him an immediate passionate and likable persona. The political figure had such a whimsical and innocent style all his own that Penn perfectly captures.

His determination for honesty and fairness is admirable and inspiring and Milk seems like he was an innately good person.

Particularly heartbreaking is Penn’s facial reactions during his assassination scene-a scene that director Gus Van Sant brilliantly shoots as a follow-up to a joyous scene when Proposition 6 is defeated.

As a troubled colleague, Dan White (Brolin), (rumored to be himself closeted and struggling with self-identity), fires several shots into Harvey at City Hall, the scene is filmed in slow motion for additional dramatic effect and poignancy.

The look of pain and sadness on Milk’s face will undoubtedly bring tears to even the most hard-hearted viewer.

The film shows the many close relationships that Milk formed throughout the 1970s, including his steady lover Scott Smith, played by James Franco. The two actors share solid chemistry as they are both fun-loving and driven in what they hope to achieve.

Sadly, Milk’s drive eventually outweighs Smith’s as they ultimately drift apart, but retain a special bond. Emile Hirsch is nearly unrecognizable as Cleve Jones, a young man who Harvey inspires and mentors throughout the pivotal decade.

A minute criticism noticed while watching Milk is that, except for Penn, many of the supporting characters (Hirsch, Franco, and especially Alison Pill) seem to be “dressed up” in 1970s costumes, giving a forced rather than authentic feel.

The costume designers seem intent on making them look so realistic that it backfires and looks more like actors made up to look like they are from the 1970s.

Penn, however, looks and acts spot-on and stands out from the rest of the cast by miles.

An inspiring biography of a legendary political figure, Harvey Milk, led by a fine lead actor (Penn), deserving of the Best Actor Oscar he was awarded, Milk is an astounding story of both triumph and tragedy.

The film successfully portrays a time when a class of people was not treated fairly and equal rights were barely a possibility and the uprising that occurred in large part due to one man and his followers.

Milk (2008) is a wonderful testament to a time gone by and the accomplishments achieved since then- a truly inspiring and tragic message.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Gus Van Sant, Best Actor-Sean Penn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Josh Brolin, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Male Lead-Sean Penn, Best Supporting Male-James Franco (won), Best First Screenplay (won), Best Cinematography

Loving Vincent-2017

Loving Vincent-2017

Director Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman

Voices Douglas Booth, Saoirse Ronan

Scott’s Review #738

Reviewed April 5, 2018

Grade: B+

Loving Vincent (2017) is a unique animated feature that is quite the artistic experience and vastly different from any typical film of this genre.

Being the first of its kind to be a wholly painted animated feature, hopefully, other films will follow suit, resulting in an exuberance in creativity.

While Vincent van Gogh’s biography is fascinating, the dramatic plot often left me wondering about the accuracy of all the details.

Still, the film is to be celebrated for its progressive and edgy nature.

Cleverly, the actors starring in the vehicle act while they are subsequently drawn so that the viewer can imagine the action as if it were a standard film since the drawings mirror the actors involved.

For example, Saoirse Ronan can clearly be distinguished as the daughter of a local boatman, who was rumored to be keeping close company with van Gogh before his death. We know it is the actress, but in painting form, eliciting a surreal experience.

The action begins one year following tortured artist, Vincent van Gogh’s, tragic suicide. Postman Joseph Roulin asks his son Armand to deliver Van Gogh’s last letter to his brother, Theo.

Suspicion surrounds the artist’s death as mere weeks earlier his mood was calm and level-headed, making his death cause for alarm. From this point, Armand traverses throughout France to spend time with those who had dealings with Van Gogh during the last days of his life.

Those characters include his doctor, an innkeeper, and others who may hold clues to his death’s mystery.

From a story perspective, Loving Vincent is a compelling piece as mystery and suspicion are cast around the actual death of the artist. This is not so much a whodunit as we know of the resulting suicide, however, the film casts some doubt about the why of that fateful night.

Did someone drive Van Gogh to take his own life suddenly? What was the romantic situation between either Marguerite or perhaps even Adeline? The supposed copying of Van Gogh’s art by his doctor, Dr. Paul Gachet, is fascinating.

Through these dramatic and intriguing facets, I began to wonder what was factual and what was not.

The brilliant part of Loving Vincent is the unusual and artistic method by which the film is created.

The fact that the film is about one of the most respected and appreciated artists of all time is no accident, and this perfectly encapsulates the overall tone of the film.

Throughout the one hour and thirty-four-minute duration of the film, I was continually enamored by its ” look.” Exquisite and quite beautiful, the filmmakers chose classically trained painters over traditional animators, and I feel this makes all the difference.

The use of actual Van Gogh paintings was an instrumental part of the film, which was modified to fit into the allotted screen room. The cast performed the film, as if it were a play, in front of a green screen, and then the painters created their magic—pretty incredible!

Also, mind-blowing uses colors to change the time of day (brightness and darkness), which results in a highly effective tone.

By creating a visual masterpiece of cinematic beauty, Loving Vincent (2017) is a feast for the eyes.

Although it is unclear whether the story is true to form or whether facts are embellished, the film succeeds as a work of art and provides a good glimpse into the life of one of the world’s most beloved and tortured artists.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

Darkest Hour-2017

Darkest Hour-2017

Director Joe Wright

Starring Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas

Scott’s Review #718

Reviewed January 24, 2018

Grade: A-

Darkest Hour (2017) is a British historical film that showcases legendary actor Gary Oldman’s astounding portrayal of Winston Churchill.

Known for numerous other fine-acting performances in films such as the Harry Potter series (2001-2011), JFK (1991), and Batman Begins (2005), this performance easily transcends all of the others as he brings perfection to complex role-infusing humor, drama, and many idiosyncrasies of the storied historic figure.

Churchill is the best role of Oldman’s lengthy career.

Director Joe Wright, famous for classy European films such as Pride and Prejudice (2005), Atonement (2007), and Anna Karenina (2012), traditionally offers rich, intelligent experiences with an upper-crust, often British theme and fills his characters with wry humor and wit.

In Darkest Hour, a film that belongs to Oldman, by the way, Churchill is the master of gruff sarcasm and cantankerous charm.

During the tumultuous time of 1940,  with the barbaric grips of Nazi Germany settling upon both England and France (Allies in World War II), a disheveled England is frustrated with their current Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, for being weak.

Chamberlain begrudgingly appoints Winston Churchill as his successor, amid limited support.

The film discusses Churchill’s early days in charge as the war and the Nazi presence loomed larger and larger- especially as the historic Dunkirk situation comes into fruition.

Darkest Hour is a good quality film —it has a certain historic richness and the feeling of experiencing a worthy and relevant film. For those of us who did not live during the 1940s, the film will likely serve as an educational experience into the events of the day.

Hundreds of films have been made over time that have explored the events during World War II in fantastic detail, but this film is unique in that it not only provides a perspective of the Allied countries “back against the wall” situation but the ups and downs and pressures that Churchill, the man, faced.

Despite a few quick clips of Hitler and very old black-and-white footage and newspaper headlines of the crazed leader, the focus is not on the enemy country. No actor was used to play Hitler; rather, the focus is on Churchill and the decisions he made and the influences he was faced with.

Pressured to appease the militant German country and reach a “peaceful” deal, Churchill instead listened to the voices of the ordinary, everyday, British people to get his decision to fight the Germans and not back down.

Clever and relevant to 2017 cinema, the film spotlights the famous Dunkirk situation, when British forces were trapped on the shores of Dunkirk, with German planes looming overhead.

Many men were saved, thanks in large part to Churchill and British and French civilian boats that aided in the rescue.

The 2017 film Dunkirk would make an excellent companion piece to Darkest Hour because its subject matter is similar to that of Darkest Hour.

Not surprisingly, both films received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture.

A great lesson I carried away from the film is with Churchill himself.

Sure, I knew that he was the Prime Minister of England during the 1940s and was instrumental in the events of the bloody war, but I knew little about the man himself.

Thanks to Wright and, of course, Oldman, the viewer will learn the good and bad characteristics of this man. A heavy drinker, commonly downing champagne with lunch and brandy the rest of the day, he was initially not well-liked, nor taken very seriously by British royalty.

With Churchill’s bubbling personality, Oldman is fantastic at filling the role with humor, frustration, and just the correct amount of empathy and concern.

Despite his temper, we can tell that he loves his country and is proud of the people living there—that is why he is adamant about conquering the enemy. So, we know he is a good man despite his temper tantrums.

Oldman also successfully embodies the mannerisms that this historical figure contained.

Kristin Scott Thomas also gives a worthy performance, albeit in a small role, as the mature and graceful wife, who can both support and match wits with her husband.

Thanks to a brilliant acting performance by Gary Oldman, who takes on a difficult role that could easily be botched by lesser talent, Darkest Hour is a 2017 historical drama worth seeing.

He makes a film that could have been dull and flat into a worthy watch to both learn something and be amazed at a truly great acting performance.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Actor-Gary Oldman (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won), Best Costume Design

I, Tonya-2017

I, Tonya-2017

Director Craig Gillespie

Starring Margot Robbie, Allison Janney

Scott’s Review #712

Reviewed January 10, 2018

Grade: A-

I, Tonya is a 2017 biopic telling of the life and times of the infamous American Olympic figure skater, Tonya Harding, notorious, of course, for her alleged involvement, along with her husband and his friend, in the attack of fellow skater, Nancy Kerrigan during the 1994 Winter Olympics.

The event drew monumental media coverage after the attack, with the uncertainty of Harding’s knowledge or involvement, and her subsequent guilt or innocence continues to be debated.

The film itself is a dark and violent comedy, never taking itself too seriously. It immediately presents the disclaimer that the stated “facts” in the film are open to interpretation and depend on who you ask.

I, Tonya isn’t preachy or directive to the viewer but instead offers up the skater’s life and times in story form.

The film features tremendous performances by Margot Robbie and Allison Janney, as well as Tonya and her despicable mother, LaVona.

I, Tonya, is told chronologically, culminating with “the incident” in 1994.

However, the story begins in the mid-1970s, as Tonya, just a tot at the tender age of four, is as cute as a button and shrouded in innocence. One cannot help wonder if director Craig Gillespie, known for independent films, purposely made this wise casting choice.

We see Tonya, once an innocent child, journey into a life of violence, abuse, and tumultuous living. Harding grew up cold and hard and endured an abusive, complex relationship with her mother, the pressures to be the best skater never ended.

Even upon achieving success, Tonya never felt good enough or loved by her mother.

We then experience Tonya as a fifteen-year-old girl, fittingly first meeting her boyfriend and later, husband Jeff, Gillooly played well by actor Sebastian Stan. The early scenes between the two are sweet, tender, and fraught with the emotions of first love.

As explained by the actors, this was a short-lived time of bliss, and the relationship soon disintegrated into abuse, rage, and chaos.

The main point is to debate Harding’s guilt or innocence, which Gillespie peppers throughout, so it is unclear what to believe or how the audience should think.

“Interpretation” is the key here. Some may see Harding as a victim of life’s circumstances and the hardships she had to endure and may place sympathy upon her. Others may view Harding as off-putting, potty-mouthed, and even icy and violent herself, with a big chip on her shoulder.

In one scene, she publicly belittles the hoity-toity judges who never give her a break and give her less-than-perfect scores.

A clever technique that the film delivers is to have the actors frequently speak to the camera, thus the audience. This is achieved by either interview style or for the action in the film to cease and either Robbie, Janney, Stan, or whomever, turn to the camera and express their version of the events.

I, Tonya possesses a creative, edgy, indie feel.

How brilliant are the performances of both Robbie and Janney?

Robbie, a gorgeous woman, portrays a “red-neck” to the hilt. Through her bright blue eyes, her face is quite expressive—relaying pain, anger, and a seldom triumph. The film often slants the scales in a sympathetic way towards Harding, but it is Robbie’s talents that make us feel this sympathy.

Janney hits the jackpot with a delicious role she sinks her teeth into. A cold-hearted, vicious character, through facial expressions, we occasionally glimpse LaVona, perhaps softening, but as we do, the character does something even more despicable.

A good surprise for fans who remember the real-life events and the real-life players will be treated to a sequence of the honest Tonya, LaVona, Jeff, and Shawn Eckhardt, which play over the film ending credits.

How similar in looks are Robbie to Harding, with her feathered, frizzy, 1980s-style hairdo, and Janney, a dead-ringer for the boozy, chain-smoking LaVona, with her mousy brown bob haircut, complete with scruffy bangs?

Viewers will leave theaters confused, unsure, or perhaps perplexed by what they have just seen, but they will most certainly feel thoroughly entertained and may even depart chanting some upbeat 1980s rock tunes that the film uses throughout.

Thanks to fantastic acting and a strong story, I, Tonya is a success.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Margot Robbie, Best Supporting Actress-Allison Janney (won), Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Actress-Margot Robbie, Best Supporting Female-Allison Janney (won), Best Editing (won)

The Greatest Showman-2017

The Greatest Showman-2017

Director Michael Gracey

Starring Hugh Jackman, Michelle Williams, Zac Efron

Scott’s Review #707

Reviewed December 26, 2017

Grade: A-

A pure musical escapist film, The Greatest Showman (2017) holds a dear and relevant message. It elicits hope for outcasts everywhere by leading a story of acceptance and perseverance in the feel-good film of 2017.

Hugh Jackman leads the pack, starring as P.T. Barnum, a man struggling to create an entertainment show with live and unusual performers- deemed “freaks” in New York in those days- the 1800s.

The film is quite joyful and light, with many cheery musical numbers sure to leave audience members humming along for hours after the conclusion.

The Greatest Showman is a rags-to-riches story and a thoroughly enjoyable film.

Jackman is as charismatic and likable as Barnum, the entrepreneur and showman we meet as a young boy, the son of a poor tailor. He becomes enamored with wealthy young Charity (Michelle Williams), and the two eventually marry, much to the chagrin of her pompous parents.

Barnum and Charity initially struggle to make ends meet as they begin to raise a family, but eventually, they find success and wealth when the show succeeds.

The film chronicles Barnum’s rise to fame and the trials and tribulations (romantic, business) for several years, mainly through musical numbers.

Zac Efron is excellent as Barnum’s eventual business partner, Phillip Carlyle.

Director Michael Gracey’s supporting characters are creative, if not typical, mainstays of carnivals and circuses everywhere—the bearded lady, the fat man, and a man covered in tattoos are featured prominently.

It is unclear whether these characters existed or were created simply for plot purposes. Still, rumor has it that The Greatest Showman has taken great liberties with the factual accuracy of the real P.T. Barnum and his escapades.

This would be bothersome if not for this film’s wonderful message- acceptance and celebrating diversity.

Indeed, this is important for young people everywhere in today’s chaotic world.

Those expecting anything more substance than a cheery and bright holiday slice of enjoyment may be disappointed—some mainstream critics did not rate this film highly. Still, I am okay with a bit of escapist adventure on occasion.

The message throughout The Greatest Showman is quite good.

The best musical number is the show-stopping and anthemic “This Is Me,” Keala Settle is fabulous as the bearded lady who leads this important song. The number is empowering and energetic.

The chemistry between Jackman and Williams is not remarkable, but it is not altogether vacant either. Instead, it is simply decent and not the film’s strongest point. I sense better chemistry between Jackman and Rebecca Ferguson as grand Swedish singer Jenny Lind.

However, their “romance” is unfulfilled, and we will need to imagine its possibilities.

I adore seeing Efron in quality roles (think 2012’s exceptional The Paperboy), and his performance as Phillip is great. He shares a good bond with Barnum and has his romance with acrobat (and of mixed race) Anne Wheeler.

His values and earnestness make the character appealing as he is torn between riches and standing on principle.

The Greatest Showman (2017) may not go down in history as the ultimate top in filmmaking or even one of the best musicals. Still, the film dazzles the audience and provides a couple of hour’s worth of fun and entertainment—similar to how P.T. Barnum energized the crowds with a slice of make-believe; this is more than appropriate.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“This Is Me”

Battle of the Sexes-2017

Battle of the Sexes-2017

Director Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Starring Emma Stone, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #691

Reviewed October 11, 2017

Grade: A

Battle of the Sexes (2017) is a film worth watching on many levels. Equal parts sports film, drama, and biography, it excels across all genres with exceptional acting and crowd-pleasing storytelling.

To boot, the film is a true story based not only on the very famous pro tennis match of 1973, termed the “Battle of the Sexes,” but also a story of the sexual identity conflict of one of the opponents in a time where being ones true self was not easy, especially for a public figure.

Emma Stone might have given her best portrayal of her young career as Billie Jean King, the talented tennis pro featured in the film.

She was kind and fair but a fierce proponent of women’s rights in the United States when feminism began taking shape and women and their male supporters demanded equal treatment.

Although initially uncertain whether Stone could pull the role off (not because of a lack of talent, but because the women seem so different), she truly shines as the tomboy athlete with shaggy, feathered locks and a toothy grin.

Equally worthy of praise is Steve Carell, who bolsters his film credo by tackling the role of King’s opponent and foe in the big match, Bobby Riggs.

Portrayed as a certifiable “jerk” and a sexist pig, Carell somehow pours the perfect amount of sympathy and likability into the part.

We witness scenes of Riggs’ playfulness with his young son and tender yet troubled relationship with his wife, Priscilla (Elisabeth Shue in a well-cast role), that never seem trite or contrived but rather quite genuine.

The acting in Battle of the Sexes is, across the board, good.

Sarah Silverman drips with confidence and humor as Gladys Heldman, founder of World Tennis magazine and leader of the troupe of female tennis players who parade around southern California seeking the same respect and pay as their male counterparts.

Bill Pullman makes the most of his one-dimensional role as Jack Kramer, a wealthy and male chauvinistic promoter, while the talented Andrea Riseborough is brilliant as Marilyn, Billie Jean’s bisexual, closeted lover—giving her role a blend of vulnerability and toughness.

The romantic scenes between Stone and Riseborough smolder with tenderness and heart as they forge ahead with their forbidden romance.

The film makes clear that a same-sex romance in those days, while accepted by those around them, would be met with shame and rejection by a large part of King’s legions of fans- this is a heartbreaking reality.

One of the most tear-jerking scenes comes at the end of the film when a victorious King is unable to acknowledge Marilyn. Her openly gay male dresser earnestly whispers to her that one day, she will be free to love who she truly loves.

The scene is poignant.

Directors Dayton and Faris carve a finale that is careful not to fall into the cliched territory. Given that Battle of the Sexes is a sports film, this is a real risk, as typically, these genre films teeter into the “good guys beat bad guys” fairy tale land.

While the film does champion King in the end, the moment is laced with good humor, drama, and sentimentality that does not seem forced but rather honest and real—I enjoyed the final act immensely.

As the film progressed, I found myself drawing parallels to the ever-dramatic and historic 2016 Presidential election—sure to have films made in years ahead- and King, in many ways, mirrors Hillary Clinton, while Riggs resembles Donald Trump in the sexist department.

The political and sports “Battles of the Sexes” warrants much analysis.

My point is a sad one. As much as I love the film, I was left with a cold feeling that forty-five years after the famous Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs match, male superiority, and chauvinism are alive and well in the United States—we still have so much progress to make.

Battle of the Sexes (2017) is a film with fantastic acting, stellar casting, passion, excitement, and a telling of a historical, true story.

The film contains all the elements of a compelling cinematic experience.

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Hacksaw Ridge-2016

Director Mel Gibson

Starring Andrew Garfield, Luke Bracey, Vince Vaughn

Scott’s Review #651

Reviewed June 9, 2017

Grade: B+

Hacksaw Ridge (2016) is considered a comeback film for troubled director Mel Gibson, having not directed a film in over ten years.

The film received several Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Andrew Garfield).

While the film has a few minor flaws, despite being another exhausting war film, Hacksaw Ridge is quite mighty, primarily because of Garfield’s warmth and convictions into the central character and real-life hero, Desmond Doss.

The film also leans anti-war and pacifistic.

During World War II, Desmond is a young man living in Virginia. With a brother around the same age, they deal with an abusive, alcoholic father and a passive mother.

Desmond realizes he has a talent for medical care. He falls in love with a small-town nurse and enlists in the Army as a non-combat medic.

After refusing to use weapons and train on Saturdays, he is met with contempt by his commanding officers and fellow recruits. Doss and his troops are deployed to the Pacific theater during the Battle of Okinawa, and he becomes a hero when he saves numerous lives on the frightening “Hacksaw Ridge” in courageous form.

For the first half (save for a peculiar opening battle sequence that comes into play during the second half), the action primarily exists in Desmond’s hometown of Virginia or at a basic training facility.

We learn about Desmond’s childhood experiences, love life, and love of country and duty. His father, a retired military man himself, is damaged. He drinks, beats his wife, and hits the boys, though Gibson tones down the abuse by not showing much of it.

He saves the real gore for later in the film.

The film during the earlier portions has a mainstream, safe feel, and I found more than a couple of aspects to nitpick. Desmond’s fellow training recruits are laced with too often used stereotypical, stock characters.

The brooding one, the cocky one nicknamed “Hollywood” for his good looks and tendency to walk around naked, the funny one, the strange one, the list goes on and on.

Drill Sergeant Howell (played by Vince Vaughn, now parlaying from comedy roles to drama) is tough as nails. This is a character we have seen in dozens of war films before, and it feels stale, as do all of the characters.

Some jokes are cheap one-liners like, “We are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy,” to describe new surroundings.

The masculinity is glaring and serves as a negative, making the film feel like nothing more than standard fare.

However, the second half of Hacksaw Ridge drew me in much more than the first half. Now, in Okinawa, the film grips a much darker tone with the inclusion of battle scenes, some very gruesome with the loss of limbs and life.

Technically speaking, the cinematography and camera work are shaky and move very quickly, effectively shifting from the sun and peace of the United States to the dark and fog of unfamiliar territory.

A sweet scene between Desmond and brooding former rival, Smitty Ryker, inside a foxhole is terrific as we get to know each character much better within that one scene.

Both men discuss their pasts and grow a new affection for one another. This is humanistic and character-driven, making the film much more powerful.

Andrew Garfield is a marvel and deserves the attention received for the role. Coming into his own as an actor after suffering hiccups with Spider-Man (2014), he has returned to character-driven and empathetic roles.

The role of Desmond is a genuinely heroic role for him, and he is wonderfully cast.

A war film with a distinct Anti-war message, Hacksaw Ridge is overall a “guy’s film,” with the female characters taking a backseat to the men. It suffers from some tried-and-true aspects, and some of the hairstyles seem 2016. However, in the end, the film depicts a wonderful human being and tells his heroic story, so that makes the film a good watch.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Mel Gibson, Best Actor-Andrew Garfield, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Film Editing (won)

Sully-2016

Sully-2016

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart

Scott’s Review #623

Reviewed March 10, 2017

Grade: B

I think most film critics would agree that each modern film directed by Clint Eastwood would accurately be described as a compelling film yet safe film, and the 2016 Eastwood offering, Sully, fits into both of these categories snugly- just as Sully feels like a snug film.

Everything seems to fit into a nice package when the credits roll.

While the film is sympathetic and has leanings of a character study, it is also shrouded in a wholesomeness that is incredibly safe and “Hollywood.”

This is not a knock or a detriment to the film, as it is very good, well-made, and has a high budget. However, edginess is not its forte, and it might have been better off with a bit more grit.

The actual film recounts the lively, perilous recent United Airways flight 1549, on which the now-famous Captain Sully successfully landed in New York’s frigid Hudson River one January morning.

Tom Hanks is the subdued and unassuming hero to perfection as his calm demeanor and grounded persona make him a likable chap, to say nothing of saving 155 lives aboard the would-be doomed flight that day.

Instead of going in a purely linear direction, building up the events (gravitating passengers, takeoff) in sequential order until the inevitable crash, Eastwood wisely decides to begin directly after the crash.

Captain Sully, clearly jarred by the events, is startled awake by nightmares. He dreams of crashing into midtown Manhattan instead of safely landing the jet.

The hero is beginning to suffer from symptoms of PTSD.

He is kept in New York City for days on both a press tour, interview after interview, as well as being questioned by The National Transportation Safety Board, who wonder why Captain Sully did not return to a nearby airport for an emergency landing as simulated computer recreations show that he could have.

This leads to both Sully and First Officer Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart) being put under a microscope and questioned.

I was a bit caught off guard and got slightly bored, as the film takes about thirty minutes to focus on the actual crash or show an airplane scene rather than building up the events by concentrating on Sully and Skiles’s mental health. However, in retrospect, Eastwood made a wise decision.

The entire film is barely over ninety minutes total, so the action comes fast and furious mid-stream.

Still, the film is not quite all that it could have been. Despite the potentially horrific consequences faced by an airplane blowing both engines due to the flocks of birds, I never got many extremely perilous moments during the film.

While technically well done, the danger scenes as Sully navigates the plane into the river lack much in the way of the punch.

Sure, there are a few quick shots of passengers praying or appearing frightened, but we never get to know any of the passengers very well.

A “don’t blink or you might miss it” scene of an elderly mother and her daughter shopping for a snow globe at the airport or three men rushing to catch the plane to catch a golf game in Charlotte is not enough for the audience to become too enveloped in their characters.

They almost seem thrown at the last minute as a way of personalizing the passengers.

As I mentioned above, the film’s point surrounds Sully (and arguably it should; there is nothing wrong with that) and, to a lesser degree, Skiles. The supporting characters contain no character development, and even Skiles’s personal life is not explored well.

Scully’s wife is only seen through phone conversations (played by Laura Linney), and he is happily married with two daughters. There is a brief talk about money trouble, but the wife is underdeveloped.

Additionally, the NTSB agents are portrayed as quite antagonistic towards Sully and Skiles (rumors abound that this was embellished for movie making), which makes sense.

I enjoyed the ending of the film- in tandem with the credits rolling- of seeing not only the real-life Sully but his wife and the passengers and crew of the actual United Airlines Flight 1549 through interviews and photographs.

This offering in true-life biography films is now a standard feature to look forward to as it brings a humanistic conclusion to the story just watched.

The film’s focus centers on Captain Sully, which is fine by me- the man is a hero- but as a film, and more than a biography, it might have added depth to have richer supporting characters and a more substantial background of the man that is Sully.

A few rushed childhood aviator and battle plane scenes seemed somewhat out of place.

Still, the film is pleasant and immensely watchable. It will not set the world on fire or be remembered as much more than a decent film based on a true story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Editing

Hidden Figures-2016

Hidden Figures-2016

Director Theodore Melfi

Starring Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monae, Octavia Spencer

Scott’s Review #619

Reviewed February 26, 2017

Grade: A-

Hidden Figures (2016) is a mainstream, “Hollywood” style film produced, written, and acted very well.

The film tells the story of three female African American mathematicians who faced many struggles and were somewhat overlooked in the early 1960s.

The women achieved historical success and allowed John Glenn to orbit planet Earth.

From a film perspective, the story is feel-good but not contrived. It feels quite fresh and features an excellent ensemble cast with good chemistry.

I enjoyed this film immensely.

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

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

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

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

Initially, Katherine is dismissed by her colleagues but eventually is accepted due to her smarts.

In subplots, Dorothy struggles to be given a Supervisory position. Mary aspires to be the first female engineer despite needing to enter an all-white school to take the necessary classes.

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

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

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

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

The chemistry between the three actresses makes Hidden Figures work so well and appear believable. The women always have each other’s backs and are friends outside of work, attending church and picnics together.

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

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

The two also have nice chemistry together.

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

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

Hidden Figures plays it safe, and the actual struggles of the real women undoubtedly had darker and meaner situations, as the discrimination they faced had to have been more intense.

Still, the film strives to downplay some of the grit in favor of light-hearted, crowd-pleasing fare, but I fell for it hook, line, and sinker and enjoyed the film ride that I was given.

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

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant

Scott’s Review #613

Reviewed January 30, 2017

Grade: B

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

In Florence Foster Jenkins (2016), Frears crafts a warm-hearted tale about a famous real-life opera singer, the title character of whom is played by Meryl Streep.

The film is likable but not up to par with other Frears’ gems, specifically Philomena (2013) or The Queen (2006).

Given the subject matter, the film is too safe for my tastes and should have been darker.

Florence Foster Jenkins was a New York City socialite and heiress who flourished in 1944. She founded the Verdi Club and did a great deal of good for music, specifically opera, which she adored.

Her husband, Bayfield, played by Hugh Grant, nicknames her “Bunny.” He reveres her, but not physically—he resides elsewhere with a girlfriend.

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

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

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

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

Although the character knows what she wants and is stubborn, she is also kind, and we see passion oozing from her pores.

Streep is the highlight and the draw of the film.

Hugh Grant deserves kudos, and I liked the chemistry between the two actors. Although seeking physical relations with another woman may make him appear a cad, Grant also gives Bayfield sensitivity and genuine care for his wife.

They have “an arrangement,” but he hides his girlfriend when Bunny shows up unexpectedly, not wanting Bunny to be embarrassed.

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

Like Bunny’s pianist, McMoon, Simon Helberg also positively influences the film. Hired to accompany Bunny’s singing, he is initially appalled and bemused but finally understands Bunny, coming to love and respect her for who she is.

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

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

Even the crowd’s laughter and mocking of Bunny seem to be done in a soft, light way.

Nonetheless, Florence Foster Jenkins (2016) is a decent offering, and Streep is the ultimate selling point.

The costumes are also great.

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

The Lady in the Van-2015

The Lady In The Van-2015

Director Nicholas Hytner

Starring Maggie Smith

Scott’s Review #610

Reviewed January 19, 2017

Grade: B

Maggie Smith can do no wrong and I will happily enjoy watching her in anything- anytime. Around in film since the 1950s this lady deserves a starring film role.

Utterly distinctive she is, as legendary actress Bette Davis was,  Smith has a style purely her own. Her facial expressions and exasperated gasps make her one of the great film stars.

The Lady in the Van (2015) is specifically made for her, but besides her talents, the movie is a decent offering, but very safe.

It lacks the depth that it could have had.

Written by Alan Bennett, the film tells the true story of Mary Sheperd, an elderly woman living in a broken-down van, who befriends Bennett and eventually lives in his driveway for fifteen years before her inevitable death.

Set in northern London, a quaint and gorgeous part of the world, Mary harbors a deep secret involving her van and is revealed to have been a star piano pupil in her day.

Smith has no qualms about playing unflattering characters.

Shepherd is grizzled, abrupt, and rude, but Smith puts a lot of heart into her too, so the audience senses her vulnerability and falls in love with her. With her sad protruding blue eyes, wrinkles for miles, and chirpy voice, Smith is fantastic at giving her all to the role.

The rest of the cast adequately play their roles but are limited and out-shadowed at every turn. Most notable is the wasted talents of Jim Broadbent, appearing in a small and quite meaningless role.

Besides Smith’s brilliant performance, The Lady in the Van lacks layers. The story is good, but we never see many of Mary’s struggles. How does she afford food? How is she not sick? The film skims over the darker elements of homelessness in favor of a lighthearted tale.

Fine, but what about her inevitable issues?

Other less important stories are mentioned but not fully explored. Alex speaks to what looks like his twin brother, but is it his alter ego?

Young men come and go at night, so the presumption is that Alex is gay, and in the end, we do see Alex living with a man, but why is this so vaguely written? Why mention it at all?

This story would have been interesting to delve deeper into given that the real Alex Bennett wrote the film.

Other side stories are introduced but remain on the surface. Alex’s mother suffers from Alzheimer’s, but this is not explored much, and Mary’s brother, who institutionalized her at a young age, offers no explanation as to why this was done she had a mental illness- but the brother’s motivations are not clear.

I wanted more from the supporting characters than was offered.

Still, the bottom line is that The Lady in the Van (2015) is a Maggie Smith film, and any in which she has the lead role, is pretty damned good for that reason alone.

Julie & Julia-2009

Julie & Julia-2009

Director Nora Ephron

Starring Meryl Streep, Amy Adams

Scott’s Review #588

Reviewed January 7, 2017

Grade: A-

Julie & Julia (2009) is a darling film about cooking that centers and centers on the legendary chef Julia Child. It is for the foodie or culinary geek in all of us.

The film is lighthearted and will ruffle no feathers, but it is a delicious well-told treat.

The film tells of the life of Julia Child (Meryl Streep), at one time an aspiring chef, contrasted with the life of a young New Yorker, blogger Julie Powell (Amy Adams), who is determined to cook all five hundred twenty-four recipes in Child’s famous cookbook, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, within one year.

The film, of course, would not be half as good without the amazing talents of Streep, who portrays Julia Child herself. All of Julia Child’s personality characteristics are portrayed exceptionally well by Streep.

Her laugh, voice, and zest for life, are all perfect. Of course, since Streep is not nearly as tall a woman as Child was, liberties had to be taken by way of camera trickery.

Regardless of Streep’s performance, props for a nice performance by Adams, too.

Julie & Julia (2009) is a cute, charming, light, fun movie. I thoroughly recommend it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Meryl Streep

Invictus-2009

Invictus-2009

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman

Scott’s Review #579

Reviewed January 2, 2017

Grade: B

As sports films go, it is very difficult, especially a sports film based on real-life actions, for a director to avoid cliches and make the film not a sappy, saturated mess.

I will point out some of the latter-day Rocky films as examples of cheese, not that those are true stories.

Nevertheless, Clint Eastwood has given us Invictus, and while the film is predictable and sappy, somehow it also works as an above-average offering.

This is undoubtedly helped by the superior acting of stars Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, who give both compelling and nuanced performances.

While not a masterpiece, for the sports genre, it is above average, as it combines a South African history lesson along with good drama.

Freeman portrays the famed Nelson Mandela, during the period when he took over as President and subsequently ended apartheid. He used the 1995 World Cup rugby matches as a way to unite his people.

Damon stars as a key rugby player.

Invictus is a rousing, triumphant sports film with a happy ending one can see for miles away. There is particularly a rooting value and rallying cry to the film since the subject matter is an important social issue and historically significant.

I wish that the film might have contained more character-driven elements, but it was clear the type of film that it was. Nothing very surprising ever developed as the film was straightforward.

Still, a worthy effort that is a feel-good film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Morgan Freeman, Best Supporting Actor-Matt Damon

Jackie-2016

Jackie-2016

Director Pablo Larrain

Starring Natalie Portman

Scott’s Review #576

Reviewed January 1, 2017

Grade: A-

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

The film does not retread conspiracy theories or feature more than a few brief glimpses of JFK himself. Instead, it tells Jackie’s story and what she faced throughout the ordeal.

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

It is a bravura performance by Portman as Jackie.

Director Pablo Larrain, primarily known for achievements with foreign-language films (the Chilean film No (2012), comes to mind), rather than the American history genre, is successful in his work with direction.

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

The overall feel of the film is foreboding and dark.

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

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

Portman successfully reveals two sides of Jackie Kennedy to the audience. Not simply the smiling debutante she always portrayed publicly, Jackie was also a complex, feisty woman.

She vehemently wanted the world to see how brutal the assassination was, how proud she was of her husband, and how she would not back down from holding a lavish and public funeral procession for her deceased husband.

Jackie was met with harsh criticism and defiance for her desire. A proud woman, she did not wish to run away and hide from the terrible events.

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

Typically, Portman portrays Jackie as prim, proper, and demure. She is always filled with class and grace.

In one riveting sequence, though, we see Jackie walking through the White House, smoking cigarettes and drinking vodka. She appears alone and vulnerable, having just lost her husband.

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

Portman is fantastic in her mannerisms and tone of voice.

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

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

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

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

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

Jackie was a fantastic First Lady who was always graceful and proper, but Portman shows another side of her that very few people knew about.

In addition to this fine acting, Jackie (2016) is a dark, brooding film that successfully tells this woman’s story.

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

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