The Post-2017

The Post-2017

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #715

Reviewed January 15, 2018

Grade: A-

Amid the current political upheaval in the 2017 United States, comes a fresh and timely film named The Post, created by esteemed director Steven Spielberg and starring two of today’s biggest Hollywood film stars: Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep.

The film is a political, historical thriller set during the tumultuous year 1971, as the controversial Vietnam War raged on. It tells of the bravery of a female newspaper owner (Streep) who risked everything to publish the truth with her team of mostly male editors and staff.

The film is an intelligent piece of writing.

Its crisp script and quick editing allow for a believable foray into a different time, when newspapers were hot and rotary telephones, telephone booths, and polyester outfits were all the rage.

Spielberg is brilliant at setting just the right mood and tone to transport the audience back to 1971, on the eve of the enormous Watergate scandal.

While all of the elements are in play, and the truthful story is important, the film is very good but not quite brilliant—it falls just shy of that bombastic one or two scenes that would land it over the top.

The Post begins in the jungles of Vietnam in 1965, as military analyst Daniel Ellsberg documents the progress of military activities among the soldiers during battle.

On the journey home, he briefs then-President Lyndon Johnson that the war is hopeless and should be stopped. As history unfortunately shows, the brutal war continued with thousands of lives lost.

The film then continues on a journey of uncovering top-secret Pentagon papers documenting the White House’s knowledge of the war’s useless nature. Each administration chose to continue with the bleeding to avoid the United States being “humiliated.”

Streep gives her best performance in years as Katharine Graham, the Washington Post newspaper heiress, a woman who struggles to be taken seriously in a man’s world, especially given the period, many men were uncomfortable taking direction from a woman.

Streep infuses the role with the perfect amount of emotion, insecurity, and charm. Despite her wealth and control, she is frequently overruled by the all-male board of directors, so much so that she often doubts her confidence.

Hanks, however, underwhelms as the gruff editor-in-chief of the Post, Ben Bradlee. Given the actor’s enormous talents, I was expecting a meatier performance, which does not materialize.

I also anticipated an equal balance of Hanks and Streep, but the film belongs to Streep.

Perhaps because Hanks (the ultimate nice guy) portrays Bradlee as a challenging, yet family man, the performance does not quite work.

Also, the chemistry between Hanks and Streep is not the specialty of the film.

Evident is the correlation between 1971’s President Nixon and 2017’s President Trump—both administrations were shrouded in controversy.

A neat trick Spielberg creates is to only show Nixon in shadows, wildly gesturing and threatening, similar to Trump’s mannerisms—this is no accident.

The entire work of The Post seems to be a big call-out by Spielberg, a devout liberal, to the Trump administration.

This comparison of past and present makes The Post incredibly timely and topical for 2017.

Clever is the intriguing ending—as the Watergate scandal begins with a security guard catching intruders at the complex, Spielberg seems to be saying, “Watch out, Trump!”

In 2017, the current state of the media versus the White House has never been more controversial, disdainful, and even hateful, as the “truth” is often tough to come by or even to distinguish.

“Fake news” is now a thing and Twitter rants are now a daily occurrence, making the “truth” a precious commodity.

For this reason alone, The Post (2017) must be a film we celebrate and model ourselves after—how timely indeed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress-Meryl Streep

Death On The Nile-1978

Death on the Nile- 1978

Director John Guillermen

Starring Peter Ustinov

Scott’s Review #714

Reviewed January 14, 2018

Grade: B+

Death On The Nile is a 1978 British thriller that follows up the successful 1974 offering, Murder On The Orient Express- both films based on the fabulous Agatha Christie novels of the 1930s.

This time around, Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Peter Ustinov) investigates a string of deaths aboard a luxurious steamer carrying the lavishly wealthy and their servants.

The film is a good, old-fashioned whodunit, perhaps not on the level of storytelling as its predecessor; the murder mystery lacks the oomph expected, but it features exquisite Egyptian historical locales worth its weight in gold.

Featuring a who’s who of famous stars and tremendous actors of the day, Death On The Nile carves a neat story right off the bat in such a way that the murder victim is fairly obvious right away- most of the characters have reason to celebrate her demise.

Rich and reviled heiress Linnet Ridgeway (Lois Chiles) has stolen her best friend Jacqueline’s (Mia Farrow) beau, Simon, sparking a bitter feud between the women. While honeymooning in Egypt, the newlyweds are continually taunted by angry Jacqueline.

Once the cruise ship departs with all on board, Jackie is the prime suspect when Linnet is murdered.

Poirot must find the killer as numerous other suspects, all with grudges against Linnet, begin to emerge.

Death On The Nile features a stellar cast, including legendary Bette Davis as Marie Van Schuyler, an eccentric American socialite with an eye for Linnet’s necklace.

Davis’s casting is reason enough to watch the film, though the character is not center stage but rather a supporting role.

The lead female honor goes to Farrow, who has the meatiest and most complex role in the film.

Jackie’s unstable actions make her the most likely to commit the deed, but the fun is to figure out the “whys” and the “hows” of the murder.

Is there more than one killer? Are they working in cahoots or independently? As the body count rises, these questions resonate more and more.

The costumes and sets are gorgeous, and it is no wonder the film won the Oscar for Best Costume Design. At a ball, the women are dripping with jewels and gorgeous gowns.

Along with Davis, boozy author Salome Otterbourne, hilariously played by Angela Lansbury, is granted the prize of wearing the most luxurious and interesting of all the costumes.

Dripping with jewels and always with a cocktail in hand, she is the film’s comic relief.

Director John Guillermin makes the film a light, fun experience and, despite the murderous drama, doesn’t take matters too seriously.

These humorous moments balance nicely with the inevitable murders.

The fun for the audience is deducing whodunit- most of the characters have the motive, and the cast of characters is hefty.

I had memories of the famous board game Clue- was it Jackie in the ballroom with the revolver? You get the idea. The film makes for a good, solid mystery game.

Comparisons to 1974’s Murder On The Orient Express are hard to avoid, especially with the lead casting of Hercule Poirot.

Truth be told, Albert Finney’s portrayal in “Murder” is superior to Peter Ustinov’s Poirot in “Death,” and I am not sure what purpose Colonel Race (David Niven), as Poirot’s friend, serves other than to be a loyal sidekick and present a character that Poirot can explain events to, think what Watson was to Sherlock Holmes.

Regardless, Finney is the superior Poirot, as he musters more strength and charisma than Ustinov.

How lovely and historic to witness the wonderful Egyptian locales- the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids are featured amid an attempt on the life of the romantic pair by way of falling rocks- this sets the tone for the perilous cruise about to be embarked upon.

Perhaps a perfect film for a Saturday stay-at-home evening with friends, complete with a serving of quality wine and cheese, Death On The Nile is a sophisticated, yet fun, British mystery film.

It is fantastic to watch in a party setting where the audience can be kept guessing until the nice conclusion and the big reveal of who killed whom and why.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Costume Design (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Foreign Film

The Boss Baby-2017

The Boss Baby-2017

Director Tom McGrath

Voices Alec Baldwin, Tobey Maguire

Scott’s Review #713

Reviewed January 12, 2018

Grade: C

True confession- I was not expecting much from the 2017 offering of the animated film entitled The Boss Baby (a brooding, sarcastic newborn offered no appeal).

However, since the film was nominated for a Golden Globe award, I decided to throw caution to the wind and settle down for a viewing.

Predictably, the film fulfilled my hunch and resulted in a fair to middling experience—the attempt at a nice message was offset by cliched and silly characters and an overproduced film rather than a directed one, but it still held interesting and sometimes even beautiful visuals.

Seven-year-old Tim Templeton (voiced by Tobey Maguire), as an adult, narrates a story of his childhood days, living with his parents Ted and Janice, both busy marketing professionals, who work at Puppy Co.

One day, his parents return home with a bundle of joy in tow, Theodore Lindsey Templeton (voiced by Alec Baldwin), who immediately monopolizes their time and attention.

Isolated, Tim is envious and begins a rivalry with his baby brother, who is secretly a spy named “The Boss Baby” and has the mind of an adult in a baby’s body.

It is revealed that he is working undercover as a spy to investigate why puppies are now receiving more love than babies.

The duo eventually teams up and forges a bond to prevent corporate America from ruining all of the love in the world. The Boss Baby presents a positive, good message of love and acceptance, which is nice to see, but this message can only carry a film so far, and there is little else of substance.

As with many animated films, the story here has a “good versus evil” slant, which renders the film rather one-dimensional. We are instructed who to root for and who not to root for.

While challenging corporate greed is certainly a cause worth championing, too often I found The Boss Baby causing my mind to wander elsewhere instead of keeping me engaged in the story, which is not a good sign.

The target audience is relatively young because many sappy or juvenile scenes remain.

Closeups of Theodore and whimsical shots of his bulging eyes give the film cute, too wholesome quality, and predictably, there are the standard doody and poop jokes, which comedies do all too often to account for sloppy writing.

Comedy stalwart Alec Baldwin voices the character of Theodore, which makes the baby a bit more interesting.

Baldwin, fusing assertion and a touch of sarcasm into Theodore, makes him witty and energetic, but again, this can only go so far. By the time the film has concluded in happily ever after fashion, the once tough character has disintegrated into a hammy kid.

Older brother Timothy is excellent, and having Maguire narrate him as an adult is nice.

The central theme of sibling rivalry between brothers, especially the difficulty of some kids adjusting to a newborn debuting into the family, may encourage parents to make it a family outing and see The Boss Baby.

Sadly, the creative and unique sets of animations may be wasted on viewers seeking a good story. What a pity that The Boss Baby does not possess both qualities. The film is little more than adequate and will undoubtedly be forgotten.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

I, Tonya-2017

I, Tonya-2017

Director Craig Gillespie

Starring Margot Robbie, Allison Janney

Scott’s Review #712

Reviewed January 10, 2018

Grade: A-

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the story begins in the mid-1970s, as Tonya, just a tot at the tender age of four, is as cute as a button and shrouded in innocence.

One cannot help but wonder whether director Craig Gillespie, known for independent films, made this wise casting choice on purpose.

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

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

We then experience Tonya as a fifteen-year-old girl, fittingly first meeting her boyfriend and later husband, Jeff Gillooly, played by actor Sebastian Stan.

The early scenes between the two are sweet, tender, and fraught with the emotions of first love.

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

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

“Interpretation” is the key here. Some may see Harding as a victim of life’s circumstances and the hardships she had to endure, and may feel sympathy for her.

Others may view Harding as off-putting, potty-mouthed, and even icy and violent herself, with a big chip on her shoulder.

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

A clever technique the film uses is to have the actors frequently speak to the camera, and thus to the audience.

This is achieved through an interview style or by having the action stop and Robbie, Janney, Stan, or whoever turn to the camera and share their version of events.

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

How brilliant are the performances of both Robbie and Janney?

Robbie, a gorgeous woman, portrays a “red-neck” to a T. Through her bright blue eyes, her face is quite expressive—relaying pain, anger, and a seldom triumph.

The film often tips the scales in a sympathetic way towards Harding’s favor, but it is Robbie’s talents that make us feel that sympathy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seven Brides For Seven Brothers-1954

Seven Brides For Seven Brothers-1954

Director Stanley Donen

Starring Jane Powell, Howard Keel

Scott’s Review #711

Reviewed January 7, 2018

Grade: B-

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954) is a musical and another in a string of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer productions, ever so present during the “Golden Age of Hollywood.”

The songs are not quite as memorable as similar musicals of the day, and the film has a sexist slant that is jarring by today’s gender-equal standards.

Given the time the film was made and its mid-nineteenth-century setting, however, things were very different, and the film does contain one semi-strong female character.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is a lovely film, but in the present day, it is pretty dated and irrelevant—little more than an ode to yesteryear.

Adam Pompitee (Howard Keel), is a dashing, rugged man, living in the Oregon Territory in 1850.

He struts into town and proclaims his desire for a wife- presumably to cook and clean for him and his six younger brothers, all living together in a cabin in the rural mountains.

When he falls head over heels for tavern worker Milly (Jane Powell), they impulsively marry, but she is disappointed to learn she will be caring for seven men, not one.

Milly then plots to marry off the unruly bunch to local girls.

Throughout the film, characters partake in song and merriment as the hijinks play out.

At its core, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is meant to be a lighthearted romp, and it succeeds at that.

It contains a strong romantic angle, and the message of finding one’s soulmate is palpable- Milly is the sensible female counterpart to erratic Adam, and there is chemistry between the actors.

Milly is strong-willed and eventually puts her foot down, but still accepts her role as the domestic and the caretaker.

Fun is how each brother finds the one girl in town meant for him as the duo pairs off in unison. This is a cute aspect of the film- and perhaps a film such as this one is not entirely meant to be over-analyzed.

Humorous, if not slightly overdone,  is the luscious red hair that each Pontipee brother has- dyed hair or wigs were used as needed.

The film succeeds when it sticks to the song-and-dance numbers, which are far more entertaining than the storyline.

MGM used actors who were classically trained singers or dancers, giving the film a more authentic choreography.

Given the fourteen principal characters in the production, this must have been a beast to achieve without making things look ridiculous.

Keel, as the main character Adam, is a professional singer who has appeared in several musicals, such as Kiss Me Kate and Showboat. Powell, as Milly, holds her own with a gorgeous singing voice and has appeared in other musicals.

Still, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers contains a bothersome sexist story, and women are treated more as objects for men to conquer rather than as real people with feelings or emotions.

The overall implication within the film is that women are desperate to get married and should be flattered to be chosen by any man.

This is readily apparent when the brothers accost the girls from their homes and take them unwillingly to the cabin, where, predictably, the women succumb to the men’s desires and fall in love with them.

A film to be taken with a grain of salt and a trip back to olden times, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is a dated picture, but it is fun.

It contains grand production numbers such as “Lonesome Polecat,” “When You’re In Love,” and “June Bride.” These songs are light and airy, and a high point of the film.

For those seeking a liberal-minded affair, this film will disappoint, as the film is very conservative with traditional male/female roles and expectations, as much as one could imagine.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Motion Picture, Best Screenplay, Best Scoring of a Musical Picture (won), Best Cinematography, Color, Best Film Editing

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-New Star of the Year-Actor-Jeff Richards (won)

Wonder Wheel-2017

Wonder Wheel-2017

Director Woody Allen

Starring Kate Winslet, Jim Belushi

Scott’s Review #709

Reviewed December 31, 2017

Grade: B+

Woody Allen typically releases a new film each year, and 2017’s project is Wonder Wheel.

Set in 1950s Coney Island, a seaside beach in Brooklyn, New York, the film is an authentic-looking period drama, with lovely costumes and legitimate New York accents from all principal actors.

The story is pretty depressing, though, as a likable character is tough to find. However, Wonder Wheel contains fantastic acting, mainly on the part of star Kate Winslet, whose troubled character is the film’s focal point.

Winslet portrays Ginny Rannell, a struggling forty-year-old woman living in the seaside neighborhood and working as a waitress at a dingy Clam House. She despises her life and longs for a way out of the doldrums, yearning for the life she had years ago as an aspiring actress.

Her husband, Humpty (Jim Belushi), a carousel operator, has alcoholism. Together they raise Ginny’s son, Richie, a young boy who loves to start fires.

When Humpty’s estranged daughter, Carolina (Juno Temple), shows up on their doorstep, having provided information about her mobster husband, and subsequently “marked”, Ginny’s life slowly begins to unravel as she and Carolina pursue the same man, hunky lifeguard, Mickey (Justin Timberlake).

The film’s New York setting is an enormous plus and a standard of many Woody Allen films—the authenticity is apparent. The summer mood of the beach, sand, sunny boardwalk and beach scenes make the viewer feel transported in time.

The 1950s period worked as beachwear, and the amusement park sets were used to their advantage. The actors’ New York accents and the language and sayings are appropriate for the times.

The apartment that the Rannells rent is an excellent treat to the film. The set features a wonderful beach landscape during daytime and nighttime scenes so that the mood change can be noticed—these are all enticing elements to Wonder Wheel.

Enough cannot be said for Winslet’s talents, who make the character of Ginny come to life.

Undoubtedly a tough role for her to play, Winslet, who can make reading the phone book sound interesting, tackles the complex part and arguably gives one of the best performances of her career—my vote would still go to her portrayal of Hannah Schmitz from 2008’s The Reader.

Initially a sympathetic character, she longingly desires to return to the stage and perhaps find stardom as an actress and sees Mickey as her last chance. When events curtail her dreams, her character takes a sharp turn and does an unspeakable act.

I love Justin Timberlake’s acting talents. By 2017, he had successfully proven himself a major star in both the film and music worlds.

As the hunky, charismatic, yet studious and intelligent lifeguard, Mickey, he teeters between womanizer and earnest, love-stricken, young man.

Timberlake has taken on more interesting film roles beginning with the 2010s, The Social Network, and let’s hope there are more to come.

Juno Temple is just perfect as the naive Carolina. With an innocent, sweet personality, she yearns for love and a fresh start. Temple, known mainly for quirky independent film roles, fits a Woody Allen creation perfectly.

Finally, legendary actor James Belushi fills his character of Humpty with dedication, loyalty, and alcoholic rage. He adores Ginny but sometimes takes her for granted.

What a treat for fans of The Sopranos to see a couple of familiar faces appear as (what else?) mobsters. Tony Sirico and Steve Schirripa make cameo appearances as Angelo and Nick, henchmen for Carolina’s unseen husband, who is intent on tracking down and killing her.

Despite minimal parts, the actors seem to have a ball reprising similar roles that made them famous.

Wonder Wheel, shot in a similar tone to a stage production, draws comparisons to A Streetcar Named Desire, both with four principal characters- two male and two female, Ginny, Carolina, Mickey, and Humpty, all with some similarities to and some differences with storied characters Blanche, Stella, Stanley, and Mitch.

However, the comparisons can easily be studied and analyzed.

Woody Allen creates a film that can be appreciated chiefly for its top-notch acting talent, which is not surprising given the actor’s cast, and it is a compelling, never boring story.

The film is a downer, however, with no heroic characters. Thankfully, this is counterbalanced perfectly by a great New York setting, which is a high point of Wonder Wheel (2017) and cheers up the otherwise dour tone of the film.

The Greatest Showman-2017

The Greatest Showman-2017

Director Michael Gracey

Starring Hugh Jackman, Michelle Williams, Zac Efron

Scott’s Review #707

Reviewed December 26, 2017

Grade: A-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The message throughout The Greatest Showman is quite good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Moms-2016

Bad Moms-2016

Director Jon Lucas, Scott Moore

Starring Mila Kunis, Kristen Bell, Kathryn Hahn

Scott’s Review #706

Reviewed December 20, 2017

Grade: D+

Bad Moms (2016) tries to do for women what The Hangover (2009) did for men and create a raunchy, R-rated party romp that haggard mothers everywhere can relate to and appreciate.

The film’s billboard displays the three main characters boozing it up under the caption “Party Like a Mother.” Perhaps since I am not a mother, I did not entirely gravitate toward this film, but Bad Moms fell flat for me despite a smidgen of mild laughs.

Primarily because of tired characters, gimmicky situations, and an over-the-top tone.

The film, written by the same individuals who wrote The Hangover, is a direct ripoff with a different gender in the driver’s seat.

The central character is Amy Mitchell (Mila Kunis), a thirty-two-year-old mother of two who is living a busy life in the Chicago suburbs.

Considered “old” by her hipster boss and with a porn-obsessed husband, she runs around frazzled and behind schedule most of the time.

After a particularly hairy day, Amy abruptly quits the school PTA run by militant Gwendolyn (Christina Applegate). She befriends fellow moms, sex-crazed Carla (Kathryn Hahn) and timid Kiki (Kristen Bell).

After she incites Gwendolyn’s wrath, Amy decides enough is enough and embarks on a plot to win the PTA presidency while dumping her husband and dating a hunky widower, Jessie (Jay Hernandez).

Admittedly, Kunis is very likable as Amy. She’s an incredible, energetic chick who most would love to befriend, and we empathize with her predicaments and schedule.

But this can only go so far in a comedic film. The setup pieces and the supporting characters are too plot-driven and lack authenticity. The result is little more than one root-able character.

As an actress, Applegate is quite capable, but Gwendolyn, the transparent foil, is primarily written as a cartoon character. Her bitchy comments to her underlings, who inexplicably are afraid to cross her, seem too staged.

Jada Pinkett Smith, in need of a paycheck, is disposable as “second in command” crony Stacy. Furthermore, Amy’s husband, Mike (David Walton), is portrayed mainly as a buffoon and childlike.

The point of these character examples is to stress that the film contains too many caricatures rather than characters. 

An irritating quality of Bad Moms that I cannot shake is that the film is written and directed by a duo of men! Jon Lucas and Scott Moore are the individuals in question, and the fact that the film, painted as a female empowerment story, is not written by females is almost unforgivable.

A case in point involves a bathroom scene where the ladies discuss uncircumcised penises, a dumb scene if you ask me, that is lousy taste considering men wrote and directed it.

In this day and age of Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment suits bubbling to the surface, the scene seems icky. It should not be this hard to find women to write for other women.

Of the additional trio of females, Kathryn Hahn’s Carla has a few funny scenes but is written as so sex-obsessed that it is impossible to take the character seriously, and the same goes for Bell’s Kiki.

When mousy Kiki finally lays down the law and tells her boorish husband to deal with their kids, it is meant to be a rah-rah moment, but instead becomes eye-rolling. Not the best actress in the world, Bell continues to get roles like this in sub-par films.

An attempt by filmmakers to make a girl film on par with male-driven raunchy comedies thrust on moviegoers over the years, Bad Moms (2016) comes across as too unoriginal and too desperate for laughs.

Undoubtedly hoping to win over the same audiences who flocked to the last funny female-driven comedy hit, 2011 Bridesmaids, the film falls flat and lacks genuine fun.

Kunis’s lead role and the sweet romance her character shares with Hernandez’s Jessie slightly bolster this.

The Shape of Water-2017

The Shape of Water-2017

Director Guillermo del Toro

Starring Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins, Michael Shannon

Scott’s Review #705

Reviewed December 16, 2017

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

Both sides are mistrustful of the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Him?-2016

Why Him? -2016

Director John Hamburg

Starring John Franco, Bryan Cranston

Scott’s Review #704

Reviewed December 6, 2017

Grade: D

Why Him? (2016) is epic film drivel starring quite capable actors in a mish-mash of dull, predictable stories, obnoxious characters, and a need to attempt to go raunchier and raunchier for a cheap laugh.

Why there is a market for films like this is beyond me as no thinking is required (maybe the film will please those fans!), but the film scores slightly higher than a solid “F” based solely on a few chuckles uttered thanks to the only dim bright spots in this mess, Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally.

A story told dozens of times before in “slapstick comedy” fare, the premise is tired beyond belief. A good girl meets a bad boy, they fall head over heels in love and must deal with the aftermath of her parent’s meeting, and hating the bad boy.

The main gimmick is the rivalry between boyfriend and girlfriend’s father, like an unfunny Meet the Parents (2000).  A silly and uninteresting plot point about each character’s business success or lack thereof is mixed in as if anyone cares.

As with all films of this ilk, the story is wrapped up in a neat, tidy little bow by the time the credits roll, and all characters live happily ever after in perfect harmony.

In one of his most disappointing roles, James Franco plays Laird Mayhew, the wealthy, eccentric, thirty-something CEO of an upstart video game company.

He is foul-mouthed and comically speaks his mind or absentmindedly shows his ass on a Skype chat with his girlfriend Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) while her parents are linked to the chat at a birthday party.

Stephanie, a college student and girlfriend of Laird, invites her parents, Ned and Barb (Cranston and Mullally), along with their fifteen-year-old Scotty, for the Christmas holidays.

Predictably, Stephanie’s parents are appalled by Laird and want her to have nothing to do with him. When Stephanie arranges for Ned, Barb, and Scotty to stay at Laird’s spacious home, the antics take off as feuds and misunderstandings erupt.

The main problem with Why Him? is that director John Hamburg (famous for mainstream comedies such as Along Came Polly, 2004, and I Love You, Man, 2009) seems determined to push the raunchy comedy elements further with this idiotic film.

He makes Laird as obnoxious and crass as possible yet tries to make the character more “likable” by giving him a clueless quality; therefore, he is not mean-spirited and should be beloved by the audience.

The character does not work. Franco has played terrific roles- specifically in 127 Hours (2010) and  Howl (2010). As a fan of the talented actor, I expected more from him, but alas, some performances are only as good as the written material.

If there is a bright spot worth mentioning, it is with the casting of Cranston and Mullally.

Two actors are undeniably good at physical comedy. They do as much as they can with poorly written, stock-type roles. Cranston’s Ned, a middle-class small business owner from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is both envious and resentful of Laird, perhaps admiring the young man’s business savvy and regretting not being as successful.

Barb is a one-note, ditzy yet lovable wife, a role made slightly better by Mullally’s goofy portrayal. In one of the best scenes, Barb smokes pot and becomes a mess in her bedroom.

The following day, Ned is trapped on the toilet and has an embarrassing experience with Laird’s best friend, Gustav. While these scenes are juvenile, they are made better by the funny actors.

Suffering greatly from a tired and overused storyline that falls flat, unlikable, and dull characters, the film offers nothing of substance or worth.

Why Him? (2016) is entirely plot-driven with no character development or well-written characters.

The film is a complete waste of time. It results from a studio hoping to achieve box office success by churning out a poor comedy with wasted talent that will please only those audiences not expecting much from their films.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri-2017

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri-2017

Director Martin McDonagh

Starring Frances McDormand

Scott’s Review #703

Reviewed December 4, 2017

Grade: A

Frances McDormand takes control of Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and never lets go. In the Martin McDonagh-directed 2017 vehicle, she rivetingly portrays an angry Midwestern woman seeking justice.

The up-and-coming director has also created such films as  2008’s In Bruges and 2012’s Seven Psychopaths.

Similar to these films, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, is peppered with dark comedic moments and vile, bitter characters. The film is a measured success because it is not your standard Hollywood production and is quite left-of-center.

The action begins as we meet McDormand’s Mildred Hayes, sitting alone in her beat-up station wagon, brooding by the side of the road, gazing at three tattered billboards.

She is both pissed off and thoughtful as she formulates a plan to purchase a year’s worth of billboards, questioning the local police’s ineptitude in finding her daughter’s rapist and killer.

Woody Harrelson portrays the Ebbing police chief, Sheriff Bill Willoughby, and Sam Rockwell plays the racist and dim-whited officer Jason Dixon, both displeased with Mildred’s activities.

Other casting decisions in small yet essential roles are Lucas Hedges as Mildred’s adolescent and depressed son, Robbie, and John Hawke as her ex-husband, Charlie, who is dating an eighteen-year-old ditz.

Peter Dinklage is well-cast as James, a local car salesman who is an earnest dwarf with a crush on Mildred.

Supporting roles are prevalent throughout the film, and small-town locales like Jason’s mother and Red, the owner of the advertising agency who rents the billboards to Mildred, shape the experience.

The casting in Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri, is a strong point of the film.

The town of Ebbing is portrayed as dreary, blue-collar, and racist, which is just perfect for setting the tone of the film.

I suspect residents of the Midwest or the southern United States of America may have some issues with character representations. Jason is written as both racist and not too smart, and he encompasses numerous characters in the film.

Enough cannot be said for Rockwell’s performance, transforming from a hated character during the film’s first two-thirds to suddenly almost becoming the hero towards the end.

Props are also deserved by Harrelson’s Chief Willoughby- bordering on hick and racist, he also has a heart and cares about Mildred’s predicament- when a shocking event occurs, he becomes an even richer character.

It is worth pointing out and impressive to me as a viewer that the three prominent black characters—Willoughby’s replacement, Abercrombie, Mildred’s best friend and co-worker, Denise, and a kindly billboard painter—are each written as intelligent and sensitive, a fact I found to perfectly balance the other less sympathetic characters.

In this way, a nasty film becomes more satisfying.

Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri, though, belongs to McDormand. She is successful at portraying a myriad of different emotions. From her sly eye-winking as she crafts a good verbal assault on whoever crosses her path, to an emotional breakdown scene towards the end of the film, McDormand embodies the character with depth.

In a gorgeous scene, she has a sweet conversation with a peaceful deer grazing nearby, and for a second, she imagines it could be her dead daughter reincarnated. The scene richly counterbalances other violent and brutal scenes.

McDormand manages to look downright homely in some scenes and beautiful in others.

A film will indeed divide viewers. Some will champion the film’s crisp writing and witty dialogue. Still, others will undoubtedly be turned off by some of the character’s foul language and nasty nature.

I found Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017), sarcastic, gritty, and well-told. It is a versatile affair rich with layers and brimming with enjoyment.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Actress-Frances McDormand (won), Best Supporting Actor-Sam Rockwell (won), Woody Harrelson, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Female Lead-Frances McDormand (won), Best Supporting Make-Sam Rockwell (won), Best Screenplay

Village of the Damned-1960

Village of the Damned-1960

Director Wolf Rilla

Starring George Sanders, Barbara Shelley

Scott’s Review #701

Reviewed November 30, 2017

Grade: B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answers are never really explained in detail.

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

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

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

I felt like a bit of potential was not reached.

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

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

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

Lady Bird-2017

Lady Bird-2017

Director Greta Gerwig

Starring Saoirse Ronan

Scott’s Review #700

Reviewed November 28, 2017

Grade: A

Lady Bird is a 2017 independent film released by actor-turned-writer/director Greta Gerwig. It is a tremendous effort in her solo directorial debut.

No stranger to the indie syndicate herself, Gerwig puts her unique stamp on the film with a rich, female-centered perspective that works quite well and seeps with charm and wit.

The story is semi-autobiographical, based on Gerwig’s life and her stormy dealings with her mother. The story is well-written, well-paced, and empathetic as the audience views a slice of life through the eyes of a restless yet kindly teenager on the cusp of womanhood.

Saoirse Ronan gives a bravura performance in the title role. Her birth name is Christine, but she defiantly changes it to Lady Bird in a show of adolescent independence, much to her parents’ (Laurie Metcalf and Tracy Letts) chagrin.

Christine lives in suburban Sacramento, California, and yearns for a more exciting life in New York City, far from what she considers Dullsville, USA. Now, in her senior year, she is attending a Catholic high school.

Christine applies to college after college, hoping to escape her daily dilemmas. Christine’s best friend Julie and somewhat boyfriend Danny (Lucas Hedges) are along for the ride.

The period is 2002- shortly after 9/11.

The brightest moments in Lady Bird are the plentiful scenes between Christine and her mother.

The chemistry between Ronan and Metcalf is terrific, and I genuinely buy them as a real mother/daughter duo, warts and all. They fight makeup, get on each other’s nerves, fight, cry, do makeup, etc.

I especially love their knock-down drag-outs, as each actress stands her ground while allowing the other room to shine—feeding off of each other.

My favorite Metcalf scene occurs while she is alone. Having gotten into a tiff with Christine and giving her the silent treatment while Christine flies to New York, Marion reconsiders as she melts into tears.

At the same time, she drives away, regretting her decision and already missing her daughter.

Metcalf fills the scene with emotional layers as she does not speak- we watch in awe as her facial expressions tell everything.

Comparably, Ronan—likely to receive her third Oscar nomination at the ripe old age of twenty-three (Atonement, 1997, and Brooklyn, 2015, are the other nods)—successfully gives a layered performance as a teenage girl struggling with her identity and restless to see different worlds and get out of what she sees as a bland city.

Of Irish descent, Ronan is remarkable in her portrayal of a California girl- sometimes selfish, sometimes sarcastic, but always likable and empathetic.

The casting from top to bottom is terrific, and the supporting players add real meat to the story. Christine’s best friend, Julie, played by up-and-coming Beanie Feldstein (Jonah Hill’s sister), is compelling as the lovable, chubby, nerdy theater geek.

Letts is perfect as Christine’s father, depressed at losing his job in the tough economy and having to compete with young talent as he sees his career slip away.

Legendary actress Lois Smith adds heart to Sister Sarah Joan’s role- a by-the-book nun who is an incredible old chick.

Finally, Hedges, seemingly in every film from 2016 to 2017, is emotionally resonant as Danny, Christine’s troubled boyfriend, struggles with his sexuality.

Gerwig does it all with this film—she directs and writes, scripting laugh-out-loud moments and eliciting heartfelt emotion from her enchanted audience.

A hilarious scene occurs as Christine attends a dreary class assembly- an anti-abortion-themed one- by a woman who almost did not exist but for her mother’s decision not to have an abortion.

When a bored Christine icily points out that had the woman’s mother had the abortion, she would not be forced to sit through the assembly, it is a laugh-out-loud moment.

Lady Bird (2017), thanks to a fantastic writer-director and superlative casting, is a film that has all the heart, emotion, humor, and great acting.

The film is intelligently written and draws the audience into its characters willingly. Gerwig carves a story, perhaps done many times before in film, but with a fresh and energetic feel.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Greta Gerwig, Best Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Actress-Laurie Metcalf, Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Female Lead-Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Female-Laurie Metcalf, Best Screenplay (won)

Murder on the Orient Express-2017

Murder On The Orient Express-2017

Director Kenneth Branagh

Starring Kenneth Branagh, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer

Scott’s Review #698

Reviewed November 25, 2017

Grade: B+

Kenneth Branagh leads and directs an all-star cast in a 2017 remake of the 1974 thriller Murder On The Orient Express.

The film is based on the famous 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. With a ritzy cast that includes Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Penelope Cruz, and Willem Defoe, top-notch acting is assured.

The cinematography is tremendous, and the film looks gorgeous from start to finish. The story is an effective, good, old-fashioned whodunit that will satisfy audiences.

We meet our hero, Hercule Poirot (Branagh), in Jerusalem. He has recently solved a murder mystery and is anticipating a good rest. A friend invites Poirot to travel back to his homeland of London via the lavish Orient Express.

Amid a group of thirteen strangers, all inhabiting the luxurious first-class accommodations, one of them is savagely murdered in the middle of the night as a blustery blizzard and subsequent avalanche derails the train atop mountainous terrain.

The strangers are trapped together with a murderer on the loose. Poirot must deduce who has committed the crime and why.

Murder On The Orient Express has all the trimmings for a good, solid murder mystery, and director Branagh sets all of these elements in motion with a good flow.

Paced quite nicely, each principal character is introduced intriguingly, so much so that each contains a measure of juicy intrigue. The film briefly describes each character as they board the grandiose train.

Judi Dench broods as rich and powerful Princess Dragomiroff oozing with jewels and a chip on her shoulder. Corrupt American businessman, Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp), is suave and shady as he seems destined to cause trouble.

Finally, Penelope Cruz gives her character, repressed Pilar Estravados, enough shame and guilt that we cannot think something may be off with her motivations.

The details of the characters are rich and compelling.

The playing field is set very high with actors such as Dench and Depp, and all actors play their parts with gusto.

An excellent experience with Murder On The Orient Express demonstrates the true nature of an ensemble cast—each character is relevant in his or her own way, regardless of screen time, and the casting works well.

The cast must have enjoyed working together on this lovely project. Each character is written so that the individual actor can sink his or her teeth into the role, and the wonderful reveal at the end of the film allows each a chance to shine, giving each part equal weight.

After the actual murder is committed, the story takes off as each character is interviewed by Poirot and given a glance of suspicion.

The first half of the film is just the buildup, and, at times, the story slightly lags, but this is fixed when the movie kicks into high gear midway through.

Sometimes, a climactic conclusion makes up for any slight lag in the film’s first portion, and Murder On The Orient Express is an excellent example of this.

My standouts are Branagh himself as Poirot and Pfeiffer as the sexy Caroline Hubbard, an American man-crazed older woman.  How wonderful to see Pfeiffer back in the game in 2017- with fantastic roles in Murder On The Orient Express and Mother!

She has the acting chops to pull off sex appeal, vulnerability, and toughness. Branagh’s acting never disappoints in any film he appears in, but seeing him in a leading role is fantastic, and he can carry a film with such a dynamic cast.

Branagh’s Poirot is classy, intelligent, and charismatic.

I adored the film’s conclusion and found the explanation and reasoning of the murderer or murderers quite effective and believable. The use of black-and-white flashback scenes perfectly balances the action aboard the grandiose yet slightly claustrophobic train scenes.

Furthermore, the explanation and motivations of the killer or killers make perfect sense, and much sympathy is evoked. The story is moralistic and not a black-and-white subject matter.

Murder On The Orient Express succeeds as a wonderfully shot and star-studded affair. The filming is grandiose, and the production values are high. It is a caper film with a mystique and class.

The film may not be a true masterpiece or necessarily remembered ten years from now, but what it does, it does well.

The original film from 1974 is a tad bit better, but as remakes go, the 2017 offering is quite good.

A rumored sequel, Death on the Nile, is planned.

Little Miss Sunshine-2006

Little Miss Sunshine-2006

Director Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Starring Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #697

Reviewed November 23, 2017

Grade: A

A film that became a sleeper hit at the time of its 2006 release and went on to earn year-end award honors galore, Little Miss Sunshine holds up quite well over 10 years after its debut.

Combining family humor with heart, audiences will fall in love with the antics of the dysfunctional Hoover family, warts and all, as they strive to overcome endless obstacles to give their precocious seven-year-old daughter, Olive, a chance to compete in a beauty pageant hundreds of miles away.

The film is a comedic treat, full of charm and uproarious fun.

Directors  (and husband and wife team) Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris start right to work, kicking off the humor in style as the one hour and forty-one-minute film introduces depressed Uncle Frank (Steve Carell) to the rest of the Hoovers as he comes to live with the family after a failed suicide attempt.

Frank, who is gay and has recently been dumped, is Sheryl Hoover’s (Toni Collette) brother and has a dry sense of humor.

He fits in well with the other peculiar members of the clan- Dad Richard (Greg Kinnear), a struggling motivational speaker, Grandpa Edwin, a vulgar, irritable man, brother Dwayne, angry and refusing to speak, and finally, pudgy-faced Olive.

The brightest spots in Little Miss Sunshine are the exceptional writing and the nuanced, non-one-dimensional characters.

Each character is both good and troubled in their own way, and the overall message of the film is an important one.

The plot of the film encompasses a beauty queen pageant and the lifestyle this involves- hypocrisy and plastic nature are the main themes.

When the family stops at a roadside cafe for breakfast, Olive hungrily orders ice cream and is shamed by a member of the family- she must watch her figure, she is told.

Other members instead encouraged Olive to be herself.

Little Miss Sunshine offers an interesting dissection of the pressures very young people face to be perfect, especially in the beauty pageant business, and of the messages society sends.

Shocking is a scene in which many of the contestants, all under the age of ten, appear wearing sexy, glamorous makeup and bikinis.

Little Miss Sunshine is a very funny film, and this is undoubtedly due to the chemistry among the talented cast.

Quite the ensemble: all five principal characters have interesting relationships with each other.

Too many film comedies suffer immensely from forced jokes or typical “set-up” style humor, plot devices created to elicit a response from the audience, which I call “dumbing down”.

Little Miss Sunshine, however, feels authentic and fresh- a situation becomes funny because there is an honest reaction by the characters.

The film is a slice of the life experience of an average blue-collar family.

A standout scene is the hysterical one in which a highway patrol officer pulls over the Hoovers.

To say nothing of the fact that the Hoovers are “escorting” a corpse to their destination, along with pornographic magazines, their classic, beat-up, yellow Volkswagen bus barely runs and contains a malfunctioning horn that beeps at inopportune times.

These hilarious scenes work on all levels, as the comic timing is palpable and elicits a laugh-out-loud response.

Furthermore, the climactic “beauty pageant” scene is fraught with physical humor.

Olive, the oddball in a group of hypersexualized, young starlets, takes inspiration from her grandfather to simply “be herself”.

She does so in a hilarious version of “Super Freak” that is R-rated, both shocking the audience and celebrated by others- specifically her entire family.

Olive successfully proves that she can be herself and happily does so.

How wonderful and refreshing to find a comedy with honest, ample humor and real integrity that can shine many years after its first release and retain the richness and zest that originally captured legions of viewers.

As proven over time by many independent films, wonderful writing and directors who share a vision go a long way toward achieving a quality piece of filmmaking.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Alan Arkin (won), Best Supporting Actress-Abigail Breslin, Best Original Screenplay (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 4 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (won), Best Supporting Male-Alan Arkin (won), Paul Dano, Best First Screenplay (won)

Wonder Woman-2017

Wonder Woman-2017

Director Patty Jenkins

Starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine

Scott’s Review #696

Reviewed November 20, 2017

Grade: B

Wonder Woman is a 2017 summer offering (and a mega success) firmly nestled in the comfort of the superhero adventure genre. It is unique because it is directed by a woman in a male-dominated field.

This must be championed, and the film has a palpable, female-empowering quality that I adore since it is still lacking in most mainstream movies.

However, at times, the film teeters too much around predictability and possesses many traditional superhero elements, such as good versus evil, climactic fight scenes, and stock villains.

But liberties must be taken, and overall, I saw the film as a female-driven work.

The fact that the masses celebrated Wonder Woman is terrific news.

Director Patty Jenkins, notable for having previously tackled weighty subject matter in films such as 2003’s Monster, is at the helm of this project and embodies her lead character with a good blend of earnestness, pizzazz, and heart.

“Wonder Woman” is a likable character, and newcomer Gal Gadot, who is unknown to me, is interesting casting. There are a myriad of young Hollywood “names” who could have championed the part—Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence may have been palpable in the role.

Seemingly brave, Gadot takes command of the character and fills her with substance.

We meet “Princess Diana” as a young girl living on the protected Amazon island of Themyscira, inhabited only by females. It is around 1918, amid the harsh reality of World War I, though the members of the tribe know nothing about the war or any other current events—nor do any males live on the island.

Most women are trained warriors, presumably to protect the island from potential dangers. It is soon revealed that Diana has special powers, and after meeting a lost American soldier, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), she embarks on a mission to save the world from the ravages of war.

Mixed in with the main story is a briefly mentioned ancient legend of Zeus’s son Ares plotting to return and destroy the Amazons, whom Zeus created.

My only issue with Wonder Woman as a whole is with the story.  The plot is not weak, but simply put- it is nestled in Hollywood predictability rather than containing surprises.

Despite deserved kudos for the characterization of Diana, the story ultimately turns ho-hum like many superhero films—peppered with the inevitable battle scenes.

The genre-specific “save the world” is played to the hilt as Diana takes it upon herself to stop the war, believing that people are not entirely bad. With this thought, Diana finally learns a valuable lesson about the complexities of human beings.

Wonder Woman contains a moralistic tale, but then there are more battle scenes.

The villains are mainly cartoon-like, which is what one might expect for a film of this kind.  Chemist Isabel Maru/Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya) dons a mask to hide a disfigured face (intentionally to test the poison gas), and General Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston) plans to destroy all of humanity.

These characters are straight out of comic books and contain no redeeming qualities.

Contrary to where the main story may be a tad lacking, the romantic element is nicely done. The scenes involving Diana and Steve are sweet and romantic, making them fun to watch and a good balance against the action sequences.

Gadot and Pine have great chemistry, adding humor, so the scenes are not forced. As Diana sees Steve naked for the first time, a clever sexual flirtation develops, and a sly lesbian backstory is briefly hinted at.

Diana remarks with a smirk that men are only needed for procreation and that the women on the island “can satisfy themselves.” The duo also has a play of words about his “manhood.”

Due to Wonder Woman’s success, a sequel, again directed by Jenkins, is in the works. My hope is that because of the box office performance, the talented director can take many more liberties and push the envelope further, as she did with Monster.

Wonder Woman (2017) is a good film, so we hope the next installment will be great.

A Room with a View-1986

A Room with a View-1986

Director James Ivory

Starring Helena Bonham Carter, Julian Sands

Scott’s Review #695

Reviewed November 3, 2017

Grade: B+

A Room with a View (1986) is one of four major films to be based on famed British author E.M. Forster’s novels- Howards End (1992) and A Passage to India (1986), and Maurice (1987) being the other three.

The foursome shares common elements, such as the vast English countryside and class distinctions, which lead to heartaches and passion.

In the case of A Room with a View, the film traverses from artistic Florence, Italy, to a cozy village in England.

The film is a period drama mixed with lots of authentic, unforced good humor, and at its core is a solid romantic drama, though, compared with the aforementioned other films, it is not quite on par.

It is still an entertaining watch, given the dismal year of cinema circa 1986.

The film was considered one of the best releases that year and received a handful of Oscar nominations, winning for Costume Design, Adapted Screenplay, and Art Direction.

Cultured and oftentimes brooding, Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter), goes on holiday to Florence with her rigid and conventional older cousin Charlotte (Maggie Smith), who also serves as her chaperone.

While enjoying the artistry of the European city, Lucy meets and falls madly in love with free-spirited George Emerson (Julian Sands), who is also visiting Florence with his easy-going father, Mr. Emerson (Denholm Elliott).

The men seem oblivious to Lucy’s (and Charlotte’s) Victorian-era upbringing, which attracts Lucy and appalls Charlotte.

Months later, the would-be lovers reunite in England and spend time overcoming obstacles that threaten their love, while admitting to themselves that it is blossoming.

As Lucy has become engaged to snobbish Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day-Lewis), a sophisticate deemed suitable by her family to marry Lucy, the pair lacks the romantic connection that she shares with George.

Day-Lewis, on the cusp of becoming a breakout star and a brilliant talent, gives Cecil a somewhat comical yet endearing persona that makes him the main foil while also breathing sympathy into the character. This is especially evident during the Lucy/Cecil break-up scene.

The standout performance in A Room with a View is the comic brilliance of Smith as the manipulative and witty Charlotte Bartlett, evident throughout.

Smith injects vigor and comic wit into her character, as Charlotte seemingly makes one blunder after another, using her self-deprecating manner to her advantage to humorously manipulate other characters into doing things her way.

A risqué and quite hysterical all-male frontal nudity scene occurs mid-way through the film and, while not advancing the plot in any way, steals the entire film in its homoerotic and free-spirited way.

As the Reverend, young George, and Lucy’s energetic brother, Freddy, walk along a beautiful path, they decide to skinny-dip in a pond, where they horseplay and wrestle completely in the buff.

As they chase each other around the pond, grab each other, and lightly smack bottoms, one cannot help but wonder if this scene set the tone for 1987’s gay-themed period piece based on another E.M. Forster novel, called Maurice.

A coincidence? I think not. As the trio of rascals comes upon the properly dressed girls on the path, hilarity ensues.

The art direction and costumes are of major excellence in A Room with a View, as the film “looks” like a 1910 rather than 1986, with the actors donning early twentieth-century styles.

Every scene is a treat from this perspective, as we wonder who will wear what next.

As with the other aforementioned E.M. Forster films, class distinctions and expectations are a major element in A Room with a View and make Lucy and George all the more likable as a couple.

Still, overall, there is something slightly amiss in the story department.

I did not find Helena Bonham Carter, an actor I like, overall very compelling as Lucy, and I think this leads to the story being slightly less than it might have been with another in the role.

We may root for Lucy and George, but if the pair do not wind up together, it is more of a pity rather than a travesty.

To summarize A Room with a View, the story is good, not great, and other key components to the film are much better than the central love story of Lucy and George, but are therefore secondary to the main action.

Given a Charlotte romance, the film’s best character would have catapulted it to an exceptional grade. Imagine the possibilities.

Or more of the two, Miss Alan’s and their gossipy nature, or even a story of the rugged nude horseplay among men.

Many of the aspects that could have made A Room with a View (1986) great were too often on the sidelines.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-James Ivory, Best Supporting Actor-Denholm Elliott, Best Supporting Actress-Maggie Smith, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design (won)

Roman Holiday-1953

Roman Holiday-1953

Director William Wyler

Starring Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn

Scott’s Review #694

Reviewed October 26, 2017

Grade: B+

Roman Holiday, released in 1953, was a box-office hit, pleasing legions of fans at the time and a critical darling.

The film reaped Academy Award nominations, including the coveted Best Actress statuette for a young Audrey Hepburn.

A happy, uplifting story, the film is not diminished by Cinderella’s reverse storyline but rather is a charming, romantic experience, immersing itself in the pleasing locales of the cultural city of Rome.

Admittedly, Roman Holiday is an example of a film in which I preferred the latter half to the former, but it set the bar high in the romantic comedy genre.

Our heroine, Princess Ann (Hepburn), has it all: a glamorous life, gorgeous clothes, and assistants tending to her every need and want.

However, she is unhappy and trapped in a rigid life that lacks freedom or decisions, to say nothing of the fun. She catches glimpses of party-goers reveling in each night from her expansive palace window.

Simply put, she is lonely and unfulfilled.

When she sees an opportunity to escape her life for a night, she snatches it and stumbles upon an American reporter, Joe Bradley (Peck). Despite their differing backgrounds, they fall madly in love.

At first, I found something missing in the film, and the chemistry between Peck and Hepburn did not immediately embrace me.

As the duo meets Ann, who is drunk from sleeping pills, and Joe is the ultimate nice guy who lets her sleep in his apartment, the story seems to lag and lacks a strong punch.

The pair drives around Rome on a scooter and acts childish and silly. Ann acts girlish because fun is an entirely new concept to her. At this point, the film is reasonable, but it reads more like a farce.

As Roman Holiday progresses, primarily through the final act, the film sheds some of its lightness and becomes much more poignant and meaningful.

Ann and Joe, while in love, realize they will not and cannot embark on a fairy tale ending, which truthfully, would have made Roman Holiday little more than a standard romantic comedy we have all seen before- you know the type- boy meets girl, roadblocks persist, boy whisks girl away and rides off into the sunset together.

While not a dark film, it goes deeper than a transparent, predictable ending.

Related to this point is that Roman Holiday has a realism that sets it apart from many films undoubtedly inspired by it. Still, unlike this film, it leans into contrived or predictable situations.

As Joe and Ann fall in love, the audience falls in love with them. The main plot hurdle—Joe’s temptation to profit from Ann once he realizes her true identity after a sought-after interview—is earnestly handled without pretension.

Other similar films ought to take note of this.

Indeed, the historic and culturally relevant locales of Rome are a significant selling point of the film, and if these scenes had been shot on a movie set, a lack of authenticity would undoubtedly have emerged.

Instead, we are treated to such fabulous location sequences as the Colosseum, the Tiber River, the Trevi Fountain, and Piazza Venezia. Such a delight is the long sequence of Roman escapades as Joe and Ann traverse the city in giddy bliss.

It is enjoyable to see how Roman Holiday contains no real villain.

There are no physical hurdles to the duo’s relationship—no outside forces plotting to keep Joe and Ann apart, other than their lifestyles. Ann lives in a world of royalty and pampering, but Joe is an everyman, so the chances of living happily ever after are slim.

Film lovers intent on discovering one of the early romantic comedies—one could argue that It Happened One Night (1934) was the first—should watch a feel-good Hollywood classic from 1953. It is rich in honesty, good humor, and raw emotion without being too heavy a melodrama.

After a mediocre start, the film finishes with gusto.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-William Wyler, Best Actress-Audrey Hepburn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Eddie Albert, Best Screenplay, Best Story (won), Best Art Direction, Black and White, Best Cinematography, Black and White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture-Drama-Audrey Hepburn (won)

Grindhouse: Planet Terror-2007

Grindhouse: Planet Terror-2007

Director Robert Rodriguez

Starring Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodriguez

Scott’s Review #692

Reviewed October 15, 2017

Grade: B-

The umbrella title “Grindhouse” is part of a 2007 double feature: one film directed by Quentin Tarantino (Death Proof) and the other by Robert Rodriguez (Planet Terror).

The gimmick was part of an attempt at something novel and also bookending fictional trailers within the films.

The term “grindhouse” refers to a cinematic specialty of either B movies or exploitation films, largely during the 1970s.

While Planet Terror gets credit for being unique and fun, it is often too cartoon-like and rather over the top throughout.

The premise of Planet Terror is not one to be taken seriously- as our heroine, Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), quits her stripper job, vowing to move on to bigger and better things.

She runs into her ex-boyfriend, El Wray (Freddie Rodriguez), and the two team up to lead a group of rebels, who are fleeing for their lives after a vicious zombie outbreak.

The attack was caused by a group of military officials, led by the vicious Lieutenant Muldoon (Bruce Willis).

The film contains an undeniable retro feel- the sets and the props traverse back to the 1970s in style and look; however, characters do use cellular phones.

Rodriguez attempts to make the film an homage or a throwback to a different time in cinema- this feat is quite impressive, and the film is a marvel from a stylized perspective.

Another positive is that the film, through its camera styles and angles, is reminiscent of a 1970s film, with grainy elements and a comforting old-style texture, which works.

The plot, though, is the source of frustration, and many aspects of the film are just plain silly.

The actors play way over the top, as Rodriguez probably directed them to, but the result is too much like watching a cartoon rather than a piece of art.

Rodriguez appears to be copying many aspects of Quentin Tarantino films- specifically, the mixture of violence with camp, although these attempts do not always work.

The acting and casting are fine.

Bruce Willis shines in the lead villain role, playing demented to the hilt. Unquestionably “borrowed” by Rodriguez through Tarantino, Willis, who was dynamic in Pulp Fiction, knows how to do his thing well in films such as this.

Muldoon is quite a different character from boxer Butch Coolidge in 1994’s masterpiece, Pulp Fiction, but the acting style is the same.

Stars such as Josh Brolin, Kurt Russell, and Rosario Dawson also make appearances, so the film is assuredly a star-studded affair.

The casting of McGowan and Freddy Rodriguez as the leads is acceptable, and the pair make a decent screen couple.

Still, her artificial leg, which doubles as a deadly machine gun, and his maniacal persona seem somewhat forced and, again, way over the top.

Planet Terror was a moderate box office success upon release in 2007, but watching the film in 2017, ten years later, unfortunately, some of the clusters have been tarnished, and the gimmick is not as catchy as it was at the time of release.

Still, a decent offering in the horror, cartoon, and campy genres, but there are many better films, like anything by Tarantino.

Battle of the Sexes-2017

Battle of the Sexes-2017

Directors Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Starring Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #691

Reviewed October 11, 2017

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The scene is poignant.

Directors Dayton and Faris carve a finale that is careful not to fall into the cliched territory.

Given that Battle of the Sexes is a sports film, this is a real risk, as these genre films typically teeter into the “good guys beat bad guys” fairy-tale land.

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

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

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

My point is a sad one.

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

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

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

O.J.: Made in America-2016

O.J.: Made in America-2016

Director Ezra Edelman

Starring Various

Scott’s Review #690

Reviewed October 8, 2017

Grade: A

Simply put, O.J.: Made in America (2016) is one of the greatest documentary films I have ever seen- if not the best.

The level of detail thoroughly explored without being overinflated is to be marveled at. It is much more than a documentary; it is a chronicle of one of the most talented professional athletes and one of the most controversial figures of our time.

The piece dissects not only O.J. Simpson and his tumultuous life but also how race, wealth, and celebrity factored into the infamous trial that took over the world in 1994. This story tells of the examination of the rise and fall of an American sports hero.

At seven hours and forty-three minutes, I had no intention of actually committing to watching the entire saga. I assumed I could quickly grasp it after watching only one disc, but it needs to be viewed in its entirety to be fully realized and appreciated.

The documentary is an ESPN production, and part of the 30 for 30 series plays like a mini-series, with multiple chapters (five in total) encompassing the entire chronicle.

The title of O.J.: Made in America is vital and a powerful reason for the documentary’s success, as filmmakers question whether many factors were instrumental in making O.J. Simpson what he became rather than merely creating an overview of the events.

An immediate positive that intrigued me is how the documentary begins in present times. O.J. Simpson, now imprisoned and presumably at a parole hearing, is asked about his duties and how old he was when he was first arrested.

The answer was age forty-six when he was accused of murdering his wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

The documentary then immediately returns to Simpson’s humble upbringing in the ghettos of San Francisco and how, through scholarships, she could attend and become a major star at the University of Southern California in the mid-1960s.

What I adore most about O.J.: Made in America is its multi-faceted nature. Instead of a straight-up biography about the troubled celebrity, the filmmakers balance the documentary with related stories about racial tensions.

A chronological approach is taken when it comes to Simpson- yes, we learn about his skyrocketing trip to super-stardom as a college football player and then professionally as a Buffalo Bill.

We are educated about achievements in commercials, films, and various endorsements, but the documentary relates this to what America made O.J. Simpson into- a beloved star.

Finally, the documentary explains his relationship and marriage to Nicole Brown and the dreaded death and subsequent trial that was sensationalized beyond belief.

Time is spent with oodles of interviews ranging from the prosecution- Marsha Clark, Gil Garcetti, and numerous friends and relatives of both Simpson and Nicole Brown. An astounding seventy-two interviews were conducted.

Surprising to me at first, but making total sense in retrospect, is how the issue of race relations, especially in Los Angeles, has an enormous amount to do with the O.J. Simpson murder case.

Filmmakers draw many wise comparisons to the history of poor relations between the black community and the Los Angeles Police Department, and indeed, the documentary explores the Rodney King incident from the late 1980s and poses a crucial question- was O.J. Simpson found “not guilty” as a way of making up for Rodney King?

More than one juror has admitted she refused to find O.J. Simpson guilty and send a black man to prison.

O.J.: Made in America (2016) is a superb, well-rounded, concise, and brilliant study of a troubled man deemed a hero with a dark side.

The excellent documentary wholly explores his life and provides a fair, unbiased assessment of the events and the thoughts and opinions of those surrounding the case.

It is a sad story, but one that is told brilliantly.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Documentary-Feature (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Documentary Feature (won)

Black Orpheus-1959

Black Orpheus-1959

Director Marcel Camus

Starring Breno Mello, Marpessa Dawn

Scott’s Review #689

Reviewed October 8, 2017

Grade: A

Black Orpheus is a 1959 French film made in Brazil, honored with a win in the coveted Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award category in 1960, considered somewhat of a surprise.

The film is adapted from the well-known Greek legend of Orpheus and Eurydice. It is now set in Rio de Janeiro during the festive celebration of Carnaval.

Black Orpheus, starring almost all black actors and providing a look at life on the streets of Brazil, is vibrant and filled with lively songs and dances.

The setting is key to the film as the beauty and merriment are mixed with loss and tragedy.

Loads of exterior shots of Rio de Janeiro flesh out the film with many shots high atop a hill in a quaint village where all of the characters live, most in very close proximity to each other.

Like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, the film is romantic and lovely, but the story is also mired in jealousy and drama amid the dancing and many celebrations.

Many of the actors, lead Breno Mello and Marpessa Dawn, are non-actors, cast undoubtedly because of their gorgeous, authentic looks. Still, surprisingly, both are phenomenal in their roles and perfectly cast.

Wholesome Eurydice (Dawn) arrives in Rio de Janeiro by trolley driven by Orpheus (Mello), intent on visiting her cousin, Serafina. There is an instant attraction between the young man and the woman as he provides directions to her cousin’s village, which is also his.

Orpheus, however, is engaged to be married to his possessive and demanding fiancée, Mira. He is less enthused about the impending marriage and would rather fix his guitar than buy Mira an engagement ring.

As the Carnival festivities get underway, Orpheus and Eurydice give in to their mutual attraction and dance the night away while subsequently trying to avoid the wrath of Mira and a mysterious costumed man who has been stalking Eurydice since she escaped her village and fled to Rio.

Eurydice is terrified that the man may want to kill her, and his motivations are unknown. His character is particularly frightening as he is known as “Death” and dons a tight skeleton costume.

The tragic conclusion, culminating in an incredible chase scene in Orpheus’s trolley station, is fantastic. The morbid ending, based on the legendary Greek tale, is unsurprising.

However, the Romeo and Juliet comparisons are still heartbreaking and challenging to experience, most notably the final scene atop a cliff.

The scene is shocking and brutal as the lovelorn couple topples down a hill together at the hands of another central character.

However, as they are intertwined in each other’s arms, the scene is also gorgeous and a confirmation of true love and artistic beauty.

Some accusations of racial stereotypes within this film have abounded over the years, mainly the depiction of Brazil being inhabited by party-going, sex-crazed people.

I find the film a masterpiece and the type of cinematic experience to be enjoyed rather than over-analyzed.

The almost nonstop musical score created by Luiz Bonfa and Antonio Carlos Jobim is to die for and is an enormous part of what makes the film so engaging and entertaining.

Perfectly capturing the spirit of a jovial, cultural environment, Black Orpheus (1959) spins a riveting, heartbreaking tale of love amid a musical.

Tragedy, art, true love, romance, and death are all elements captured in this excellent film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Foreign Language Film (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win- Best Foreign Film-Foreign Language (won)

Mother!-2017

Mother! -2017

Director Darren Aronofsky

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem

Scott’s Review #687

Reviewed October 4, 2017

Grade: A

Mother! is an intense, disturbing, and brilliant 2017 work by acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky.

Having crafted left-of-center works such as 2000’s Requiem for a Dream, 2008’s The Wrestler, and 2010’s Black Swan, I shudder to think this film rivals the other in the insanity department.

With four principal characters portrayed by Hollywood mainstays, this film generated much buzz upon its release.

The film is thought-provoking and analytical, and we will discuss it after the conclusion. I appreciate the complex watches and Mother! succeeds in spades.

The film is set entirely within the confines of one enormous house in the middle of a vast field of land. Aronofsky never reveals the location, adding mystery to the already intriguing premise.

A young couple known only as Him (Javier Bardem) and Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) cheerfully enjoy married life together and seem very much in love. He is a renowned author suffering from writer’s block, and his mother fixed the house after it had burned long ago.

One day, a Man (Ed Harris) arrives looking for a place to stay. While Him is delighted by the visitor and encourages Man to stay, the mother is not as pleased.

When Man’s wife, Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives, the houseguests turn Him and mother’s lives upside down. This is merely the beginning of a complex puzzle.

As the plot unfolds, Mother! is oozing with one bizarre event after the other. Mother witnesses unsettling images such as a beating heart within the walls and a bloodstain on the floor that will not go away.

When relatives of a Man and a Woman overtake the house, and a violent event occurs, things go from dark to downright chaotic.

Giving too many plot points away would ruin the element of surprise, making Mother! a difficult film to review. The film is polarizing and mesmerizing, and each of the principal characters’ motivations can be analyzed and questioned.

Why do he and his mother react differently to the visitors? What manifests their resentment towards the mother?

Each actor gives a compelling turn, and Aronofsky admits that the mother’s character is the one he most relates to. Logically, one might assume that Bardem’s Him might receive that honor since the character is a famous writer. How strange, and this revelation by the director will only result in more character analysis.

How wonderful to see Michelle Pfeifer back in the forefront of a Hollywood film—it seems eons have passed since we last saw her grace the silver screen, and she is back with a vengeance.

Her bitchy portrayal is purely delicious, and she encompasses Woman with the perfect amount of venom, toughness, and mystery. As she icily quizzes mother about her intentions of starting a family, she slowly immerses herself in mother’s life without missing a beat.

The film is unconventional and layered with symbolism and differing interpretations. Is Aronofsky’s message biblical? Is it political? Or could it reference the obsessions everyday folk have with celebrities?

After much pondering, all three possibilities came to mind. The biblical message seems the most solid and plausible explanation, but with Aronofsky films, the pleasure is in the analysis.

The film’s final act is particularly macabre, as the action has exclusively focused on the four principal characters until this point, and the setting is mainly bright.

A slow burn, if you will, suddenly, all hell breaks loose as mobs, blood, fire, death, and darkness take over. The brutality and cannibalism involved will churn anyone’s stomach.

Quickly note the lurid closeups of Jennifer Lawrence’s face during most scenes. Indeed, the camera loves her, but more is happening here. Is the intention to make the viewer focus more on her character or to sympathize more with her character?

Mother! has stirred controversy among film-goers. Some have ravished its elements and themes, while others have reviled and revolted against it.

Time will tell if Mother! (2017) holds up well, but my hope and guess would be that it will become a film studied in film schools everywhere.

Toni Erdmann-2016

Toni Erdmann-2016

Director Maren Ade

Starring Peter Simonischek, Sandra Hüller

Scott’s Review #686

Reviewed October 1, 2017

Grade: A-

Reaped with a slew of award nominations in 2017, mainly in the Foreign Language film categories, Toni Erdmann is a unique film that I must champion, but for its imagination and humanistic perspective alone.

It can be watched in segments—almost a miniseries—at two hours and forty-two minutes. The film is set in Bucharest, Romania, so viewers are treated to several exterior scenes of the bustling city and fascinating European culture.

However, the film is German and Austrian-produced.

Winfried Conradi (Peter Simonischek) is a hippie-type man in his sixties. Divorced and working as a music teacher, his dog suddenly dies, resulting in his decision to reconnect with his corporate, power-hungry daughter, Ines (Sandra Hüller). She is forging her career in business consulting and is currently on assignment in Bucharest.

Winfried insinuates himself into Ines’s busy life as she wants little to do with him or the petty practical jokes he continues to play on her.

Gradually, involving a few hysterical antics and embarrassing situations, father and daughter reunite and forge the loving relationship they once shared.

Toni Erdmann is unusual because one will not know what to expect from it or what direction it will go as we get to know and love the characters. We know that Ines is a driven career woman, busy beyond belief, with no time for her father.

Yet, in all of the scenes that Ines and Winfried share, due to fantastic and believable acting by the two leads (Simonischek/Hüller), there is an underlying love and appreciation for each other that comes across.

This chemistry made me root for the father-daughter reunion and reconnection.

When Winfried dons his garish wig and horrid false teeth and names himself “Toni Erdmann,” a series of hilarious scenes ensue. Winfried is noticed at essential corporate functions and dinners, and he follows Ines, too. He also attends a ladies’ dinner with Ines and her friends and explains to the women that he is in Bucharest for a funeral that a friend is having for his pet turtle.

Simonischek fills his character with earnestness and dry wit, making these scenes hilarious.

My favorite scene that will indeed be talked about for years to come is the “naked party” scene.

Not only is the scene comical, but it is also fraught with meaning as it is a turning point for the character of Ines. Hosting a team-building party for her birthday, the party is set to begin, except Ines cannot get her dress on, and her shoes do not match.

Frustrated, with a guest already at the door, Ines strips naked and decides to turn the party into a naked team-building experience.

Some guests are disgusted and leave. Others reluctantly agree to strip nude. It is when Ines sheds her clothes and her stodgy, rigid persona and begins to appreciate and enjoy life again, thanks to her father.

Toni Erdmann is a unique and unpredictable film by a female director (Maren Ade) with an interesting and strong perspective on the female psyche. She carves a thoughtful tale about a damaged father and daughter with characters to root for and realism.

The film is a fun, laugh-out-loud romp that goes into dramatic territory, careful to remain playful and not be too overwrought.

I enjoyed it tremendously.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

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

My Cousin Rachel-2017

My Cousin Rachel-2017

Director Roger Michell

Starring Rachel Weisz, Sam Claflin

Scott’s Review #685

Reviewed September 25, 2017

Grade: B-

My Cousin Rachel (2017) has the advantage of providing wonderful, scenic locales in Florence, Italy, and lovely scenes filmed around England, which make the film a joy to watch from a cinematic perspective.

The acting, especially by seasoned veteran Rachel Weisz,  is also stellar and noteworthy.

The plot, however, is a major weakness: My Cousin Rachel suffers from weak dramatic storytelling, an anticlimactic conclusion, and missed opportunities.

The film is based on Daphne du Maurier’s 1951 novel of the same name. I have yet to read the book, but I am certain the film does it no justice.

The film’s overall tone has little mystique, and it lacks the haunting elements one might expect with titillating anticipation.

The story begins well enough as, through narration, we learn that a young man named Philip, having been orphaned as a child and raised by his older cousin, Ambrose, returns home from school to his childhood home in lavish Cornwall.

Through a letter, he learns that Ambrose has married his widowed cousin, Rachel, and has moved to Florence. He also cryptically writes that he is in fear for his life and suspects Rachel of poisoning him.

The main plot begins after Philip finally meets Rachel and, astonishingly, falls madly in love with her.The film is beautifully shot and features interesting camera angles. In a few hallucination scenes, the filmmaker uses a blurry, almost magical filmmaking style.

The aforementioned locales give My Cousin Rachel a sophisticated, graceful look.

On the negative side, the lighting is too bright, feeling more like an episode of the PBS series Downton Abbey than the mysterious, cryptic film My Cousin Rachel is promoted as.

The film’s best element is Rachel Weisz’s outstanding performance as the title character, Rachel. While not quite as mysterious, Weisz envelops her character in a passionate, earnest quality that makes her enchanting.

With a winning smile and a polite, dutiful manner, Rachel is tough to imagine as a murderess, which helps the lackluster plot just a bit. She happily makes a “special” tea or performs other household tasks with cheerful, uniform pizzazz.

Without Weisz in the role, I shudder to think how bleak the result might have been.

Early in the story, Philip’s wealthy family, the Kendalls, are surprised that Ambrose married, as he was never known to be in, or enjoy, the company of women.

It also must be noted that in flashbacks, Ambrose is portrayed as somewhat effeminate or, at most, less than manly.

This seems a blatant attempt to question the character’s sexuality, yet the film chooses never to pursue this topic again. I know how the novel handled this plot item, but it seems like a wasted opportunity.

Chemistry, or lack thereof, is also an issue with My Cousin Rachel. No connection between Weisz and Claflin exists throughout, nor is there any between either character and Philip’s intended love interest, Louise Kendall, played by Holliday Grainger.

The actress is acceptable in a role given little meat or substance.

Uneven at best, My Cousin Rachel is a beautiful-looking period piece, but it is mostly just mediocre filmmaking. The ending is quite sudden and definitively answers none of the main plot questions.

Released in 2017, the film will likely be forgotten by 2018.

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.