The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

The Killing of a Sacred Deer-2017

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #774

Reviewed June 15, 2018

Grade: A

For fans of Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, who created such disturbing and bizarre films as 2009’s Dogtooth and 2015’s The Lobster, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) will be a treasure.

As with those films, the odd story and the peculiar acting styles are prevalent, making the film quite the experience.

I relish the film and its unusual nature. It offers a cinematic experience that is insightful, mesmerizing, extreme, and, quite frankly, brilliant.

Steven Murphy (Farrell) is an esteemed cardiac surgeon who “befriends” a troubled teenage boy named Martin (Barry Keoghan), whose father had died years earlier as a result of Steven’s negligence.

They fall ill when Martin slowly insinuates himself into Steven’s family life. Martin threatens to kill the entire family unless Steven kills either his wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) or one of his two children- the victim can be of his choosing.

The creepy premise is enormously intriguing as the conclusion cannot be foreseen.

A basic yet deep storyline is wonderfully spun, with many possible plot directions.

After forty-five minutes or so of the audience wondering why Steven and Martin meet secretly in diners, hospital corridors, or other remote areas, the teen boy’s true motivations come to the surface as he rapidly and calmly puts his cards on the table for Steven.

Surprisingly, none of the characters are particularly sympathetic.

One would assume that the Murphy family- wholesome, affluent, and astute, would garner audience support, but we slowly peel back the onion on each character.

With a gorgeous house in a quiet Cincinnati neighborhood, Steven and Anna (a doctor herself) are sometimes harsh and physical with their kids. In contrast, the kids (Bob and Kim) develop a strange fascination with Martin.

In this way, each character is peculiar and has dire motivations as the plot unfolds.

Lanthimos is quietly becoming one of my favorite new directors. He slowly churns out one disturbing film after the next. His clear Stanley Kubrick influences bubble to the surface, particularly in The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

The score is crisp with uniqueness, with plodding and sudden bombastic classical music pieces eliciting emotions like surprise and terror from the audience.

From a visual perspective, fans of Kubrick will no doubt notice the long camera shots and slowly panning camera angles. The hospital’s long and foreboding hallways are prominently featured as we follow a character walking along the corridors.

This is highly reminiscent of the Overlook hotel sequences in the 1980 Kubrick masterpiece, The Shining.

One particularly jarring nuance in the film is the speech patterns of most of the actors—clearly dictated by Lanthimos and also present in 2015’s The Lobster.

The character of Steven talks very quickly but with a monotone delivery and in a matter-of-fact style; Kim and Martin also speak this way. I didn’t notice the quality as much with Kidman’s Anna, but Farrell went to town.

I’m not sure this works throughout the entire film since the mannerisms give off almost a comical element.

This uniqueness makes the film more quirky and decidedly non-mainstream, which is to be celebrated.

The climax of the film is brutal.

As Steven brandishes a loaded shotgun, the family gathers in their family room, Anna fussing over her new black dress. As the group dons pillowcases, Steven goes Russian roulette-style on the family, randomly firing a shot until one member is killed.

When the remaining family members see Martin at the diner the next day, they give him icy, hateful looks.

The entire scene is done without dialog and is tremendously macabre.

Rest assured, I am eagerly awaiting Lanthimos’s next project (reportedly already in the works) and hope against hope he continues to use the superb Colin Farrell, the brilliant Nicole Kidman, and newcomer Barry Keoghan again.

Thanks to tremendous acting, a riveting score, and enough thrills and creeps to last a lifetime, The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) is at the top of its game.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Barry Keoghan, Best Cinematography

God’s Own Country-2017

God’s Own Country-2017

Director Francis Lee

Starring Josh O’Connor, Alec Secareanu

Scott’s Review #773

Reviewed June 13, 2018

Grade: B+

God’s Own Country (2017) is a British, romantic, LGBT-themed drama directed by Francis Lee, making his directorial film debut.

The setting is farming land in the Yorkshire (northern England) territory, making the film quite lovely to watch, and the pace is slow. Lee does not rush the story’s pace either, so it mirrors the slow life that farmers must endure.

The film is somewhat autobiographical of Lee’s own life.

The connection and chemistry between the two leads are palpable, and the love story is endearing. It is awe-inspiring to see two cultures come together and merge as one.

The film is a nice watch and an above-average story, making it worthy of LGBT audiences worldwide. Those who believe in true love and find their soulmate will be deeply satisfied.

Twenty-something Johnny (Josh O’Connor) lives a dull existence on his father’s farm in remote Yorkshire, England. His grandmother (Gemma Jones) also lives there, and due to his father’s recent stroke, the farm’s success is in question. Johnny is depressed, drinking regularly, and engaging in sexual encounters with men.

Romanian migrant worker Gheorghe (Alec Secareanu) is hired to help, and the two young men eventually fall in love. After some ups and downs in their relationship, they decide to live on the farm together and presumably live happily ever after.

God’s Own Country is a rich story of romance, and the only real obstacles that Johnny and Gheorghe face are internal struggles.

In a unique fashion for LGBT films, neither of the men are necessarily unhappy with their sexual identities, nor do they face hurdles by other characters because of their sexuality. Gheorghe faces harassment because he is Romanian and deemed an “outsider”.

Besides Johnny’s grandmother and perhaps his father, no characters seem aware that the men are a couple.

The cinematography is gorgeous and a perfect backdrop for the love story. The farm is lush with spacious green rolling hills for miles and miles.

The family raises lamb and cattle, and more than one scene features a beautiful birth and the nuzzling of the parent to the newborn baby. Sadly, one birth is also a breach, which is tough to watch.

The themes of life and birth perhaps mirror the feelings and emotions that Gheorghe and Johnny experience- new love.

Throughout God’s Own Country, I frequently drew comparisons to arguably the most mainstream and revolutionary film in LGBT history- that of 2005’s Brokeback Mountain.

Both films feature similar elements of animals, farming, and the outdoors. Additionally, commonalities like loneliness and loss are heavily featured. Finally, the rough-and-tumble, machismo-fueled wrestling scenes that result in rough sex between the men are used in both Brokeback Mountain and God’s Own Country.

Both films could be companion pieces.

The film does not delve too much into the back story of the main characters; at least, I did not catch many mentions. Admittedly, viewing the movie on DVD with no closed captioning or subtitle capability made capturing all of the dialogue difficult.

Especially with English and cockney accents, this was made doubly challenging. Regardless, both men are lonely, even despondent, but why? What happened to Johnny’s mother? Where are Gheorghe’s parents or his family?

Upstart Francis Lee carves a quiet, thoughtful, yet compelling story of unexpected love that develops between two lonely men in a remote area of the United Kingdom.

God’s Own Country (2017) paints a nearly perfect experience, slow, yes, but featuring exceptional acting from both leads and the two supporting turns.

The film is recommended for those seeking a poignant and fulfilling love story.

Vanity Fair-2004

Vanity Fair-2004

Director Mira Nair

Starring Reese Witherspoon

Scott’s Review #772

Reviewed June 12, 2018

Grade: B

An adaptation of the classic 1848 novel by William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair (2004) softens the traditionally unlikable, roguish character of Becky Sharp quite a bit.

This proves not to be the smartest move as the character, now more of a heroine, is watered down and forever changed, as is this film adaptation.

Reese Witherspoon (Becky) drew harsh criticism for her starring turn, but I do not think she is so bad, and the costumes and set designs are wonderful and quite the highlight of the resulting period piece.

In 1802 England, we meet Becky Sharp, a young woman who has just graduated from a School for Girls and been sent to work as a governess.

Because her father, a talented painter, is impoverished, Becky is cast aside as lower-class and deemed undesirable by anyone in the upper class, the men she is most interested in.

Despite her reputation as a tart, Becky aspires to marry rich and frequently gets into trouble with her shenanigans and smart tongue while romance blooms with the handsome Rawdon Crawley (Purefoy).

The story is supposed to encompass Becky’s life from approximately age eighteen through her mid-thirties (though Witherspoon never appears to age) and displays her trials and tribulations, her loves and losses through the years.

We follow her from rural England to London and Belgium, eventually residing in Germany, reduced to working in a casino, where the film concludes.

The film is a treat, as it features various countries as they appeared in the nineteenth century and the wars and battles of the period, making for an interesting history lesson.

The main appeal should be Becky Thatcher, since the film revolves around her, and numerous criticisms were leveled, accusing the film of casting Reese Witherspoon in the important and demanding role based on her star power at the time.

In 2004, Witherspoon was experiencing enormous film success after 2001’s Legally Blonde and 2002’s Sweet Home Alabama- admittedly fluff films- but securing her box office power nonetheless.

These films undoubtedly led to her being cast in the pivotal role, but I thought the star was perfectly adequate and gave Becky appropriate humor and zest.

Based on Witherspoon’s “girl next door” persona and the fact that she looks like a good character, it’s perplexing to cast her if filmmakers want to be true to the character.

Witherspoon was delicious in 1999’s Election as villainous Tracy Flick, a role of a lifetime. But that is the exception and not the standard.

But I digress- the bottom line is that while she is a capable actress, she does not give the gritty performance that many were expecting to be true to the character in the novel.

The rest of Vanity Fair is just mediocre as far as the story goes.

While Becky’s antics are both humorous and dramatic, her rooting value in the romance department does not come across in the 2004 film; there is not enough chemistry between the leads to warrant much support.

Opinions abound that other incarnations of Vanity Fair are far superior and more compelling than this film is, but I have yet to see any.

Compliments must be reaped on the costume department and the art direction- both are superior. Such threats are the lavish and colorful costumes and gowns that mark the time.

From the classic-style hats and highfalutin dresses featured in ball after ball, this aspect is nearly enough to recommend a watch over the dull story and, immeasurably, the highlight of the entire film.

Vanity Fair (2004) is considered a messy travesty to those well-read enough to have turned the pages of the classic novel.

Since I have not yet read the book, perhaps I enjoyed the film slightly more than I should have, but alas, I did not find the casting of Witherspoon as Becky, nor the overall product, to be drivel, as many did.

I recommend the film for the gorgeous visual treats if nothing else.

Gook-2017

Gook-2017

Director Justin Chon

Starring Justin Chon, Simone Baker

Scott’s Review #771

Reviewed June 11, 2018

Grade: B+

Gook (2017) is an independent film drama starring and directed by the rising talent Justin Chon.

Although the film is made on a very limited budget, it delivers a powerful story with a particularly jaw-dropping final sequence that I did not see coming.

If I am being an honest critic, the film drags at times and is not wholly attention-grabbing, but the wrap-up is exceptionally done.

The film’s use of black-and-white filming and a poor, ethnic Los Angeles set is winning, and it is proof that Chon is becoming someone to watch in the years to come.

The time is 1992 amid the soon-to-be-ending Rodney King police brutality trial- news stations and radio programs are abuzz with developments.

The intensity and racial strife are in the air as the trial is reaching its controversial conclusion, resulting in tumultuous riots across Los Angeles.

Two Korean American brothers, Eli (Chon) and Daniel (David So), attempt to keep their deceased father’s shoe store alive in a predominantly African American neighborhood.

The twenty-something men bond uniquely with eleven-year-old Kamilla (Simone Baker), the younger sister of their nemesis, Keith (Curtiss Cook Jr).

I was immediately struck (and impressed!) by the clever use of black-and-white cinematography, which I was not expecting from a film with such a small budget. This technique added grittiness and texture to the spread-out city and enhanced the film’s beauty.

There is something so lovely and peaceful about the juxtaposition of the shoe store’s location in a rather remote area with the looming violence and brutality of some of the film’s roughest scenes.

The harshness of the apparent racial slur title that Chon chooses, Gook, is both shocking and brave, immediately grabbing one’s interest and piquing curiosity.

This wisely sets the tone for the entire film, and viewers will certainly not mistake it for a feel-good affair. Sure, there are some light moments of banter between Kamilla and the brothers, but the conclusion of the film brings a painful reminder of how precious life really is.

Yes, the film is uneven, but that should not be a surprise with a movie that teeters around student filmmaking territory. This is hardly a slight, but merely a mention since Chon is so new at his craft.

For example, the pacing is very bizarre. While most of the film moves at a sleepy, whimsical pace, the aforementioned final sequence moves in breakneck fashion. When a terrible, accidentally self-inflicted gunshot wound sends one character to the emergency room, the speed at which the scene occurs is strange in comparison to the rest of the film.

The highlight of Gook is a tremendous, humanistic element.

The earnest and endearing relationship between Eli and Kamilla really shines through the ugliness of other components. Since the young girl comes from a broken home led by her tyrannical older brother, Keith, she has no father figure to speak of.

To compensate for what she lacks, she spends a great deal of time with the brothers helping out at the store.

Naturally, she bonds closely with Eli, whose father (presumably murdered) is not on the scene either, so they really embrace each other. Eli serves as Kamilla’s big brother, and their scenes are crisp with good dialogue and emotional pizzazz.

Another nice touch that Chon provides with his creation is an instance where the first scene is the same as the last scene- Kamilla doing a ceremonial dance amid the burning storefront.

The final scene is more meaningful and powerful than the opening scene since, by this time, the audience knows Kamilla’s fate.

It is another shining example of Chon’s artistic talent.

Props must be given to a talented up-and-comer in the cinematic scene. Justin Chon is an actor, director, creator, and all-around talented performer.

Gook (2017) is far from perfect and suffers from choppy story-telling and erratic elements, but is impressive in the good qualities it brings to the big screen.

Celebrating young filmmakers is fun, encouraging, and necessary to ensure that ambitious ideas are embraced.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Kiehl’s Someone to Watch (won)

Moonraker-1979

Moonraker-1979

Director Lewis Gilbert

Starring Roger Moore

Scott’s Review #770

Reviewed June 8, 2018

Grade: A-

Moonraker (1979) is an installment in the James Bond film franchise, not usually well regarded and rarely appearing on critics’ top-ten lists.

Perhaps a reason for this is the film’s timing, hot on the heels of the late 1970’s Star Wars craze. Plans for a different Bond film were scrapped in favor of an outer space story.

Regardless, I adore most of Moonraker, save for the final thirty minutes when the plot gets way too far-fetched for anyone’s good.

The rest of the film is a superior entry and holds up quite well in the modern age of all things Bond.

Many of the familiar elements remain intact following the successful and lavish The Spy Who Loved Me (1975). An even heftier budget featuring gorgeous locales like Venice, Rio de Janeiro, and the Amazon rainforest is on display, as is a capable, intelligently written “Bond girl”.

The villains, compelling and suave, including the return appearance of Jaws (Richard Kiel), and handy, dandy gadgets make Moonraker a treat for fans.

Therefore, I find the non-love for the film rather mystifying.

The action begins when a jumbo jet carrying a Drax Industries Moonraker space shuttle is hijacked midair, causing the plane to crash and the shuttle to disappear.

Since the space shuttle was on loan to the United Kingdom from the wealthy and powerful Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), 007 (Roger Moore) is tasked with finding its whereabouts. He visits the grand shuttle-manufacturing plant in California, where he learns that Drax and his bodyguard Chang are sinister and plotting global destruction.

Bond befriends the gorgeous and highly intelligent Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), an astronaut who works at the facility, and Corinne Dufour (Corinne Clery), the beautiful personal pilot of Drax.

As events roll along, Jaws returns to the story seeking revenge on Bond and subsequently serves as Drax’s new bodyguard.

Of course, treasured favorites like M (Bernard Lee), Q (Desmond Llewelyn), and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) return to the fold.

To explain the weakest portion of the film first, producers were attempting to capitalize on the tremendous success of 1977’s Star Wars by featuring a space exploration theme.

Only in the final half-hour does this come into play, as Bond and Goodhead, and nearly the entire cast, don bright yellow spacesuits. Drax’s evil plan is to eradicate all humankind and begin a new world with only beautiful people existing and reproducing.

The inevitable final battle scenes take place in a sprawling space station amid laser guns shooting bright beams- a direct rip-off from Star Wars.

The entire sequence is too long and quite reminiscent of my criticism of the tedious finale from the otherwise brilliant The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker’s predecessor.

Otherwise, the film is top-notch.

Fantastic sequences involve Bond’s midair fight with a bad guy and a dangerous struggle for a parachute, a fight scene high atop a Cable Car during Rio Carnival, vicious sparring in a Venice museum, and a female character chased and torn to bits by Drax’s carnivorous dogs, all of which make for great action sequences.

The highlight, though, may very well be Bond’s harrowing ordeal inside an out-of-control centrifuge chamber.

The return of Jaws is certainly a highlight of Moonraker, especially as the popular villain turns “good” and finds a love interest! When he sees the cute blonde girl with pigtails and glasses, both characters’ eyes light up in a “love at first sight” moment.

As Jaws realizes Drax’s plans for both of them to exterminate his alliances have suddenly switched, a touching scene unfolds between the two over champagne.

Moore and Chiles have tremendous chemistry as the MI-6 agent teams with the capable female CIA agent. Holly Goodhead is portrayed exceptionally well: female, intelligent, gorgeous, and savvy.

Impressive (and progressive) is how Goodhead takes charge as she and 007 make a harrowing journey back to planet Earth and then work nicely together to destroy Drax’s deadly missiles.

Sure, the romance is there, but also the mutual respect between the two.

Fondly recalling childhood memories of watching this film numerous times, I have good memories of Moonraker (1979).

More importantly, it possesses wonderful Bond qualities that will enchant many Bond fans seeking fun and entertainment.

The film has a ludicrous plot that attempts to fit the times, but thanks to lavish sets and a competent main Bond girl, it is quite memorable.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

The Breadwinner-2017

The Breadwinner-2017

Director Nora Twomey

Voices Saara Chaudry, Ali Rizvi Badshah

Scott’s Review #769

Reviewed June 7, 2018

Grade: B

Certainly, The Breadwinner (2017), a timely and politically charged story, provides relevance and a progressive women’s empowerment message.

This should be championed above all else and is recommended as a worthy watch for that reason alone.

The film itself is dark and not entirely a children’s movie or necessarily family-friendly, but rather a good lesson learned.

Dragging just a bit throughout, this is small compared to the overall story’s importance.

The animated feature is based on the best-selling novel by Deborah Ellis, which focuses on life in dangerous Afghanistan (circa 2001) under constant threat by Taliban rule.

Since women are not allowed to leave the house and any men daring to question the Taliban are either slaughtered, beaten, or arrested, the film is quite heavy compared to typical animated fare.

The Breadwinner’s main character is a likable eleven-year-old girl named Parvana. She lives in metropolitan Kabul, Afghanistan, with her father and sells items on the city streets to support the rest of the family—his wife, daughter, and male toddler.

Parvana’s older brother has died years ago.  Parvana’s father, Nurullah, is a former teacher left crippled by an injury sustained during the war.

When he is arrested, Parvana must disguise herself as a boy and work to support her family as she traverses the city with her best friend, Shauzia.

The animation is lovely and a definite high point of the film. The details look crisp and fresh- from the stark village houses to the vegetable stands and other more metropolitan aspects of the bustling cities, the film looks excellent and professional.

The flawless art direction and visuals aid in the believable nature of the story.

Another high point of The Breadwinner is the story’s substance; it is not fluffed, as is commonly seen in modern animated films.

Throughout the film, I knew that I was watching something of meaning. Parvana faces actual danger; if she is found not to be a young boy but instead a young girl, she could be beaten, raped, or worse.

Unwisely, early in the film, she becomes an enemy of a young, sadistic soldier who continues to resurface and threaten Parvana throughout the film.

More than a handful of frightening scenes occur, evidence that director Nora Twomey’s intentions are not for a family-friendly affair.

Given the subject matter at hand, this is a wise move. Toning down the violence and treachery of the Taliban would make the film feel insincere and dishonest.

Instead, because of the violent deaths and beatings that occur throughout, the film feels genuine and the characters’ emotions real.

If I were to point out a film, the Breadwinner suffers from an erratic approach.

I adore the straightforward aspects of the main story and enjoyed the survival instincts, female empowerment, and Parvana’s innocent friendship with Shauzia. However, the film goes in a different direction a handful of times as Parvana tells stories of a young man’s journey to retrieve seeds stolen from him.

Frankly, this slowed down the main plot, and one has little to do with the other, making them seem disjointed.

With a worthy and meaningful central storyline, how nice to feast one’s eyes on an artistic animated production so marvelously made.

The Breadwinner (2017) is a treat for animated film fans who yearn for something more intelligent than the standard “kid’s film.”

Perhaps not a perfect “A,” but something of quality nonetheless.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

Abacus: Small Enough to Jail-2017

Abacus: Small Enough to Jail-2017

Director Steve James

Scott’s Review #768

Reviewed June 6, 2018

Grade: B+

Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (2017) is a compelling documentary that received considerable attention after earning an Academy Award nomination.

The straightforward story never dulls or drags. It stays on point by telling a gripping courtroom-style legal thriller about a Chinese family’s struggle to keep their small banking business from criminal prosecution.

The documentary features the Sung family, led by patriarch Mr. Sung, who brought the family from China to start a banking business decades ago.

Since then, the family has set up roots in downtown New York City, launching a community-style bank to help people living and working in the Chinatown section.

The bank has become tremendously popular and culturally centered as a way to help struggling neighbors, and its business has thrived.

The Abacus Federal Savings Bank became the only one to face criminal charges following the mortgage crisis in 2009.

The documentary argues that this was because the larger banks were untouchable, and prosecutors desired to make an example of the banks because they were an easier target.

The documentary wisely presents both sides, featuring family interviews as well as the prosecutor’s arguments.

I found Abacus: Small Enough to Jail to move along quite smoothly and quickly. The documentary mainly focuses on the Sungs, who are all very driven people.

They reside in upscale Greenwich, Connecticut, and consist of a mother and father and three grown daughters in their twenties and thirties. The daughters are brilliant, and the entire family is intensely loyal to each other and their business despite scenes showing them bickering over trial strategies and takeout lunches.

The documentary mainly chronicles the prolonged five-year ordeal that the Sungs endured, involving a myriad of paperwork, trial dates, and other particulars. All the while, the family continues to uphold their business with gusto, but the trial takes quite a toll on the individuals, particularly the elderly patriarch.

It is tough to imagine anyone rooting for a bank, but that is the result.

Director Steve James is superb at portraying the Sung family sympathetically. There is never a doubt that he feels they have been victimized and sought after because they are a relatively easy target compared to the big boys of the banking world.

J.P. Morgan and Chase are deemed untouchable, which is a significant source of the problem and the film’s main objective to show.

Heartbreaking is a scene containing footage of at least a dozen or so Chinese bank employees being led to processing all chained together- chain gang style. This scene, shown relatively early in the documentary, cemented my support for the Sungs.

I asked myself, even if they were guilty, why the inhuman and racist treatment? When questioned about the poor treatment of the indicted, all the prosecution could muster was that it was “unfortunate,” hardly an apology.

The key element here and the main point of the story is that wrongdoing was committed, but the question asked is whether the Sungs knew about a few of their employees’ shenanigans, and I truly think not.

As the documentary explains, the jury had extreme difficulty reaching a concrete decision, which is why the trial dragged on and on. I asked myself, “If the large banks were bailed out with no prosecutions whatsoever, why should a mom-and-pop bank be targeted?”

Steve James creates an unexpectedly fast-paced piece. It is tough to do with dry financials, spreadsheets, and other banking-type particulars, but that is just what he does.

Objectively presenting the facts on both sides and offering many interviews and courtroom drawings, Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (2017) is a treat to view and captures a terrible time in United States history and how the undertones of racism still exist.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Good Time-2017

Good Time-2017

Director Ben Safdie, Joshua Safdie

Starring Robert Pattinson, Ben Safdie

Scott’s Review #767

Reviewed June 5, 2018

Grade: B+

Every so often, an actor who is known for either making mainstream films or portraying a mediocre character risks being typecast.

Fortunately, actor Robert Pattinson, known chiefly as the heartthrob from the trite Twilight films, has been given the best career role. The actor hits the jackpot with a challenging and edgy performance in the fast-paced, independent crime drama Good Time (2017).

The film is a perfect ride, and directors Ben and Joshua Safdie successfully provide excellent tension and compelling action scenes (Ben even gives a worthy supporting performance as a mentally challenged character).

The overall tone of the film is that of an edge-of-your-seat experience.

As enjoyable and taut as the film is, a few minor criticisms must be mentioned below.

Good Time begins with Nick Nikas (Ben Safdie) being quizzed by a therapist. They are quickly interrupted by Nick’s brother Connie (Pattinson), who removes him from the facility so that he can assist with a bank heist.

When the attempt goes awry and Nick is arrested, Connie does his best to spring his brother from jail and then from the hospital following an altercation with another inmate. All the while, Connie must also evade the police as he forms a strange connection with a sixteen-year-old girl, Crystal (Taliah Webster).

The fun part of Good Time is that the film is fast-paced and filled with twists and turns. Taking place largely over the course of one night, we are compelled by Connie’s journey and wonder if he will outrun the cops.

Although it is a standard thriller, Good Time rises slightly above this ranking due to its wonderful New York City setting and numerous exterior scenes—this is a major plus.

The film’s look also garners props. With a slick yet gritty and grainy feel, the camera angles are quick and plentiful. This is a great tool to keep the action going at lightning speed, and the editing deserves kudos, too.

The intensity and tension run rampant throughout.

A good example is the bank robbery scene—as the teller disappears into the vault to get the requested amount of money, she takes what seems like an eternity to return, leaving the audience (and Connie) wondering if she has alerted the authorities.

Otherwise, the film is helped immensely by the acting performance of Pattinson, who owns the film. Having not seen him in anything before, I was surprised at how good he was.

I thought of him as more of a matinee idol than a serious actor, but I was proven wrong. Grizzled and temperamental but a decent guy at times, Pattinson’s Connie is loyal to a fault, putting his brother first and foremost.

Fans of Captain Phillips (2013) will be delighted to see Barkhad Abdi cast in the small yet pivotal role of an amusement park security guard.

Nominated for the Best Supporting Actor award for Captain Phillips, the Somali-American actor has found steady work in film since his acclaimed debut performance. In his role in Good Time, the character is instrumental in kicking off the final act that leads to the downfall of at least one other character.

A few minor but notable flaws (somewhat unnecessary) that Good Time contains are worth mentioning.

Perplexing to me is the casting of Jennifer Jason Leigh as Connie’s girlfriend, Corey. Decades older than Connie, Corey is written pretty much as a nitwit attempting to use her mother’s credit card to bail out Nick.

The film does not mention the age difference or provide much meat to the role—Jason Leigh deserves better than a throwaway role like this.

Otherwise, none of the female characters are treated exceptionally well. Connie frequently directs or shouts at either Corey or even Crystal, eliciting a slightly off-putting “man in charge” vibe.

Also, a gay slur uttered by Connie is thrown into a scene for seemingly no reason, which surprises me in 2017. Still, something makes the audience root for Connie while we still want him to get his punishment.

Good Time (2017) provides quality entertainment in a specified genre with good acting.

With a weird Ocean’s Eleven style (only with one prominent character), the bank robbery theme will satisfy those in the mood for a good heist film.

The film’s title is a mystery (is it irony?), and I’m not sure it works, but overall, it is a perfect watch.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Safdie Brothers, Best Male Lead-Robert Pattinson, Best Supporting Male-Benny Safdie, Best Supporting Female-Taliah Lennie Webster, Best Editing

Malice-1993

Malice-1993

Director Harold Becker

Starring Alec Baldwin, Nicole Kidman, Bill Pullman

Scott’s Review #765

Reviewed May 29, 2018

Grade: B+

Malice (1993) is only one of a slew of husband and wife-themed thrillers to emerge from the early 1990’s- Unlawful Entry (1992), Sleeping with the Enemy (1991), and Deceived (1991) are other similar films that made lots of money during this time.

This slick filmmaking genre was popular as the new decade emerged and more complex storytelling graced screens.

The myriad twists and turns are both a positive and a negative for this film.

Keeping the audience guessing and on pins and needles is a key to success, eliciting a fun tone, as well as the tremendous star power of the cast (George C. Scott and Anne Bancroft are big-time heavies).

Then again, a few of the plot points become red herrings and thereby meaningless, and the overall plot and endless subplots become way more complex than they need to be.

In a plot that is dizzying to explain, Associate Dean Andy Safian (Bill Pullman) and his wife Tracy (Nicole Kidman) are embarking on a life together in Massachusetts as they purchase a grand Victorian house and plan to begin a family.

As a serial killer stalks the campus where Andy works, and implausibly results in him being the prime suspect, Tracy experiences health turmoil and is operated on by cocky yet brilliant Dr. Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin).

When dire events occur, the plot escalates, and the main characters’ motivations are called into question as truths and deceptions unravel.

When I first saw Malice in 1993 (in fact, I saw it twice the same year), I adored the multitude of plot points and devices. The film had the same effect as a speeding roller coaster ride- with endless twists and story revelations.

And to be fair, the film holds up pretty well, never seeming dated or of its time like many mainstream films.

The two startling reveals- Tracy and Jed being in cahoots and the mysterious eye witness living next door being blind- are clever bits of writing that immerse the audience on many levels.

The acting is top-notch- Kidman plays good and evil oh so well, and Bancroft’s cameo as Tracy’s mother is Oscar-worthy.

The chemistry between Pullman, Kidman, and Baldwin, and Pullman’s “nice guy” to Baldwin’s “jerk,” works quite well as the overlapping relationships play out.

Small yet meaningful roles by Bebe Neuwirth, Peter Gallagher, and Gwyneth Paltrow add layers to the wonderful casting.

And who can forget the often-parodied scene in which arrogant Dr. Jed launches into a monologue claiming to be infallible and to be God? This scene received tons of publicity and is arguably the defining moment of the film.

However, Malice’s strengths also sometimes become its weaknesses. As the events unfold, the plot becomes too confusing.

The school serial killer plot soon becomes a red herring as we realize it has little to do with the central plot- the Tracy/Jed alliance- except only to raise parenting questions.

Therefore, the big reveal of who the killer becomes is for naught. It’s the creepy janitor named Earl(Tobin Bell), hardly a surprise.

Furthermore, after the film ends and the viewer plays the events back to see if they add up, they will likely give up in frustration.

Malice is an above-average entry in a popular genre- who doesn’t like a good, solid thriller? With a talented cast and enough good medical thrills to balance with a college campus whodunit, there is plenty to please everyone who views this film.

Yes, some of the writing is preposterous and tough to believe, but Malice (1993) is a movie meant to escape with, sit back, and enjoy.

A Ghost Story-2017

A Ghost Story-2017

Director David Lowery

Starring Casey Affleck, Rooney Mara

Scott’s Review #764

Reviewed May 27, 2018

Grade: A-

It’s marvelous to support independent film. I get most of my selections via the annual Independent Spirit Award nominations, which are announced every November.

Rich, creative films that ordinarily would be overlooked are recognized and sometimes treasured instead of forgotten entirely.

A Ghost Story (2017) is a small film fortunate to land big-name stars, undoubtedly increasing its audience—I am unsure if this film ever played in theaters anywhere.

Nonetheless, the film is a thought-provoking experience that left me perplexed and fascinated but with the knowledge that I had seen something worthwhile. I may not have completely understood it, but I also adored it.

Writer and director David Lowery must be good with Hollywood A-listers Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara, who star in A Ghost Story. The pair also appeared in Lowery’s first film, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints (2013), which received critical acclaim.

Somewhere outside of Dallas, Texas, a young married couple known as “C” (Affleck) and “M” (Mara) moves into a small house. “C” is a musician with an unusual fondness for the tiny house the couple rents.

While “M” desires to leave the house, “C” wishes to stay, somehow drawn to it. After “C” is tragically killed in a car accident, his spirit returns, unable to let go of either his wife or his home, eventually stuck in time to watch generations come and go.

A Ghost Story is a cerebral experience as we watch the events from the perspective of “C.” Adding an eerie quality is that “C” is a ghost- shrouded in a plain white bed sheet with dark circles for the eyes. While “C” does not speak, we experience his perceptions and feelings through what he sees.

At first, following “M” around as she mourns his loss, eventually, she moves on and “C” is forced to watch others live in the house. Pitifully, he awaits the return of “M” as hundreds of years go by.

Lowery is good at creating an ominous and haunting tone, mainly through his classical musical score. The film is wonderfully original.

The audience feels the loss and loneliness of both “C” and “M,” but there is a scary quality, too—not in the horror genre way, but rather, we do not know what will happen next. When “M” brings a man home, “C” is furious, knocking books to the ground and turning the lights on and off.

Later, a new family is terrorized when an unhappy “C” breaks all their dishes in a rage.

A scene that gave me the creeps is when “C,” in spirit form, gazes out the window of his house and notices another ghost looking out the window next door. This ghost looks exactly like him, except it is female- we know this because her sheet has a flower pattern.

They can communicate without speaking, and “C” learns that she has been waiting for someone to come home to her, but it’s been so long that she can’t remember who it is. This scene is sad and filled with despondency.

A forewarning is that the pacing of the film is very slow—perhaps too slow for most. After “M’s” landlord brings her a pie, we watch her devour it in a very long five-minute scene, after which she vomits the contents up.

Despite its length, this scene is powerful and important, as the entire time, we view her depression and longing for “C” to return, absorbing some little comfort from the pie.

A Ghost Story reaches its creative climax towards the end as the film comes full circle, and we begin to understand the circumstances. A dynamic sequence of the passage of time occurs, showing the demolition of the house and the development of a thriving city over time. Depressed and desolate, “C” jumps off of a high rise.

However, the final scene mystified me, and I was unable to completely make A Ghost Story (2017) add up (was there a second ghost or a rebirth of “C”?), but that is also part of the film’s intrigue.

Regardless, the film is a worthy watch if only for a cerebral story that makes one think. Its central themes of loneliness and loss are depressing but also fascinating concerning the good story that Lowery creates.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: John Cassavetes Award

Twister-1996

Twister-1996

Director Jan de Bont

Starring Bill Pullman, Helen Hunt

Scott’s Review #763

Reviewed May 25, 2018

Grade: B+

Twister (1996) is a film with amazing, groundbreaking special effects that blew people away (pun intended!) when it was released to the masses over twenty years ago.

Moviegoers flocked to theaters everywhere to enjoy the escapist summer feel-good hit starring popular stars of the time.

The film spawned amusement park rides and lots of other fun things during its run.

The visuals are what truly deserve to be enjoyed here, not the generic, tried-and-true subplots of romance, childhood trauma, and corporate greed that are mixed in.

The film does not hold up well in the present day, as its dazzling effects now look rather dated when compared with modern blockbusters. This results in Twister being reduced to “one of those 1990’s films”.

Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt star as American storm chasers, Bill and Jo, obsessed with their craft of tracking tornadoes throughout the Midwestern United States.

Adding drama to the plot is that Bill and Jo are an estranged married couple in the midst of a divorce.

Bill brings his new fiancée, Melissa (Jami Gertz), along as numerous meteorologists converge to track storms using newly invented devices.

Predictably, a series of vicious storms commences while Bill, Jo, and Melissa play out a love triangle.

Twister gets off to a fantastic start when a wicked storm kills the five-year-old Jo’s father, prompting her to pursue her chosen career. Jo has never gotten over her father’s death, becoming fascinated by deadly storms.

The effects of this initial storm are very well done as Jo’s father’s death scene is riveting- the poor man being sucked into the deadly cyclone is memorable.

Regardless, this scene sets the tone for the ample effects to follow- most notably the terrifying sound of the swirling storm as farm tools and animals fly around onscreen.

After the initial introduction, the rest of the film mainly follows the group as they drive around and encounter storms, with Bill and Jo taking center stage.

As a child who spent many summers in the Midwest, sans tornadoes, thankfully, I felt a sense of nostalgia watching the film.

It is assumed that Twister was filmed on location (with studio help), but the authenticity is apparent. From the vastness of the plains to the dusty roads, cornfields, and the small-town U.S.A.

I enjoyed the down-home, slice-of-life feel.

The action and effects are lightning-quick and quite realistic. As mentioned, the sound effects are as strong as the visual effects, and I never doubted for a second that the twisters had a realistic quality.

This successfully merges into the summer blockbuster that Twister’s producers undoubtedly were going for. Making a ton of money, the result was successful and inspired by Hollywood.

Despite the superlative special effects, though, this is the only reason to watch Twister, and seeing the film once is enough excitement.

The writers (Michael Crichton and Anne-Marie Martin) attempt to incorporate a romance into the story, and this does nobody any good.

This negative aspect is even more apparent since the chemistry between Paxton and Hunt is non-existent, and Gertz’s Melissa is meant to be the odd woman out all along.

A large amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary to “buy” various scenes. Ludicrous are countless scenes where characters either outrun the monstrous twisters or, somehow, the storms encircle them but miraculously never touch them.

When Jo, Bill, and Melissa’s truck is captured inside the funnel cloud, the vehicle and its passengers somehow remain unharmed.  Tornadoes do not simply come out of nowhere to attack without any indication on the radar.

But alas, this is a disaster film, and liberties must be taken.

The famous “cow scene”, notoriously used twice in the film, seemed groundbreaking and cutting-edge in 1996, but in 2018 now seems hokey and unnecessary.

Times sure do change in cinema, especially with technical effects and CGI growing each year.

Admittedly, the film does contain a good, all-American rockin’ summer tune by Van Halen named “Humans Being”, which always makes me think of summertime when I hear it.

The entire Twister soundtrack was an enormous success with radio airplay, which led to further successes for the film.

Perhaps now watched as a blast from the past or a revisit to some sort of nostalgic time for folks, Twister (1996) is a great example of a once-popular popcorn movie falling into semi-obscurity.

Given another twenty years, the film will undoubtedly fall apart—a nice film for its time, but not much more.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound, Best Visual Effects

Goat-2016

Goat-2016

Director Andrew Neel

Starring Ben Schnetzer, Nick Jonas

Scott’s Review #762

Reviewed May 23, 2018

Grade: D

Goat (2016) is a film that made me angry for one hour and forty minutes. I deride it completely.

Incorporating outrageous and unnecessary scenes for no other reason than to offend, the film fails to achieve either a lesson learned or any central point.

I understand what the filmmakers were going for by portraying fraternities as evil and their members as monsters. Goat never provided logic, much character development, or any good intentions.

I was left disturbed by what I had just seen.

College student Brad Land (Ben Schnetzer) is viciously attacked by two peers following a party one summer night. As the police search for the assailants, Brad begins the fall semester at a college attended by his older brother Brett (Nick Jonas).

There, he decides to pledge a fraternity during “Hell week,” enduring one humiliation and degradation after another. When a fellow pledge dies following the fraternity’s abuse, someone rats the fraternity out, with Brad as the likely suspect.

Brad is an interesting study. The protagonist makes his first mistake by giving ominous-looking strangers a lift home. At this point, we feel sympathy for the character and should root for him throughout the film, but I didn’t.

As nasty as the fraternity brothers are, it is not until nearly the end that Brad ever stands up to any of them, and he oddly refuses to point the finger at his assailant despite being right in the police lineup.

I found the character all over the place and never knew his motivations.

Most other characters (including the victimized pledges) have little rooting value and are primarily one-dimensional “frat boys” written poorly.

The writers of the script do their best to make fraternity brothers look awful- they beat, berate, humiliate, and degrade not only the pledges, but they barely treat females or animals any better.

This isn’t comforting to witness since there is little point. The humiliation scenes continue as if we are watching the same scene repeatedly.

Ludicrous scenes of the guys drinking, acting belligerent, using anti-LGBT slurs, and taunting each other commenced almost from the get-go.

A ridiculous cameo by James Franco goes nowhere and makes little sense other than his character being a former frat boy the current members looked up to. If I had a nickel for every “bro,” “dude,” or “man” used in the film to show machismo, I’d be a rich man.

In the final segment, the film makes a feeble effort to humanize Brett, who is hot and cold towards his brother all along (this is never explained).

They also write a few of the frat boys as feeling sorry for the sudden heart attack suffered by one of the pledges, but this only fueled me with rage as unknown was whether they were genuine or wanted to save their asses (they caused his death!).

My vote goes for the latter.

The only prop I will give to Goat is that it is not a middling glossy Hollywood affair and goes for the jugular in its intensity and brutality.

But the point I thought the film was trying to make (that of a thought-provoking look at the problem of fraternities) only made me hate fraternities and develop a negative view of them.

From the despicable scenes where the frat feeds a poor goat chocolate laxatives and forces a blindfolded pledge to eat what’s thought to be excrement to the concussion they give a pledge before he succumbs to a heart attack, the film is not an easy watch.

Too many scenes feel overly hammered home and redundant, and the conclusion is unsatisfying. We are left with Brett and Brad gazing out at the spot where Brad was attacked, and this scene does nothing to wrap up the film.

From the onset, I squirmed uncomfortably during Goat and never felt connected to the film or any of the characters.

Perhaps Goat (2016) would have succeeded or appreciated more with more development and purpose, but the film failed me.

The Blair Witch Project-1999

The Blair Witch Project-1999

Director Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez

Starring Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael Williams

Scott’s Review #761

Reviewed May 22, 2018

Grade: A

When a horror film “scares the viewer to death,” then that film has superseded what it has intended to do, since horror films are a dime a dozen these days.

Fondly remembering sitting in a crowded and very dark movie theater to see The Blair Witch Project (1999), I was left both mesmerized and clutching my seat for dear life.

This film had an enormous impact on me.

The film wisely uses hand-held cameras (black-and-white 16mm film) and Hi-8 video, manipulating the audience into using their imaginations and leading to terrifying results, making it one of the scariest horror films of the 1990s.

Sometimes what you don’t see is much more frightening than what is seen on screen.

In 1994, three college-aged amateur filmmakers (Heather, Michael, and Joshua) decided to hike to Burkittsville, Maryland, to film a documentary about a legend known as the “Blair Witch”.

The witch is reportedly responsible for mysterious deaths and disappearances over the past two hundred years. They interview, wander, and joke around with each other as a sense of dread begins to develop.

According to the film, the trio themselves disappear, but a year later, their equipment is found fully intact, and the film footage can be viewed.

The 1999 film is professed to be the footage left behind by the group.

Throughout the film, we watch the individuals conduct interviews with the townspeople and eventually get lost in the woods at nightfall, forced to stay the night as a mysterious entity terrorizes them.

Numerous creepy noises and rustlings scare the group.

In retrospect, with more insight and knowledge about the film, it may be easy for critics to dismiss The Blair Witch Project as either a hoax or a complete manipulation, but in 1999, audiences flocked to the theaters in droves as word of mouth spread.

I saw the film twice on the big screen and was frightened equally with each viewing. More importantly, with the onset of the reality television craze, the film was clever in capitalizing on this trend, so it is to be championed.

Timing is everything!

In the film genre, The Blair Witch Project used buzz and word of mouth to elicit interest before the film was even released- and then the craze began.

The film was highly influential to subsequent releases that also chose to utilize camcorders as their method of storytelling- think 2007’s Paranormal Activity and 2008’s Cloverfield.

The Blair Witch Project is similar in tone to older masterpieces such as 1974’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and 1968’s Night of the Living Dead- independent releases made on a shoestring budget that became enormously successful.

As with these films, the camerawork was crucial to achieving the necessary realism.

What makes The Blair Witch Project enormously authentic is the tricks used not only on the audience but also on the cast. Reportedly, the film was almost entirely improvised, including dialogue and situations that the characters faced.

The actors began to feel as if the events they were supposed to act out were happening- their map disappeared, and noises were created to frighten them.

This clever approach to Method acting elicited the perfect responses from all involved- especially as they got colder, hungrier, and more desperate.

My concern is how well 1999’s The Blair Witch Project will hold up over the years. Phenomenally effective and tremendously profitable at the time, the film has inspired dozens of imitations since its release.

So much so that it makes the original idea seem dated.

One thing remains true- the film gave the horror genre a much-needed breath of fresh air and influenced many films to come.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best First Feature (Under $500,000) (won)

Girls Trip-2017

Girls Trip-2017

Director Malcolm D. Lee

Starring Regina Hall, Queen Latifah, Jada Pinkett Smith

Scott’s Review #760

Reviewed May 18, 2018

Grade: D-

I am genuinely baffled by some of the positive reviews of the film Girls Trip (2017) by viewers and respected critics.

Attempts to make females as raunchy as the guys in R-rated comedies never work, in my opinion (good writing does!), and the result is a largely unfunny, crude piece of drivel.

The fact that the film, which goes for a “female empowerment” theme, is directed by a man is as disappointing as disrespectful, especially given the fact that the writers are female- they couldn’t find a black female director?

At the risk of giving a testimonial, I fully know the importance of creating good female roles in cinema-perfect female black roles.

Unfortunately, the roles in Girls Trip do nothing to further the cause as tried and true, standardized parts commence with no well-written character to be found.

Modern films look to Black Panther (2018) or Hidden Figures (2016) as examples of positive black female role models- they exist!

The weak plot involves four forty-something lifelong friends who regroup for a reunion after years apart. Famous lifestyle guru Ryan Pierce (Regina Hall) decides to take her “Flossy Posse” to a music festival in New Orleans, where they will spend the weekend partying like it’s the 1990s once again.

Ryan is married to a man who cheats on her, Sasha (Queen Latifah) runs a failing gossip site, Lisa (Jada Pinkett Smith) is a divorced, overbearing nurse, and slutty, aggressive Dina (Tiffany Haddish), who has just been fired from her job.

In predictable form- think 2009’s The Hangover or a multitude of other raunchy comedies since then, the girls get into trouble, drink too much, have sex, and partake in other hi-jinks throughout the weekend.

The central plot is Ryan’s potential investment deal with rigid and uptight Bethany (Lara Grice) and a wisecracking agent. As events unfold, Ryan’s female nemesis shows up to cause trouble and stir up drama, testing the group’s patience.

Girls Trip is a typical American comedy film (not a compliment!) that offers weak writing and instead promotes stereotypical stock characters.

Many similar comedies have come before it, and many more will come after it. Since I disliked the film so much, I decided to ask myself a few rhetorical questions as I observed the mess.

In films with a group of women, why is there always a slutty one (Dina)? Why is there always a mousy one (Lisa)? Why is there always a fat one (Sasha)? Why is it deemed funny to watch women pee or suffer bathroom issues?

The only positives to Girls Trip come in one humorous scene when Dina mixes absinthe into the girls’ drinks before a meeting, causing them to hallucinate. As the girls begin to imagine themselves talking in deep baritone voices and Ryan imagines a waitress is her arch-enemy, the hilarity briefly ensues.

A quick wrap-up speech by Ryan after the film does send a nice message about being yourself and staying true to your loved ones, but why we have to suffer through two-plus hours of crap to get to the inspiration and point of the film is beyond me.

The success of Girls Trip (2017), which will inevitably produce a sequel, leads me to believe that the masses prefer their films idiotic, redundant, and fraught with cheap, crude laughs.

The film seems to be intended to push the envelope—not to create great art, but just to make the film as crass as possible. This is presumably to prove that girls can be as nasty as boys, which the film succeeds at portraying.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-1984

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-1984

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Harrison Ford

Scott’s Review #759

Reviewed May 17, 2018

Grade: A

The second in the trilogy (I refused to acknowledge the middling Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in 2008), Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is easily my favorite of the group.

Much darker than its predecessor, Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is also better, with more flair and pizzazz.

All three (1989’s The Last Crusade added) could be watched in sequence and easily enjoyed as companion pieces for a slice of 1980’s nostalgia.

A prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, the action picks up a few years prior as our hero narrowly escapes the clutches of a crime boss in Shanghai, China.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), along with sidekick eleven-year-old Short Round (Ke Huy Quan) and nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw), embarks on an adventure to retrieve a stolen sacred stone.

The poor villagers have also lost their children to a lavish palace where they are forced to work as enslaved people.

Wisely in keeping with the continuity of the first story, director Steven Spielberg and writer George Lucas return to the fold. This enriches the experience, as both men are attuned to Indiana Jones’s character and do not try to change him.

His familiar wittiness and charismatic nature return, and the dashing hero shows more skin this time around with more than one shirtless scene.

To cement the good character, Harrison Ford returns to the role he created and made famous.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is layered with positive aspects and holds special childhood memories for me. I vividly recollect going to the movie theater and excitedly watching the film on the big screen, clutching a tub of buttery popcorn.

For a young boy, this is the best- an adventure story for the ages with thrills and edge-of-your-seat sequences.

The film is perfect for the entire family.

Many gorgeous exterior sequences abound throughout the film. A prime example is when the trio encounters deadly assassins on a precarious rope bridge high atop a crocodile-infested, murky river.

This scene is fraught with tension and “how will he ever get out of this?” thinking when the killers corner dear Indie.

With lightning-quick thinking, he severs the bridge, resulting in a dangling escapade. As numerous bodies fall into the river, they are chopped to bits by the hungry reptiles. The fact that the action is all shot outdoors in lush scenery only adds to the enjoyment.

The film is admittedly filled with dark and scary aspects, necessitating a PG-13 rating rather than a PG one. As Indie, Willie, and Short Round are held hostage in the evil palace, a dangerous sacrifice occurs.

One poor man is chosen to give his life by being burned alive in a roaring fire. Indie is then forced to drink the potion and presumably suffer the same fate.  Other bloody moments include a bad guy meeting his fate after being flattened like a pancake by a steamroller.

The tone of the film is much darker than that of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

To offset the blood, guts, and voodoo, the film occasionally parleys into humor, mostly at the expense of Willie, the film’s comic relief.

Accustomed to the glamour of costumes and luxurious hotels, the singer is forced to fend for herself amid snakes, elephants, and other creatures. As she hungrily sits down for what she thinks is a scrumptious dinner, she is served soup with monkey brains and bulging eyeballs, deemed Indian delicacies.

Readily apparent, watching the film now, are glaring negative stereotypes associated with the Indian culture. As I am sure the intent was not to insult, some stereotypes do abound with the hokey cuisines and the severe poverty.

The underlying image of tribal Indians as being weird or out of touch is prevalent, to say nothing of the odd religious overtones.

Kate Capshaw as Willie is the complete opposite of the central female character, Marion, in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whereas Marion is intelligent and serious, Willie is pampered, rich, and gullible.

I find the camaraderie between Indie and Willie much more palpable than between Indie and Marion, and the romantic overtures appealing.

Who can forget the famous “bug scene” in the palace?

Conjuring up wonderful and exciting childhood memories, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is a treasure for the eyes and the strongest entry in the bunch.

If you are in the mood for a good, fun-filled experience with a healthy dose of Indian culture, adventurous antics, and a slice of darkness, this one is a must-see.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects (won)

Shelter-2007

Shelter-2007

Director Jonah Markowitz

Starring Trevor Wright, Brad Rowe

Scott’s Review #758

Reviewed May 16, 2018

Grade: B+

By the mid-2000s, independent LGBT films were coming fast and furious as the genre was still relatively new and ripe for the picking with good ideas.

With Shelter (2007), we have a sweet film that focuses on the new romance between two young men, one of whom is coming to terms with his sexuality.

The lead characters are not gay stereotypes and could easily pass for straight men, a characteristic impressive in LGBT films- and other mainstream films for that matter.

Rather than focusing on the discrimination the characters may face or on obstacles from other characters (family and friends), the film wisely makes the story a character study of the demons one man wrestles with while “coming out”.

The small film is written intelligently, save for one supporting character’s plot-driven decision.

Also, in the modern age, we are beginning to see a bevy of similarly themed films emerge from the LGBT community, and Shelter offers nothing we have not seen before.

Set in sunny southern California, our main protagonist is Zach (Trevor Wright), an aspiring artist in his early twenties.

The ultimate “good guy,” he is popular with friends and girls and frequently babysits his five-year-old nephew Cody while his sister parties and has one-night stands.

When Zach meets his best friend’s older brother, Shaun (Brad Rowe), the pair fall in love as Zach wrestles with his sexuality and conflicts with his plans.

Zach’s sexual and family struggles are the main themes of the film.

Shelter (not sure I get the title’s meaning) is a solid slice-of-life story.

Zach initially dates a pretty girl, Tori, who is blonde, wholesome, and a girl-next-door type. This is done intentionally to show that Tori is a girl any young straight man would be interested in.

We never see Zach show interest in any men other than Shaun, so the film leans towards a solid romantic drama once the fellas get together.

Still, we see Zach’s internal struggles and his acceptance of himself for who he is play out.

Actor Wright and director Jonah Markowitz capture this successfully.

Shaun, arguably second fiddle to Zach, is a character that I feel is very well written. Avoiding negative stereotypes, Shaun is handsome, masculine, and charismatic.

Completely confident and exuding great poise, he is a character that any gay male should look up to. He is openly gay yet “one of the guys” as he should be.

He immediately connects with Cody, becoming a father or a cool surrogate-uncle figure for the lad. A quick concern of Zach’s sister, Jeanne, about having the boy around a gay man is trivialized in a quick form.

Another positive aspect of the film is the multiple scenes that show Zach, Shaun, and Cody as a happy family, and how normal that is. Examples of this are frolicking around the beach, playing football, or engaging in horseplay.

A quiet dinner of barbecue steaks and red wine for the men and macaroni and cheese for Cody elicits images of a connected family unit, despite some in society still poo-pooing this idea.

The film presents the connectivity as normal.

A tiny flaw in the character of Jeanne shows her willingness (almost eagerness) to leave Cody (and her ailing father) behind when she decides to take off to Oregon with her brand new boyfriend. This point seems rushed and out of character.

While a party girl with a crappy job at a grocery store, Jeanne exhibited heart and was portrayed as sympathetic and caring throughout the film. Surprisingly and unrealistically to me is that she would give up her life.

A paltry excuse of “Oregon not allowing kids” was left unclear and unexplained.

A part coming-of-age story, part coming-out story, Shelter (2007) is an example of a little film that could with an appreciation of independent cinema.

The film tells a nice story about one man’s journey of self-discovery and the people he surrounds himself with. With impressive California oceanfront and working-class principles as a backdrop, the film has a calming texture and weaves a solid viewing experience.

Raiders of the Lost Ark-1981

Raiders of the Lost Ark-1981

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Harrison Ford, Karen Allen

Scott’s Review #757

Reviewed May 15, 2018

Grade: A

A film that kicked off the tremendously successful and ever-so-fun 1980s trilogy, Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), is a treasure in the adventure genre time capsule.

Director Steven Spielberg embarks on the journey of one of the most highly visible film heroes in the form of Indiana “Indie” Jones, a swashbuckling, aw-shucks kind of guy.

Harrison Ford is perfectly cast in a role that perfectly fits him and, besides Han Solo, defined him during the decade- the best role of his career if you ask me.

Wonderful to watch in sequence with the even more superb Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), these two films are a pure pleasure as our hero faces dangerous obstacles at every turn, either being chased by or pursuing sinister robbers and other undesirables.

All the while, Indie keeps his familiar sly grin and numerous jokes to entertain audiences.

Raiders of the Lost Ark has it all with superior writing, editing, cinematography, art direction, sound, and visual effects.

They reaped many Oscar nominations, quite uncommon for an adventure tale, but the merits were warranted. Atypical compared to other films of this type, the film is not overly saturated with phony machismo or unnecessary “guy” stuff, but rather appealing and genuine.

The time is 1936, and archaeologist Indiana Jones works as a professor at a University. Known for retrieving ancient artifacts, he is contacted by Army intelligence officers who ask him to help stop the Nazis from acquiring the Ark of the Covenant, which they believe will make their armies invincible and allow them to conquer the world in a sinister fashion.

Events lead Indie to Marion (Karen Allen), who harbors resentment towards him for a failed past romance.

The rest of the film follows the pair through Nepal and Cairo as they attempt to recover the Ark before the Nazis do.

Raiders of the Lost Ark contains all the elements of a successful “hit” movie and has “blockbuster” written all over it. This is not a slight against the film, but rather a testament to all involved.

Led by the successful Spielberg, who knows how to connect all the dots, Ford, first and foremost, infuses his character with charisma so that the audience enjoys his sensibilities and desire for the truth.

Indie is intent on protecting humankind, so Spielberg carves a “good versus bad” approach- making the villainous Nazis the antithesis of Jones, which creates a clear rooting value.

My favorite scene in the film is nicknamed the “face-melting scene” and contains state-of-the-art special effects that compelled and mesmerized me, and also led to light nightmares for any kid under the age of twelve.

The way that the bad guys see swirling, benevolent ghosts- first beautiful and peaceful, but soon turning deadly- causes their faces to melt off or shrivel. The scene is both inventive and dramatic.

Not to be dismissed as trite or fluff are the exciting and memorable scenes dubbed “the snake scene” and “the rolling boulder scene”.  In the former Indie, wryly admits his fear and trepidation of snakes as he must traverse a huge pit filled with thousands of them, and he comes face to face with a deadly King Cobra.

In the latter scene, Indie must outrun a speeding boulder as he takes an ancient artifact from a sacred spot inside a cave, causing boulders to collapse around him.

Both scenes are enormous fun and the immeasurable edge-of-your-seat sequences.

I never sensed much chemistry between actors Ford and Allen. Still, writing the characters of Indie and Marion as former lovers adds a good bit of tension and sparring between the characters- this provides some good fodder and humorous situations.

Thankfully, the romance between the two is neither the focal point of the film nor all that important, but rather, in the safety that 1980’s cinema afforded, merely a necessity.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) is a superb adventure film that holds up better than it should, decades beyond its release. The film is rich with good old-fashioned action, a charismatic hero, thrills, intrigue, and a good history lesson for those interested in the build-up to World War II.

The accounts are fictional, of course, but Spielberg offers a fine 1980s cinematic experience that’s got it all.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg, Best Original Score, Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

Witness-1985

Witness-1985

Director Peter Weir

Starring Harrison Ford

Scott’s Review #754

Reviewed May 7, 2018

Grade: A-

Witness (1985) is a slick crime thriller that may at first glance seem like a by-the-numbers genre film, but instead is well above average.

As the plot unfolds, there are key nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat scenes that build tension in a way that the suspense master himself, Alfred Hitchcock, would be proud of.

Decades later, it is tough to watch the film without noticing a slightly dated quality, but at the time, it was well regarded and terrifically paced.

Charismatic Harrison Ford and novice child actor Lukas Haas make the film more than it could have been.

The film’s setting is twofold, presenting two distinct cultures: rural Pennsylvania’s Amish country and bustling metropolitan Philadelphia.

The death of her husband leads Amish woman Rachel (Kelly McGillis) and her son Samuel (Haas) to the big city to see her sister. While transferring trains, Samuel witnesses a brutal murder in the men’s room- unbeknownst to the killers.

This riveting scene (explained in more detail below) sets the rest of the story in motion.

When Detective John Book (Ford) is assigned to the case and questions Samuel, he is unable to determine the assailants’ identities. After Samuel’s fingers, an unthinkable suspect, events escalate, and John uncovers a mighty corruption circuit within the police force.

John, now targeted, must assimilate into the Amish culture as he strives to protect both Samuel and Rachel (as well as keep himself alive) while embarking on a relationship with Rachel.

The story wisely focuses on the differing lifestyles of the principal characters.

What I enjoy most about Witness is the nice mix between both types of people and different cultures, and how they can learn from one another. John is so used to and desensitized by being in the midst of the rat race that he often forgets the nicer things in life- peace or even love.

Rachel and Samuel, of course, are highly sheltered, living in a bubble, and are fish out of water amid the bustling streets of Philadelphia. The counter-cultures offer a nice balance to this masculine film, bringing female sensibilities.

Not to be usurped by pure romance, Witness is, at its core, a fleshy, male-driven crime thriller. Adding some softer edges, Weir pleases both male and female audience members and appeals to the masses.

John’s precinct, filled with detectives, police officers, and criminals, gives the film appropriate “guy elements”.

So director Peter Weir offers a good balance here.

I like how Weir chooses to portray the Amish- not caricatures, stereotypes, or to be made fun of, they are sweet, stoic, and intelligent, accepting of John in their lives.

As John learns more about the Amish culture and becomes one of them, this is even more prevalent as an immersion in different cultures- a good lesson to even apply to other differences between people.

The acting is a strong component of Witness.

Charismatic and handsome, Ford is believable as a fast-paced, busy detective.

To add further substance, Ford transforms his character (often written as one-note in typical films of this nature) into a sympathetic and inspiring man as he slowly becomes a father figure to the wide-eyed youngster Samuel and falls in love with Rachel.

Ford is the standout, but the film would not work with fewer supporting actors. Both innocent and gentle characters, McGillis and Haas add layers to their roles with pronounced toughness and resilience- saving John as much as he saves them.

Two scenes are pure standouts and successfully elicit tension and dramatic effect.

As Samuel witnesses the murder in the bathroom, he is seen in a stall, peeking through a crack with only one eye exposed. When he makes a slight noise, the assailant violently goes through each stall, intent on shooting whatever he finds.

Samuel must think quickly to avoid being caught. The camera goes back and forth between Samuel’s looks of panic and the assailant getting closer and closer to catching him.

The viewer’s heart will pound during this scene.

Later, as Samuel sees a newspaper clipping framed among a case of awards, he recognizes one man as the assailant. Weir shoots it in slow motion so that the reactions of John and Samuel’s characters are palpable and effective.

The scene is tremendously done and cements the bond and trust between these characters.

Thanks to a wonderful performance by Ford and the cast surrounding him, Witness (1985) successfully widens the traditionally one-dimensional masculine crime thriller into something deeper.

Providing slick entertainment with a great story and substance, the film crosses genres and offers a substantial cinematic experience woefully needed in the mid-1980s.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Peter Weir, Best Actor-Harrison Ford, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

The Social Network-2010

The Social Network-2010

Director David Fincher

Starring Jesse Eisenberg

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 interesting 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 his meteoric success, the driven young man lets his relationships suffer as feuds and backstabbing encircle 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 through the Harvard events, interspersed with numerous courtroom scenes as legal counsel represents each of the principal characters, adding drama.

The film’s point 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; rather, it provides a moody yet intense element that is highly effective for the overall film.

What riveting acting The Social Network provides!

Young upstart Eisenberg is perfectly cast as Zuckerberg, 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 perfection that fits 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 today 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)

Stand By Me-1986

Stand By Me-1986

Director Rob Reiner

Starring Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix

Scott’s Review #752

Reviewed May 2, 2018

Grade: A

Stand By Me (1986) is a sweet, coming-of-age story that every male (or female, for that matter) who grew up in small-town America will undoubtedly relate to.

Set mostly outdoors in the remote Pacific Northwest, the film successfully shows the deep bonds of friendships over the course of a Labor Day weekend as four youths set out on an adventure of discovery.

In 1986, I could completely relate to the film, and today, Stand By Me holds up quite well.

Stephen King, a tremendous author known mostly for horror novels, wrote a short story titled “The Body” in 1982. Stand By Me is based on this story.

Instead of traditional horror, however, the story is more of a straight-up adventure, though in pure King style- a dead body is front and center (naturally).

Stand By Me is directed by Rob Reiner, and its success led to other mainstream achievements for Reiner (1989’s When Harry Met Sally and 1990’s Misery- also a King novel). The legendary theme song by Ben E. King plays over the closing credits and became a smash hit again in 1986.

The film starts intriguingly as the main character, Gordie, as an adult, learns that his childhood friend Chris Chambers has tragically been stabbed to death.

Gordie then narrates a flashback to the summer of 1959, when he and three other boys embarked on a childhood adventure on Labor Day weekend.

Along with Gordie (Wil Wheaton), we meet Chris (River Phoenix), a rebellious boy with a troubled home life, Teddy (Corey Feldman), who is scarred as a result of being burned by his mentally ill father, and Vern (Jerry O’Connell), an overweight kid insecure about his looks.

The wonderful aspect of Stand By Me is that each of the four central characters is flawed, whether physically or by some other insecurity, giving each character depth. Each character is highly empathetic to an audience member who may see him or herself in these characters.

This point carries through for the entire length of the film. Through conversational scenes with one another, each weakness is exposed and dissected- Teddy becomes vulnerable about his relationship with his father when a character refers to him as “loony”.

Vern’s weight bothers him, and Chris aspires to be so much more than people anticipate he will ever become.

To avoid being weighed down by too many dramatic elements, Stand By Me incorporates much-needed humor into its story. My favorite sequence is the delightful story in which Godie regales the other boys one night as they camp outdoors.

Town legend has it that a rotund man, who picked on a boy nicknamed “Lard-Ass,” enacts the perfect revenge on the townspeople one summer as he enters a pie-eating contest, resulting in a torrent of vomiting.

This scene is very well shot by Reiner and brilliantly balances the film’s differing tones, all the while nestled within a cohesive package.

The film belongs to the young actors, each of whom is cast extremely well. Of course, Corey Feldman and River Phoenix went on to major success in the 1980s.

Phoenix, who tragically died in 1993, and Feldman, who suffered numerous setbacks in his short career, are forever youthful, with promise and poise in this film.

In Phoenix’s case, he seemed most on course for leading man status with his dashing, youthful looks and clean-cut appearance. Watching in later years, it is bittersweet to watch both actors and recollect the promise of each.

Mixing drama and comedy, and at its core a true adventure story best watched on a summer evening, Stand By Me (1985) is memorable and poignant.

The setting of late summer, outdoorsy camping, and green scenery is resilient and stands the test of time.

Anyone who has embarked on a good journey as a kid or formed everlasting memories from their youth (which should be all of us) can appreciate this timeless gem.

Oscar Nominations: Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Rob Reiner, Best Screenplay

A Quiet Place-2018

A Quiet Place-2018

Director John Krasinski

Starring Emily Blunt, John Krasinski

Scott’s Review #751

Reviewed May 1, 2018

Grade: B+

A clever modern horror film, A Quiet Place (2018) offers a unique premise and novel use of sound to elicit a compelling, edge-of-your-seat story.

The film is a good offering with a science fiction slant and a “quiet” sensibility. It has ample jumps and frights that fit the story rather than being added unnecessarily.

Actor turned director, John Krasinski, shines in this film, to say nothing of the raw talents of Emily Blunt and the two child actors involved.

Only the four principles exist in the story, which is a benefit.

In the year 2020, most of the human population was decimated by vicious creatures called “Death Angels”, who have hypersensitive hearing- they cannot see but pounce on their prey at every sound made. Thus, the survivors must either whisper or communicate nonverbally.

An intelligent couple, Lee (Krasinski) and Evelyn Abbott (Blunt), an engineer and a doctor, have managed to survive with their two children, Regan and Marcus, their youngest son, Beau, having been killed after his toy rocket accidentally goes off.

The family lives on a farm in upstate New York, creating intricate ways to ward off the creatures but constantly fearing impending doom.

As Evelyn is now pregnant and due to give birth any day, in addition to Regan’s deafness, Lee attempts to create a mock ear to enable her to hear. One evening, he takes Marcus to hunt while Regan visits Beau’s grave. When Evelyn enters labor, she steps on a sharp nail, dropping a picture that alerts a nearby creature.

The remainder of the film (only ninety minutes) is spent with Evelyn alone in peril as the rest of the family tries to save her with some eventual dire results, both before and after the baby is born.

A Quiet Place immediately stands out as a unique film, especially for horror. It uses sign language and subtitles to show the characters communicating with each other and the audience. This tactic successfully absorbs the viewer into Abbott’s world and the hurdles they face.

This unconventional approach gives the film more depth than a standard horror film would usually have and is tremendously effective.

Blunt and Krasinski are such marvels, as they are protective and clever parents, that I immediately fell in love with both characters and bought them as a palpable couple. This is no stretch considering the two stars are dating in real life, but their chemistry works well in the film and makes a believable team.

Both Lee and Evelyn will do whatever it takes to protect their brood. After a lovely day of foraging for supplies in an abandoned grocery store, we feel heartbreak when the savage creature annihilates their youngest.

Lee, with Krasinski looking perfectly hunky in his beard and muscles, falls into the hero/Dad role nicely. At the same time, Blunt gives an emotional bravado performance worthy of almost an Oscar nomination if this were a different genre.

Not to be usurped by more seasoned actors, both child actors are wonderfully cast and hold their own.

Millicent Simmonds, an unknown, flawlessly portrays Regan as the young actress who is herself deaf, which translates well onto the large screen. And Noah Jupe plays sensitive yet brave to the hilt. Both assuredly have bright acting futures ahead of them.

The “creature” is a strong element of the film, but also suffers from missteps. Be careful not to be too amateurish-looking or heavy on the CGI effects; the fastness and ferocious nature are effective.

However, no apparent motivation is ever given, and no explanation of how they came to exist is mentioned. Perhaps a sequel will provide more depth. Regardless, I wanted to know more about the creature’s backstory. And how did Abbott’s hold out so long when no others did?

A Quiet Place succeeds as a frightful film with depth and intelligence. Although Paramount Pictures released the film, it may have worked better as an independent film (it could have been edgier) with more grit and less polish from the creature.

Nonetheless, Krasinski is off to a great start as a director and leading man with an impressive horror effort containing nice scares and slight gore.

Oscar Nominations: Best Film Editing

The Brady Bunch Movie-1995

The Brady Bunch Movie-1995

Director Betty Thomas

Starring Gary Cole, Shelley Long

Scott’s Review #750

Reviewed April 30, 2018

Grade: B

Capitalizing on nostalgia from the popular 1960s-1970s television comedy “The Brady Bunch”, 1995’s The Brady Bunch Movie offers a nice treat for fans of the series, fondly reminiscing about their youth or the hours spent enjoying subsequent reruns after the show ended.

For this reviewer, the film version is cute and silly. Still, as expected, the attention to detail, drawing on facets from the original series, makes the film a wonderful experience and a job well done by director Betty Thomas.

The Brady Bunch Movie is not highbrow nor complex,  nor should it be. The work is just peppered with great jokes and a solid ode to the fun past.

Film fans looking for a good comedy and not having seen the series might miss out on some of the fun, as a multitude of references only fans will appreciate abound throughout the film.

The plot is not the strongest quality, but liberties must be taken since the intention is of a throwback and not much more- the story might have existed during the series but lengthened for film purposes.

Larry Dittmeyer, played by Michael McKean, schemes to coax all of his Southern California neighbors into selling their houses at a good price to develop a lucrative shopping mall, presumably so they will all get rich.

When earnest Mike and Carol Brady (Gary Cole and Shelley Long) refuse the business deal, Larry embarks on a plot to use a foreclosing notice issued to the Brady’s as leverage in his deal.

The Bradys, owing $20,000 in back taxes due within a week, scramble to raise the money.

Predictably, the Brady kids rush to the rescue with a plan to secure the funds via a singing contest.

The film immediately gets off to a familiar start as we view the comfortable Brady house and all of the cozy qualities nestled inside- unchanged from the late 1960s- the groovy orange colors, the tie-dye, and the plaid outfits are all in tow.

Lovable Alice, in her blue-and-white housekeeper outfit, Mike, Carol, and all six Brady kids are back at the helm, having never missed a beat.

In short, they still live as if it were 1969 instead of 1995 and are oblivious to the outside world.

A tremendous treat for fans is the cameo appearances of a few of the original cast: Florence Henderson (Carol) and Ann B. Davis (Alice) have the more interesting parts, that of the Brady grandmother and truck driver, respectively.

Oddly, Maureen McCormick’s (Marcia), Susan Olsen’s (Cindy), and Mike Lookinland’s (Bobby’s) scenes were shot, but all cut- a major fail of the film whose fans undoubtedly would have liked to have seen all cast members.

Wouldn’t a group scene versus individual scenes have been a wonderful touch?

Missing is Robert Reed (Mike), who was deceased, and Eve Plumb (Jan), who refused to appear.

The plot is silly, trivial, and completely predictable, but so is the television series. As each episode was wrapped up in a nice bow with a defined conclusion and perhaps a lesson or two learned along the way, the film plays similarly.

McKean’s Larry and man-hungry wife Dina (Jean Smart) are perfect foils, playing their roles with a relish, only adding to the zany fun.

A wonderful and timely point is how a Japanese businessman saves the day for the Bradys, with a nice cultural inclusiveness touch that is still relevant today.

An observation made while watching the film in the present time (2018) is its intended point. In 1995, the point was to show how out of touch the Bradys were with “modern times”.

But in 2018, the tide has turned, and 1995 now seems dated concerning the Brady years- sadly, this gives the film itself more of a dated quality.

This is always a risk when a film uses the present as part of its plot.

The cool, hip cellular phone used by one character seems garish and uncool by today’s standards.

Still, from Marcia’s flattened nose, The Monkees’ Davy Jones resurfacing, Cindy’s tattling, Jan’s insecurities, Greg’s cool, suave manner, Peter’s breaking voice, and Bobby’s hall-monitor job, the familiar stories and antics all resurface in a fun-filled hour and a half of comic nostalgia.

The Brady Bunch Movie (1995) is a light achievement and a nice trip down memory lane for many folks.

The Seduction-1982

The Seduction-1982

Director David Schmoeller

Starring Morgan Fairchild, Michael Sarrazin

Scott’s Review #749

Reviewed April 27, 2018

Grade: C

The Seduction (1982) is a slick, by-the-numbers voyeuristic thriller that could be a made-for-television Lifetime channel or Hallmark channel production- or something of that ilk.

A woman being stalked by a dangerous admirer is quite formulaic and episodic. Alas, at the time of its release, it was a major motion picture and a perfect vehicle for the upstart young actress of the time, Morgan Fairchild.

She is well cast, and the film has a smoldering,  glossy, sexy appeal, but is quite predictable in the story department, leaving little substance behind after the droll conclusion.

Gorgeous and sexy television news anchorwoman Jaime Douglas (Fairchild) has it all with a handsome beau on her arm (Michael Sarrazin); they swim, bathe, and make love many a steamy night as they reside in the lavish Los Angeles hills.

A photographer approaches Jaime, Derek (Andrew Stevens), eager to take her pictures. He slowly develops an obsession with her as events become more dangerous and sinister for the young woman, until she is finally forced to defend herself against the now-crazed stalker.

Jamie is Morgan Fairchild’s big-screen debut, and, being unaware that any other actresses were in the mix for the part, she is perfectly cast in a role that just “is her”.

In the glitzy and steamy world of Los Angeles media, how adept were the filmmakers at landing the blonde and leggy actress who screams plastic and glamour?

Posing on posters on the walls of millions of teenage boys everywhere in the 1980s, director David Schmoeller wisely incorporates multiple scenes of Jamie swimming naked,  soaping in the bathtub, or in other situations where the actress is semi-nude.

He certainly capitalizes on her looks and popularity with the sensual The Seduction.

The film’s perplexity, though, is clearly on the story front.

The chemistry between Fairchild and Stevens is readily apparent, and while chemistry is crucial between acting leads, it also makes the story far-fetched.

Call me crazy, but I did not get the fear Jaime would experience at the hands of Derek. Dashing and handsome, with much more appeal than her boyfriend, Brandon, I felt that Jamie and Derek should have been dating!

Arguably, the only reason Derek becomes obsessed with Jamie is that she refuses to give him the time of day.

I get that the film wanted a really good-looking male lead, but a homely or even average-looking actor playing Derek would have made more sense from a story perspective.

Stevens is way too handsome to elicit real terror- especially since his only crime is wanting a nice romantic date with Jamie.

The film offers a decent glimpse into the bustling corporate Los Angeles newsroom studios, where the offices exude 1980s glitz and glamour. The entire film is drizzled with sunny California excess, and it makes perfect sense to be set on the West Coast.

The Seduction does well by combining the dark voyeurism of lurking figures in the shadows and the hairspray, lipstick,  and shoulder pads shown under the hot lights of competitive L.A. television cameras.

The Seduction falls victim to being a predictable, poorly acted film, with its inevitable clichés and final scenes. As the police are of no help to her and her boyfriend brandishes a rifle, the audience knows there will be some sort of final stand-off between Jamie and Derek.

The film pulls out all of the possible female-in-peril stops- the nighttime scenes, Jamie being home alone, scantily dressed, and ready to be victimized, Derek continually lurks around (as he does through most of the film), secretly taking photos, sweating, and breathing lustfully.

The climactic conclusion was neither satisfying nor surprising.

A wise cinema friend once coined the term “craptastic” to describe an otherwise atrocious film that somehow contains some morbid appeal- perhaps being so bad it’s good?

I think the 1982 film The Seduction falls perfectly into this category- predictable and trivial, the film is an intended watch for only those seeking something shamelessly awful, that holds little appeal, yet for the gorgeous stars Fairchild and Stevens, who hold the film together while looking great.

Working Girl-1988

Working Girl-1988

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Melanie Griffith, Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #748

Reviewed April 26, 2018

Grade: B+

Released during a decade known for excess, fun, and light comedy films, especially in its latter half, 1988’s Working Girl was a blockbuster hit at the time and, in modern times, is perfectly positioned as an identifier of the decade itself.

This can be both good and bad, with both a dated feel and a whimsical, basic good girl versus a bad approach that is appealing.

The film is romantic comedy fluff, but it is entertaining and features lovely views of New York City- one of my very favorite locales.

The film is directed by Mike Nichols, better known for heavier subject matter (1966’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and 1967’s The Graduate).

His leading of the picture, as well as all-star casting, surely made this film better than it ought to have been.

Tess McGill (Melanie Griffith) commutes via the Staten Island Ferry each morning into vast Manhattan, where she holds a secretarial job at a Wall Street investment bank.

When she has a bad experience with one of the brokers, she is reassigned to a female boss, the assertive Katharine Parker (Sigourney Weaver).

After Katharine steals Tess’s business idea and passes it off as her own to get in good with handsome Jack Trainer (Harrison Ford), Tess is determined to reveal the truth as a triangle develops among the three.

In tow are Tess’s best friend, Cynthia (Joan Cusack), and her cheating boyfriend, Mick (Alec Baldwin), in supporting roles.

Working Girl feels overwhelmingly like a “1980s film,” and while relevant at the time and kindly nostalgic, it does not hold up well in modern times, seeming better suited to a time capsule, unlocked from time to time for kicks.

The most garish example is the hideous hairdos that Nichols has Tess and Cynthia don- frizzed out and caked with Aqua Net hairspray is over-the-top even for the 1980s.

Then there are the inevitable tacky outfits, complete with bright colors and shoulder pads, as the girls hustle to their dull jobs. With these costume tidbits and the filming style, the tone screams the 1980’s.

The casting of the three leads is very good- Griffith, Ford, and Weaver all share nice chemistry, and the clear rooting value is for Tess and Jack to live happily ever after, with Katharine as the obvious foil.

The conclusion of the film is unsurprising, but as a romantic comedy, it is standard fare. The point is that the relationships are dynamic and the ride is fun.

Griffith is quite breathy and seductive in her role- a clear homage to the talents of Marilyn Monroe in her 1950s-era films.

Never known for great acting, Tess is the role of a lifetime for Griffith. Weaver sinks her teeth into an against-type villainous role, and Ford is dashing and charismatic as the leading man.

My favorite parts of Working Girl, and the strongest aspects of the film, leaving an indelible impression even after all of these years, are the sweeping camera sequences of New York City featured throughout the film.

Lots of scenes were shot in neighboring Staten Island, but the best shots of all are the luminous skylines of Manhattan that encompass the opening sequence and, later, viewpoints from the corporate offices.

There we see Tess on the Ferry heading across the Hudson River, all with the wonderful soundtrack song by Carly Simon, Let the River Run, playing in the background. The soothing tune and the approaching mammoth city set a nice tone.

The story itself is a sort of rags-to-riches, Cinderella-style experience from the point of view of Tess.

Taking night classes to better herself and clearly, a blue-collar type battling the giants of the corporate world, and the more sophisticated Katherine (she speaks fluent French!), is an enormous draw of the film to sustain mainstream audiences.

Corporate greed versus the little guy is an apt comparison here. Almost borderline fairy-tale, the fact that Tess gets the dashing Jack (in real life, he would undoubtedly be with Katharine) makes the film good escapist fare.

The working-class Staten Island versus the sophisticated Manhattan is another theme worth mentioning.

Thirty years beyond its original release. 1988’s Working Girl now seems dated, dusty, and of its time, like many similar-style films, but it still retains some of the enjoyment that undoubtedly made it a hit at the time of release.

A film that is fine to take out of the vault, dust off, and enjoy for some good escapist cinema and a predictable story of good overcoming bad.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Mike Nichols, Best Actress-Melanie Griffith, Best Supporting Actress-Joan Cusack, Sigourney Weaver, Best Original Song-“Let the River Run” (won)

Lean on Pete-2018

Lean on Pete-2018

Director Andrew Haigh

Starring Charlie Plummer, Steve Buscemi

Scott’s Review #747

Reviewed April 24, 2018

Grade: B+

Lean on Pete (2018) is a heartbreaking and emotional slice-of-life film written and directed by British director Andrew Haigh.

The film centers on the relationship between a boy and a horse, so the heartstrings will be tugged a lot as the viewer is taken on a journey as the protagonist struggles through both pain and triumph.

While slow-moving and matter-of-fact, the film celebrates excellent writing and good story chapters, perfectly nestled into the independent drama genre.

Based upon the novel of the same name—reportedly a much darker experience—actor Charlie Plummer portrays Charley Thompson, a fifteen-year-old boy living outside of Portland, Oregon, with his troubled father.

His mother has taken off for parts unknown.

As his already complicated life turns upside down after a violent attack, Charley becomes increasingly attracted to the world of local horse racing and becomes involved with a shady horse trainer, Del Montgomery (Steve Buscemi).

There, he befriends and falls in love with an aging horse named Lean on Pete, who sadly is destined for the slaughterhouse in Mexico.

The film is about Charley’s journey and determination to survive while facing seemingly insurmountable odds and obstacles. The intriguing aspect of Lean on Pete is watching what Charley experiences and hoping against hope that he will come out unscathed and undamaged.

The youngster aspires to reach his estranged aunt, whom he knows only to have been living in Wyoming as a waitress. How on earth will he be able to find her? If he does reach her, will she welcome him with open arms, as he hopes, or will he suffer more defeat?

Several key aspects struck me as I watched this film. Charley embarks on his travels to find his beloved aunt, with Lean on Pete in tow, and encounters many individuals who either aid or hinder his intentions.

However, the common theme of waitresses continues to be portrayed—for starters, his aunt is referenced as working as a waitress at a bar. When Del gives Charley some fatherly advice, he implores him that the best women have always worked as waitresses.

On the road, he is treated kindly by two different waitresses—one of whom gives him free dessert, the other gives him a major break. I am not sure why Haigh chose to add this to the film, but it is a nice touch and effectively gives the story a warm, blue-collar sensibility.

Another intelligent decision Haigh makes is to keep the focus on Plummer and Charley’s facial expressions and reactions during pivotal scenes- for example, a scene where Charley is painting a house for extra money is essential.

As he hears a jovial father and son playing outside, Haigh shoots Charley’s reactions to this poignant scene rather than deciding to show the father and son. Hearing their pleasure is enough to elicit a look of pain on Charley’s face, rather than a blatant scene of said father and son shoved down the viewer’s throat.

Enough praise cannot be given to young talent Plummer, who gives a layered performance that will surely make him a star in future years.

The actor possesses an earnest, trustworthy sensibility, making him a likely hero in any film he appears in. Furthermore, he quietly gives Charley depth with various emotions, including disappointment, fear, and anger at his predicament.

The supporting cast members give well-acted performances that add to the overall meat of the story. As grizzled, yet responsible Del, Buscemi sinks his teeth into a role that allows his sarcastic humor and wit to take center stage, and he is perfect.

Chloë Sevigny, like Bonnie, a female jockey who befriends Charley, yet also gives it to him straight with lessons on life’s hard knocks, offers a satisfactory performance.

Lean on Pete (2018) is a quiet film that elicits an emotional response from its intended audience by giving firm texture to the story and fantastic cinematography of the western United States landscape.

Viewing a likable young adult in constant turmoil seems to be a complex subject, but instead, it is rather beautiful and inspiring, as captured by Haigh’s piece, instead of a complete downer as it might have been.

The film is a tale of a journey and struggle that accomplishes what it sets out to achieve.

Welcome to my blog!1,552 reviews posted so far! I'm Scott Segrell and I reside in Stamford, CT. My site features hundreds of film reviews I have written since I launched the site in 2014. I hope you enjoy reading my latest reviews or searching for your own favorites to see if we agree. Please see my Recent Posts section, and don't forget to utilize the tags and category links.