It-2017

It-2017

Director Andres Muschietti

Starring Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher

Scott’s Review #684

Reviewed September 20, 2017

Grade: A-

An enormous hype has gone into the first big-screen adaptation of the epic-length 1986 Stephen King novel, It.

An above-average mini-series based on the book was released in 1990, but the film version is much more effective.

Officially entitled It: Chapter One (2017), it divides the story in half, focusing only on the characters as children, not as adults decades later.

The film is highly effective, with a fantastic story, visuals, cinematography, and a rocking musical score. Simply put, it is one of the better Stephen King film adaptations.

As rabid Stephen King readers will understand, at over eleven hundred pages long and spanning thirty years, a two-hour and fifteen-minute film can’t capture the author’s artistic vision.

To be determined is how chapter two will measure up to the glory of the first chapter.

Derry, Maine, is the sleepy little town where the action takes place. The period is 1988, but the novel takes place in the late 1950s.

On a stormy afternoon, seven-year-old Georgie takes a paper boat, constructed by his older brother Bill Denbrough, outside to see if it sails. He meets a clown in the storm drain, who introduces himself as “Pennywise the Dancing Clown.”

Pennywise toys with Georgie, then turns vicious and tears off the boy’s arm.

Months later, life goes on as Bill and his group of friends, known as “The Losers Club,” each begins to see variations of Pennywise.

The film blends a teenage summer adventure with a terrifying horror film, and director Andres Muschietti achieves this mixture seamlessly.

Lighting is one example of how the film achieves this.

Most of the outdoor sequences are bright, sunny, and airy. Conversely, the terrifying scenes, usually involving the entity of Pennywise, are shot using dark lighting, eliciting fear and a perfect mood.

The casting is terrific—I specifically found actor Jaeden Lieberher as Stuttering Bill, Jeremy Ray Taylor as Ben Hanscom, and actress Sophia Lillis as Beverly Marsh to be wonderful performers and clear standouts among the teenage characters.

Lillis, bright-eyed and with a strong-willed composure, resembles a young Scarlett Johansson and could have a bright future ahead of her. Lieberher’s earnestness and stuttering feel believable, and his innocence reminds me of every kid.

Lastly, Taylor fills a pudgy new kid in town, Ben, with comedy and romanticism in his unrequited love for Bev.

Thriving is the portrayal and appearance of the demonic entity Pennywise. With the fictional clown having over thirty years of interpretation and imagination, bringing him to life on screen was challenging.

The risk would have been making him either too horrific or cartoon-like- the result is a perfect hybrid.

Bill Skarsgård exudes crazy in his brilliant performance, teetering between goofy and playful with Georgie and evil personified as he taunts and terrorizes the kids in his dusty hideaway.

Interestingly, none of the adult characters are written sympathetically. From the creepy Alvin Marsh to the nerdy pharmacist, even the stern librarian and the overbearing Mrs. Kaspbrak are each laden with an unlikable quality.

The closest adult to being “nice,” Bill’s father, finally screams at his son to accept the fact that Georgie is dead.

Two small complaints include the two secondary bullies—the King Bully Henry Bowers’ cohorts are not given their comeuppance and vanish from the screen, never to be mentioned again.

Secondly, the sound exterior shots of Derry, Maine, exude a New England freshness and a small-town mystique. It’s too bad the scenes weren’t filmed in Maine at all, but somewhere outside Toronto, Canada—more realism would have been nice.

Due to the massive success of the adapted film, legions of fans will undoubtedly hold their breath waiting for the resurrection of Pennywise and “It” to be unleashed on film fans everywhere- probably in 2019.

I will be one of those fans.

Chronic-2015

Chronic-2015

Director Michel Franco

Starring Tim Roth, Robin Bartlett

Scott’s Review #682

Reviewed September 18, 2017

Grade: A-

Chronic (2015) is a brave film, a character study, that offers an in-depth look at the life of a male nurse. He has rich relationships with his patients.

What the film also does quite soundly is reflect on not just the obvious physical needs of the patients, but the deep effects that the main character’s dying patients have on himself as well.

The film is quite bleak with a quiet element and very long scenes containing little dialogue but a treasure in bold storytelling and brazen reflection.

The film is a subdued work requiring attention and focus.

Yes, some would deem Chronic to be slow, and most would describe it as “a downer”, but dismissing the film is a mistake as it offers rich writing and an in-depth look at a vocation and lifestyle misunderstood or confusing to most people.

Tim Roth, famous for his bad boy roles, especially in Quentin Tarantino films, does an about-face, delivering a superb, subdued performance as David Wilson, a lonely and depressed nurse in the Los Angeles area.

He is a quiet, kindly man whose internal pain registers on his face as he dutifully treats his mostly close-to-death patients, sometimes attending their funerals after they have expired.

Initially, we meet David as he treats a sickly young woman. Once beautiful, she is now haggard and I cringed when the woman’s nude, skeleton-like body, is on display as David washes her with a washcloth.

The filmmakers do not gloss over his tender attention to her private areas, shot gracefully and not done garishly. Still, the long scene is frightening in its realism.

When the woman succumbs to AIDS, David reluctantly becomes involved in a celebratory drink with a newly engaged young couple after he goes to a bar to unwind.

When he pretends the deceased woman is his wife, he receives sympathy, but the couple quickly becomes aloof when he reveals what she died of.

Does he do this purposely to push the couple away? Throughout the film, we realize that David thrives on being with his patients, and can do no other work.

In contrast, he has difficulty with relations with “normal” people.

Perplexities abound in this film, which makes the viewer think and ponder throughout, and after the story ends.

For example, David searches through a young girl’s Facebook account looking at her photos- he later finds the girl, revealed to be studying medicine, and they happily reunite.

Is she his daughter or the daughter of a deceased patient?

Later, David is sued by an affluent family and subsequently fired, after he watches porn with an elderly man to lift his spirits. There is a glimmer of uncertainty where we are not sure what David’s sexual orientation is.

In the most heartbreaking sequence of all, David begins caring for a middle-aged woman with progressive cancer. Martha (Robin Bartlett) is strong-willed and no-nonsense and makes the painful decision not to continue with chemotherapy after suffering chronic nausea and later soiling herself.

It is apparent that her family only visits her out of obligation as she lies to them that her cancer is gone and she is in the clear. She then pleads with David to end her life with dignity using a heavy dose of morphine- the sequence is heartbreaking.

The final scene will blow one away and I did not see this conclusion coming. The event left me questioning the entire film, wondering how all the pieces fit together.

Surely, being overlooked for an Oscar nomination, Tim Roth proves he is a layered, complex, full-fledged actor, in a painful, yet necessary story called Chronic (2015).

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Tim Roth

Clown-2016

Clown-2016

Director Jon Watts

Starring Andy Powers, Laura Allen

Scott’s Review #681

Reviewed September 16, 2017

Grade: B-

As a fan of all things horror and with a robust appreciation for the genre, clowns in said genre are always a stroke of genius, and the 2016 film Clown establishes a creepy premise right off the bat.

After seeing the film, it was not until a few days later that the story began to marinate in my mind, and I gained a bit more appreciation than I had once the film had ended.

Clown is one hour and forty minutes long, but it reminds me of the mid-2000s Showtime horror anthology series Masters of Horror.

The film has a unique, creepy vibe, is also a highlight of the cherished series of yesteryear, and oddly plays out like a vignette.

The premise is creepy as the action kicks off.

When Kent McCoy (Andy Powers), a likable young father who works far too much maintaining his real estate business, is notified by his wife, Meg (Laura Allen), that the clown they hired to entertain at their son Jack’s birthday party has canceled, he is determined to save the day.

Kent discovers an old clown suit in the attic of one of his abandoned houses and dons the costume. The next day, Kent and Meg are startled when Kent cannot remove the costume, even when pliers, a hacksaw, and other horrid machinery are used on him.

The story then introduces a strange character named Herbert Karlsson (Peter Stormare), who informs Kent that the clown costume is not a costume but the hair and skin of an ancient demon from Northern Europe.

Kent realizes that the demon needs to feast on and devour children to survive, and he becomes ravenous and hungry. Karlsson attempts to kill Kent, revealing that the only way to destroy the beast is via beheading.

The clever and compelling part of the story is the mixture of clowns and children in peril, a recipe for success in most horror films.

The fact that Kent and Meg slowly begin the temptation to harm children is both shocking and compelling.

The McCoys are average, everyday folks, Meg even working as a nurse, so the likelihood of the pair harming kids on any other day is remote, but tested by a vicious demon and their son Jack in peril makes Clown work well.

My favorite sequence occurs during a birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese. While the kids play in a lavish and dark tunnel, the demon (Kent) is on the loose, causing havoc and eating two children.

When Meg drives an unwitting young girl home, she is conflicted and tempted to offer the girl to the demon as a sacrifice to hopefully save Kent.

The girl’s pleading is palpable.

The film is gruesome from a violent perspective and hesitates not to go where many horror films dare not to go, with the death and slaughter of young children.

One kid, in particular, is shown disemboweled. The kid is written as a bully and gets his comeuppance in grisly form.

Sad is the death of a lonely trailer park-type kid, only looking for a friend in Kent. Little does he know his short days are numbered.

As strong and measured as the story idea is, Clown does have some negatives. The film has an amateurish quality, not because it is independent. Instead, the style almost comes across as a student film.

Some of the acting is not great, specifically Laura Allen’s performance as Meg. The filmmakers might have been wiser to make this project more of an episodic venture instead of a full-length release.

Clowns, kids, and demons make a fun combination for horror, and the aptly named Clown is a solid B-movie effort in the glorious chambers of the cinematic horror genre.

With a few tweaks and zip-ups, Clown (2016) might have been an even more memorable film. It will not go down in history as a masterpiece, but it has the necessary elements for a good watch.

Bride of Chucky-1998

Bride of Chucky-1998

Director Ronny Yu

Starring Jennifer Tilly, Brad Dourif

Scott’s Review #680

Reviewed September 11, 2017

Grade: D+

Bride of Chucky (1998) is the fourth installment in the famed late 1980s Child’s Play franchise. The late 1980s were not the best time for the horror genre in general, but the film was quite the highlight in a slew of duds.

By this time in the series (1998), the child/victim of the doll premise is dropped in favor of dark humor; the series immerses itself more into the horror-comedy arena.

A treat is the inclusion of a fantastic hard rock soundtrack led by Rob Zombie’s classic “Living Dead Girl,” which adds some points to the film’s final grade; it would have been more dismal without it.

The film is not great, and I find perverse pleasure in reviewing poor films. However, Bride of Chucky does have its place- as a late Saturday night viewing choice amid strong cocktails, it contains a certain charm.

Not to be taken seriously, the placement of a love interest for Chucky gives the film macabre romantic humor.

Still, the film suffers from lackluster acting and quickly turns into drivel by the time the credits finally roll.

The action picks up from where Child’s Play 3 leaves off, and the appearance of Chucky is now weathered and stitched, giving the doll a more gruesome and maniacal look- this works given the elimination of a child lead character.

Left for evidence in a police compound, Chucky is stolen by Tiffany Valentine, played by Jennifer Tilly.

The girlfriend of a deceased serial killer, Tiffany, is convinced that the spirit of her boyfriend exists within Chucky, and she is determined to bring him back to life using a voodoo ritual.

When the act finally works, Chucky and Tiffany reunite, but shortly afterward, Tiffany is also turned into a doll, and the duo sets out on a killing spree.

The best aspect of the film is the camaraderie between Tilly and actor Brad Dourif, who voices Chucky. The duo has a light, comic banter that is fun to watch, as well as fantastic chemistry.

Granted, the actors only voice the dolls for a small part of the film, but their back-and-forth works well.

This is what makes Bride of Chucky tongue-in-cheek- let’s face it, with talking dolls as your main characters, director Ronny Yu wisely avoids making the killings too grisly or heavy-handed, but rather, frequently uses quips and one-liners throughout the film.

As Chucky and Tiffany slice and dice their way to Hackensack, New Jersey, their motivations are to embody a neighborhood boy, Jesse, and his girlfriend Jade, played by a young Katherine Heigl.

Along the trek, the foursome faces ludicrous obstacles, including a brief introduction of a con artist couple who meet their doom when flying shards of glass cut them after stealing Jesse’s money.

The side story of Jade’s overprotective police-chief uncle, played by a miscast John Ritter, does not work at all. His schemes to plant marijuana in Jesse’s van are little more than plot-driven machinations to advance the thin plot.

The characters of Jesse and Jade are trivial and secondary, and Heigl’s acting is particularly garish, to say nothing of the lack of any chemistry between Heigl and actor Nick Stabile.

Heigl seems to wear a pout throughout the entire film. But, not to worry, these characters are as meaningless as all the others.

The gimmick ending, surely meant to “spawn” yet another sequel, is as interesting as it is grotesque, and a small highlight in a poor film.

Bride of Chucky (1998) provides a nice lineage in the franchise’s history, a killer musical score, and decent chemistry among the leads, but it also suffers a similar fate to many horror films, especially sequels: poor acting, a silly tone, and no character development.

Latter Days-2003

Latter Days-2003

Director C. Jay Cox

Starring Steve Sandvoss, Wes Ramsey

Scott’s Review #679

Reviewed September 7, 2017

Grade: B

In the now-saturated genre of LGBT film, a novel little more than a decade old, Latter Days, released in 2003, tells a story with an interesting religious spin and is, to my knowledge, the first LGBT film to depict a clash of religious values, which deserves kudos.

The film was popular among film festivalgoers, yet critically, it received only mixed reviews

There are both positives and negatives to this film.

When rigid Mormon innocence meets plastic Los Angeles Playboy, anything is bound to happen as a surprisingly sweet romance develops between them.

While the overall feeling of the film is rather “cute”- not exactly a rallying cry of cinematic excellence- Latter Days suffers mostly from some sophomoric acting and an odd combination of a soft-core porn film and a wholesome Hallmark channel television movie quality.

This, in turn, allows the film to achieve only a slightly above-average final score.

Young Mormon missionary, Aaron Davis, just out of Idaho, is sent to Los Angeles with three fellow missionaries to spread the word of faith.

Soon, he meets an openly gay waiter, Christian, promiscuous, brazen, and proud of it.

After a silly bet with friends predicting how long it will take Christian to “deflower” Aaron, the young men become enamored with each other as Aaron’s secret desires for men are exposed.

This leads to a test of faith for Aaron, especially with his religious and rigid parents, waiting with fangs drawn as he is banished back to small-town Mormon territory.

The romance and chemistry between the lead actors are the best part of Latter Days. Though Aaron and Christian could not be more opposite, there is warm chemistry that actors Sandvoss and Ramsey successfully bring to the screen.

Sandvoss’s “aww shucks” handsome, innocent looks complement Ramsey’s extroverted, pretty-boy confidence, and the film succeeds during scenes containing only the two actors.

Much is gained from a throwaway laundry scene as the young men chat and get to know one another’s backgrounds, as well as during the brilliant soft-porn scene as the nude men thrash around a hotel bed making love.

Though admittedly, neither actor is the best in the acting department.

The nudity in the film is handled well- explicit, yes, but never filmed for a cheap or trashy effect. While the nudity is sometimes sexual, the men also lounge around nude in bed while chatting about life and their various ideals.

Also positive is the casting of Jacqueline Bisset as the motherly Lila.

Suffering from her drama (an unseen, gravely ill romantic partner, and admittedly an unnecessary add-on to the story), she is the sensible, liberal-minded owner of Lila’s restaurant, where Christian and his friends work and socialize.

The film creates a “family unit” in this rather nice way. Bisset and her British sophistication add much to the film.

In contrast to Bisset’s character, the fine casting of Mary Kay Place as Gladys, Aaron’s rigid mother, stands out.

Hoping to “pray the gay away”, she and her husband banish Aaron to a garish rehabilitation facility to turn him straight after a suicide attempt.

The character does show unconditional love for her son, but refuses to accept his sexual preferences.

There is no question that director C. Jay Cox slants the film in a clear direction, portraying the Mormon characters as stodgy and bland.

Latter Days slips when the focus is on the other supporting characters.

I tend to champion large casts and neat, small roles, but Christian’s friends are largely self-centered, bantering about either their sexual escapades or their career aspirations as they wait tables, hoping to get a big break.

Worse yet, a silly side story is introduced focusing on a misunderstanding between Christian and his best friend Julie.

I could have done well without many of these secondary characters.

In the final act, the film goes the safe route with a brief red herring about a character’s death, only to quickly wrap up with a nice, happy ending featuring a Thanksgiving dinner at Lila’s restaurant.

Latter Days (2003) contains a good romantic story between two men that does fine without the added trimmings that occasionally bring the film down.

All in all, a decent effort.

XX-2017

XX-2017

Director Jovanka Vuckovic, Annie Clark, Roxanne Benjamin, Karyn Kusama, Sofia Carrillo

Starring Natalie Brown, Melanie Lynskey

Scott’s Review #677

Reviewed September 1, 2017

Grade: B

XX is a 2017 American anthology film featuring four unique horror vignettes directed by female directors—a brazen feat in itself as this gender is too often underrepresented in the genre.

The chapters do not always make complete sense, but they achieve a creative, unpredictable edge and the feeling of watching something of substance.

Another anomaly is that each features a female lead, giving the film a measure of female empowerment.

Immediately, we are treated to an odd tale named The Box, based on a short story written by an author notable for composing tales of the gruesome Jack Ketchum.

In this story, a young boy named Danny, cheerfully riding a train with his mother and sister during the holidays, innocently asks an odd-looking man to peek inside a shiny, red, gift-wrapped box.

When the man agrees, Danny initially goes about his day but stops eating, much to his parent’s horror. This installment is my favorite of the four as it is the only holiday-themed chapter and contains a morbid quality amid the cheeriness of the season.

The perspective soon switches from Danny to his mother, Susan, and the conclusion is surprising.

Next up, The Birthday Party features middle-aged Mary, intent on holding a birthday party for her young daughter, Lucy. When Mary finds her husband dead, she dresses him up in a panda costume and attempts to conceal him from the group of anxious young party-goers.

The conclusion is a mix of the hilarious and the disturbing. This vignette features a nanny and a neighbor, both odd and mysterious characters. I admire the black comedy in this one most of all.

Third in the series is Don’t Fall, which transports the viewer to the middle of the desert. Four friends are on an expedition seeking adventure. The main character, Gretchen, is deathly afraid of heights.

When the group discovers a cave with ancient, evil writings on it, one group becomes possessed and embarks on a killing spree against the others.

Very short in length, Don’t Fall suffers from absurdity and has the least character development of the four—it is also the one I found to be the weakest.

Finally, Her Only Living Son is the strangest in the quartet. Cora, a working-class single mom, has only one son, Andy. About to turn eighteen, he is rebellious and known to be cruel to classmates—even gleefully tearing off one poor girl’s fingernails.

Ironically, the high school faculty seems to worship Andy, deeming him remarkable and seeming somewhat entranced by him. As Cora becomes influenced by her mailman, Chet, it is revealed that Andy’s father is a Hollywood star and wants nothing to do with Cora or Andy.

When Andy develops claws on his fingernails and toenails, Cora fears that he is not her ex-husband’s son at all but the spawn of Satan. This tale is a miniature of the classic 1968 horror film Rosemary’s Baby, haunting and devious in tone.

Enticingly, each chapter runs the gamut in theme and is unique and different enough from the others to be distinguishable and not suffer from a blended or all-too-similar feel.

Indeed, each situation is implausible in “real life,” and some head-scratching plot points abound. For instance, how is it possible for an emaciated child, under a doctor’s care, not to be force-fed?

Also, a teenager growing claws and hooves? Really? But horror, and sometimes supernatural, or even silly, elements can be fun.

XX, new for 2017, is reminiscent of the successful horror anthology that the Showtime cable network was daring enough to air from 2005-2007- this series ran the gamut in stylized and edgy horror escapades, using various directors to achieve this result.

Here’s to hoping that XX opens new doors and prompts a new horror series. XX has a few flaws but is successful in undoubtedly pleasing the legions of horror fans.

Other People-2016

Other People-2016

Director Chris Kelly

Starring Jesse Plemons, Molly Shannon

Scott’s Review #676

Reviewed August 24, 2017

Grade: B+

2016’s recipient of numerous Independent Film award nominations is equal parts a touching drama and equal parts witty comedy, providing a film experience that crosses more than one genre.

Is it a heavy drama, or is it a comedic achievement?

Without being sappy or overindulgent, Other People is a film that will elicit laughs and tears from viewers fortunate enough to see it. The subject is a tough one- a woman dying of cancer.

The title, in which one character states he always thought cancer was something that happened to “other people,” is poignant.

Jesse Plemons and Molly Shannon play son and mother. The film is both written and directed by Chris Kelly.

The very first scene is a confusing one and caught me off guard. We see the entire Mulcahey clan- father Norman (Bradley Whitford), three kids, David (Plemons), Alex, and Rebeccah, along with their dead mother Joanne (Shannon), all lying in the same bed, sobbing and clutching hands.

Joanne has just succumbed to her battle with cancer. This powerful opening scene, also the final scene, sets the tone as Kelly works his way back, beginning a year before the critical “death scene.”

Cancer is a challenging subject to cover in film, especially going the comedy/drama route.

The sensitive filmmaker must be careful not to trivialize the subject matter with too many comedic elements or heavy drama. Kelly successfully mixes humor and drama well, making it a cross-genre film.

He achieves this with capable talents like Plemons and Shannon. They share tremendous chemistry in every scene they appear in together.

Scenes that show David and Joanne crying in each other’s arms work well, as do others, such as when David takes a giddy Joanne to meet his comedy friends.

Most impressive is that the story in Other People is mainly autobiographical. Kelly, a gay man like the character of David, moved from New York City to Sacramento, California, to tend to his ailing mother, who had also died from cancer.

Actress Shannon reminded him so much of her that he had the fortune of casting the talented lady in his film- the part slated initially to go to Sissy Spacek instead.

Along with Joanne’s battle with cancer, a lovely story about David is included. A gay man, David has broken up with his boyfriend Paul, who previously lived together on the East Coast (though he still pretends to spare Joanne worry), and is returning to the West Coast.

Over the next year, we see Joanne and Norman slowly come to terms with David’s sexuality. The turbulent father/son relationship is explored during the film as Norman, initially hesitant to meet David’s boyfriend, Paul, pays for his airline ticket to attend Joanne’s funeral.

A slight miss with the film is the Norman/David dynamic.

Other than a few hints of Norman encouraging David’s struggling writing career and his obsession with David joining the gym and boxing, it is not clear what issue he takes with his son being gay or why he is uncomfortable with it. Besides the family being rather conservative, no other reason is given.

David’s sisters and grandparents do not seem to take issue with David’s sexuality, though it is not made sure if the grandparents are even aware of it. Is it a machismo thing with Norman?

This part of the story is unclear.

Still, Other People (2016) is a good, small indie film. It is rich with crisp, sharp writing and a tragic “year in the life of a cancer patient. ” The film also features good family drama and the relationships that abound when a family comes together and unites because of a health threat.

The film is nothing that has not been done before, but thanks to good direction, a thoughtful, nuanced approach, and one character’s sexuality mixed in, the film feels relatively fresh.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Male Lead-Jesse Plemons, Best Supporting Female-Molly Shannon (won), Best First Screenplay, Best First Feature

Beautiful Thing-1996

Beautiful Thing-1996

Director Hettie MacDonald

Starring Glen Berry, Scott Neal

Scott’s Review #675

Reviewed August 20, 2017

Grade: B

Based on the play of the same name, Beautiful Thing is a heartwarming 1996 British LGBT film written by Jonathan Harvey and directed by Hettie MacDonald.

Incorporating music from the Mamas and the Papas, and specifically Mama Cass, the film undoubtedly was groundbreaking upon release in the 1990s due to its taboo (at that time) gay romance. Still, in 2017, this film suffers a bit from both a dated feel and a play-it-safe vibe.

The action, as in a play, takes place almost entirely within a working-class London apartment building in the present.

The lead character is Jamie (Glen Berry), a high school student, intrigued by his male classmate and neighbor, Ste (Scott Neal).

He also must keep an eye on his flighty mother, Sandra, who changes boyfriends like the weather, and aspires to open her pub- she is currently dating neighbor and understanding hippie, Tony.

Ste is the other central character. Shyer than Jamie, he has a difficult upbringing, living next door to Jamie with an abusive father and brother.

Ste and Jamie eventually bond, and a secret love story begins as the young men conceal their relationship from everyone else.

In the mix is a vivacious black teenage neighbor girl, Leah, who is obsessed with Mama Cass’s records, which her grandmother owns and frequently plays. Leah and Sandra are engaged in a light feud, largely because Sandra believes Leah is a bad influence on Jamie.

Given that Beautiful Thing (1996) was made, the film deserves enormous praise for simply existing at a time when LGBT films were hardly the norm.

Watching in 2017, though, the film loses a bit compared with subsequent LGBT releases that broke more barriers in mainstream viewership and explored much darker themes (LGBT masterpieces like 2006’s Brokeback Mountain and 2016’s Moonlight immediately come to mind).

Beautiful Thing also has a safer, lighter touch than the aforementioned films, making it seem too much like fluff now.

Director MacDonald mixes in humor so that, while the message of a same-sex relationship is important, it is softened a bit by the comedy.

Specifically, the sidekick, Leah, lightens the message.

The supporting characters may get a bit too much screen time. Sandra’s giggle-worthy job interview, her attempts to do “respectable work” in an office environment, or her man-hungry escapades take away from the main story.

I also never felt any real threats or danger to the same-sex relationship. Sure, there is some brief disapproval, and a quick mention of Jamie not liking football (a negative gay stereotype that is unnecessary), combined with Ste’s abuse at the hands of his family, but even that is not perceived as a major obstacle to their, at that time anyway, shocking relationship.

On the other hand, the chemistry between the two leads (Berry and Neal) is wonderful and the best aspect of the film.

Both actors convey the emotions of the characters perfectly- both coming into their sexuality, Berry’s Jamie is the more confident one, asking Neal’s Ste, in a sweet scene, whether he has ever been kissed.

This leads to a sleepover that is innocent and tender rather than steamy or sexual. I completely buy the characters as young lovers, coming to terms with their own identities while supporting each other’s needs and becoming a good team.

The final scene, naturally accompanied by a Cass Elliot song “Dream A Little Dream Of Me”, is a touching, wonderful scene. Jamie and Ste dance together in broad daylight, for their entire complex to see, and subsequently are circled by both supporters and the curious.

As a show of support, Sandra and Leah join the boys and end their dispute.

Beautiful Thing (1996) offers a heartwarming conclusion to a fine, yet lightweight by modern standards, LGBT romantic film.

I Am Not Your Negro-2016

I Am Not Your Negro-2016

Director Raoul Peck

Starring Samuel L. Jackson

Scott’s Review #674

Reviewed August 19, 2017

Grade: B

I Am Not Your Negro, a 2016 documentary created by director Raoul Peck, chronicles an unfinished manuscript written by social critic James Baldwin, entitled Remember This House.

The memoir is a series of recollections by Baldwin, who died in 1987, of his experiences with famous civil rights leaders Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Medgar Evers.

Released in a year that saw similarly racially themed documentaries emerge, such as 13th and O.J.: Made in America, all were recognized with award nominations in several year-end ceremonies.

If comparisons are drawn, 13th, the most similar in theme to I Am Not Your Negro, is the superior piece. While interesting, the latter did not quite grip me as much as the former.

Still, I Am Not Your Negro is worth a watch if nothing else than to understand and be exposed to the continuing battle for racial equality in the United States.

The documentary revolves around the discussion and backstory of all the leaders mentioned. Old footage of each man is used for location shots and speeches.

A high point is Baldwin’s interview and his insight into his racial experiences, both positive and negative. Each leader, King, X, and Evers, receives roughly the same amount of screen time, and the best part is Baldwin’s dealings with each man.

I immensely enjoyed the multitude of scenes featuring racial history in cinema, and the harsh reality is that blacks have not been given their due until relatively recently in how their characters are portrayed.

As recent as the 1950s and 1960s, and arguably later than that, blacks were demeaned or treated as nothing more than secondary characters. Worse yet, some were portrayed for laughs or as caricatures.

A startling admission comes from Baldwin himself. An enormous John Wayne fan as a child, reveling in the joy of his films, it was a harsh reality to understand that the Indians in Wayne films, seen as the “bad guys,” were Black Americans, therefore himself.

Baldwin’s films were viewed through the innocent eyes of a child, but real life was harsher.

Samuel L. Jackson’s narration is unnecessary. Being a well-known name, the actor is distracted from the message. Jackson seems to read Baldwin’s words as if he were acting, and Baldwin and Jackson are two very different types of men, so the result is disjointed.

The most important takeaway that I Am Not Your Negro left me with is a crucial one. A better understanding of the historical plight of Black Americans and how far the United States has come in better racial equality.

Even more important, however, is the realization that we still have so much work ahead of us as a nation to ensure even better race relations, and this is a sobering message.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary Feature

Tanna-2016

Tanna-2016

Director Bentley Dean, Martin Butler

Starring Mungau Dain, Marie Wawa

Scott’s Review #673

Reviewed August 18, 2017

Grade: A

Tanna, named for the tiny South Pacific nation of Vanuatu, close to Australia, was made in 2016 and nominated for the Best Foreign Language Academy Award.

It is a marvelous work in every way, but the crowning achievement is how this film was made.

Shot entirely on the island with a minimal budget and the use of nonactors, the result is a romantic yet tragic love story that will move its viewer to tears in its innocence and beauty.

Tanna is shot in the  Nauvhal and Nafe languages.

Film-makers reportedly spent seven months in the village of Yakel, immersing themselves in the tribe’s culture and civilization. The people are the last of their kind, rebuffing nearby colonial and Christian influences in favor of their traditional values and beliefs.

The film is based on a true story of love by two tribe members and played out by the villagers, each portraying a role close to their lives and hearts.

As the movie opens, we are immediately exposed to a tribal community living their daily lives. They wash, hunt, and wander through the jungles, exploring their natural surroundings.

The men wear simple penis sheaths, and the women are primarily topless. We sense a great community and a sense of togetherness.

When Dain and Wawa  (I am unsure if these are the “actors” names or the real-life people) lay eyes on one another from across the jungle, they instantly fall in love and secretly begin to spend time in a tender and romantic courtship.

A traditional rule is arranged marriage, which becomes a significant problem for Dain and Wawa as their love blossoms. When a neighboring tribe attacks the Shaman over a dispute regarding bad crops, Dain wants revenge.

When cooler heads prevail, the leaders of each tribe decide that Wawa will marry a member of the other tribe, leaving her and Dain distraught and desperate.

Their love is then tested ultimately.

The actors who play Dain and Wawa are authentic and truthful. Although they have never acted before or seen a camera, both pour their souls into the characters they portray.

This also applies to Wawa’s little sister, a goldmine in her honest portrayal. All the performances are rich.

Visually, Tanna is breathtaking. One thing is the exotic lushness of the green jungles, mixed with the gorgeous running streams and waterfalls. Still, the oozing volcano inhabiting the island is colorful and picturesque during the night scenes.

The entire film is shot outdoors and captures the tribal world incredibly well. Thus, the film immerses the audience wholly in the tribal world.

Comparisons to the William Shakespeare play Romeo and Juliet must be made.

The film is a romantic tragedy of epic proportions, and the doomed couple shares everlasting love and a bond that can never be broken.

The truth in this tale is genuine as the couple must agonize over a decision to either remain together or risk the threat of Dain’s life and Wawa’s freedom if they return to their native village.

The film is almost poetic, never more so than in the final act, set upon the glorious spitting volcano.

Sadly, films similar in richness and honesty are rarely made today, but Tanna (2016) stands out as a treasure in beauty and thought.

Interestingly, because of the real-life couple’s determination and strength, the age-old tradition of chosen marriages has since been lifted, and true love encouraged.

Oscar Nominations: Best Foreign Language Film

Annabelle: Creation-2017

Annabelle: Creation-2017

Director David F. Sandberg

Starring Anthony LaPaglia, Stephanie Sigman, Talitha Bateman

Scott’s Review #672

Reviewed August 17, 2017

Grade: B+

Annabelle: Creation (2017) is a prequel to the successful 2014 horror film entitled Annabelle and the fourth installment in a total of the popular The Conjuring series (2013-present).

Over just a few years, these films have become well-crafted, intertwined stories in the modern supernatural horror genre.

Compared to another latter-day horror franchise, Saw, Annabelle/The Conjuring elicits more of the classic spook factor rather than the gore associated with the Saw franchise (2004-present).

The time is 1943, set somewhere in the desert and mountainous region of California. Dollmaker Samuel Mullins (Anthony LaPaglia) and his wife Esther (Miranda Otto) live a cheerful existence with their young daughter, Annabelle, whom they nickname Bee.

The family attends church services regularly and plays cute games of hiding and seeking in their vast farmhouse and land. When one sunny day, Bee is struck and killed by a passing car, the couple is devastated beyond repair.

Twelve years later, a group of orphans led by Sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman) are invited by Mr. Mullins (Mrs. Mullins is now bedridden due to a mysterious accident) to spend some time at the farmhouse when their orphanage shuts down.

The six orphans, led by best friends Janice (Talitha Bateman), and Linda (Lulu Wilson) embark on the quiet farmhouse and immediately are met by strange goings-on, most notably a life-sized doll living inside a forbidden room, which Janice inevitably stumbles upon out of curiosity.

Stricken with polio, Janice has been left a disabled person, unable to move around very well.

As Janice discovers the creepy doll, or shall we say, Janice awakens the doll from a strange closet covered with bible verses, the doll terrorizes the girls. It wreaks havoc on Janice and Linda in particular.

An evil entity inhabits the doll, and the peculiar circumstances following Annabelle’s death years earlier rise to the surface as secrets are revealed and demons seek refuge in the farmhouse.

Annabelle: Creation is exceptionally well made and inundated with scary elements of surprise. The farmhouse, in particular, is a fantastic setting for a horror film—the remote locale, the eerie quiet, and the dark, unfamiliar layout of the house all come to fruition throughout the film.

Specifically, a scarecrow, a stairwell chair-lift, and the years between 1943 and 1955 are of special importance.

Besides the common horror elements that the film uses to its advantage, it is just downright scary and tense. On plenty of occasions, the cameras are positioned so that a figure or object could easily be lurking behind a particular character but out of sight from the audience.

Sometimes, nothing appears, and the scene goes on, but other times, a scare occurs that makes us jump out of our seats—this is good, classic horror at its finest. One knows not what is, or could be, coming next.

I did not find Annabelle: Creation predictable in the slightest, which makes the film succeed.

As if I was not entertained enough throughout the film, the final set of scenes, now some twelve years after 1955, brings us to the very beginning of 2014’s Annabelle. We witness the very first scenes of that picture, now making perfect sense and weaving the two films together in a compelling fashion.

Apt viewers will remember that Annabelle begins with a horrific, brilliantly crafted, and shot home invasion scene. Now, the storyline will make more sense, and viewers will experience an “oh wow” moment.

I was left with a couple of slight gripes about Annabelle: Creation.

The character’s appearances are quite modern-day—not the clothes per se, but the hairstyles, mannerisms, and figures of speech—and I never, for a second, believed the time was the mid-1950s.

To build on this point, and at the risk of an honest historical inaccuracy critique, a black orphan would never have resided with white orphans, let alone be one of the “popular girls,” nor would the orphans ever have been led by a sexy, Indian nun wearing heavy mascara.

I get that the filmmakers deemed inclusiveness a higher priority over historical accuracy. Still, these details are noticed and readily apparent as not having existed if the film were “real life.”

Furthermore, the point was repeatedly hammered home that the film was a massive supporter of Christianity and went out of its way to promote the goodness of religion over evil.

Annabelle: Creation (2017) reaffirms my belief that good, old-fashioned horror films can still be successfully made in the modern era, using elements firmly etched in the genre but used in a contemporary, scary, and sinister way.

Here’s hoping the creators come up with another good idea and create another segment in this thrilling dual franchise.

Fire At Sea-2016

Fire at Sea-2016

Director Gianfranco Rosi

Scott’s Review #671

Reviewed August 12, 2017

Grade: B+

Fire at Sea was honored with a coveted 2017 Best Documentary Feature Oscar Award nomination, but despite this high achievement, it received largely negative reviews from its viewers.

This is not as surprising as it might seem.

The documentary was also the Italian entry for the Best Foreign Language Film category but was not chosen. It is a hybrid between a “typical” film and a documentary, making it all the more unique.

The lackluster comments are undoubtedly due to the documentary’s slow pace and the way it intersperses snippets of the story, which do not weave together with the main message.

Compounded by the length (one hour and fifty-four minutes is very long for a documentary), the work will not go down in history as a rousing crowd-pleaser.

But it is an important film.

The story tells of a group of modest individuals inhabiting a tiny Sicilian fishing island named Lampedusa between Sicily and Libya. The island is prominent for being a rescue area for migrants forging a treacherous journey from African countries (mainly Libya and Sudan) to the island for safety and medical treatment.

It is implied that the migrants do not stay on the island for very long. Lampedusa serves as a temporary sanctuary. It is not explained where the migrants go or what happens to them after medical treatment.

After a slightly tedious start, I immersed myself in the various stories and began to appreciate the slow pace.

I found this calming.

We see snippets of daily events: a young boy and his friend carve a face out of cactus plants. Later, the boy undergoes an eye exam and is told he needs glasses. We then see a lengthy scene of his family eating pasta.

We also get to know a resident doctor, grandmother, disc jockey, and scuba diver.

Admittedly, I began to wonder what a young boy preparing a slingshot or a grandmother preparing sauce had to do with the documentary’s main subject, migrants coming to the island.

Then I realized that director Gianfranco Rosi was telling a human story. The ordinary Lampedusa citizens’ lives contrast with the fleeing and terrified migrants.

I was able to put all the pieces together.

Fire at Sea is unusual, as it is told without narration and with dialogue in Italian containing sub-titles. These are additional unique aspects of the project, but I admired its essential message.

The most powerful scene in the film is a quiet one with a resident doctor describing his experiences with the migrants.

He professes how any decent person should help any needy soul and describes the grisly task of performing autopsies on the people (many women and children) who do not survive the harried journey across the Mediterranean Sea. Many die of hunger and thirst or are burned by the diesel fuels from the tiny boats they are stuffed into.

His long yet powerful account will move one to tears.

This testimonial speaks volumes regarding the influx of needy individuals, mainly from Syria, who need help from neighboring countries.

Some have been kind and have let individuals into their countries, while others have shunned the migrants (namely in 2017, the United States).

The honest account from the doctor summarizes the message of humanity that Fire at Sea represents.

Another powerful scene emerges towards the end of the documentary, as several African men are rushed from their ship to another ship and tended to by rescuers.

Sadly, the barely alive yet conscious men are not long for this world as a few minutes later, we see a series of body bags lined up containing the expired men. This tragic realization speaks volumes about the need for such humanistic individuals in Lampedusa.

Fire at Sea (2016) is worth watching. It is a story about the fiery waters the residents could see from afar during World War II. It teaches kindness and decency and reminds us that some people are just good, generous souls, all but willing to help those in need.

We can all learn from this documentary.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Punish Me-2005

Punish Me-2005

Director Angelina Maccarone

Starring Maron Kroymann, Kostja Ullman

Scott’s Review #670

Reviewed August 9, 2017

Grade: A-

Punish Me (sometimes titled Hounded) is a provocative 2005 German-language film that pushes boundaries and titillates the viewer with its racy themes of masochism and pedophilia that will be way too much for your average viewer to marinate and digest.

Some may be completely turned off (rather than on) by this film. However, for the edgy thinker, the film is quite the find.

Unique, extreme, and thoughtful, Punish Me is an experience to remember.

Shot entirely in black and white (rare for twenty-first-century cinema), the film appears bleak and harsh, cold almost- and that is no doubt an intentional measure.

The grizzled German landscape (the city is unidentified) gives the film interesting and effective cinematography, transforming the black-and-white imagery exceptionally well, whether the scene is set in daylight or at night.

Something about the black-and-white decision is genius.

Elsa Seifert (Maren Kroymann) is a fifty-year-old probation officer. Married and raising a teenage daughter, she appears to live a stable, middle-class existence.

When one of her charges, Jan (Kostja Ullman), a handsome sixteen-year-old, gives pursuit, their relationship becomes an obsessive, lustful situation for both.

Jan, you see, likes to be sexually beaten, and, at first, hesitant, Elsa slowly gets immersed in Jan’s world.   When other characters begin to catch wind of the situation between Jan and Elsa, the film becomes intense.

Astounding to me is the fact that Punish Me is directed by a woman, Angelina Maccarone. This both surprises and impresses me. Thought-provoking is the female perspective in the film.

Elsa is not an unhappy woman- though she nervously chain-smokes in almost every scene.

She initially has no intention of being sucked into Jan’s eccentricities. As she awkwardly spanks him in their first steamy, sexual encounter, she is gentle, yet she quickly intensifies.

Is she insecure with her middle-aged body? She gets carried away by Jan’s charms, putting both her career and her husband at risk.

Can she stop herself before it’s too late?

One wonders a few things- How would this film feel if a man directed it?

Maccarone centers the perspective on Elsa more than she does Jan- or are we to assume that Jan, at sixteen, is merely experimenting with his sexuality and therefore not the more interesting character?

This was my determination. Elsa has way more to lose than Jan does. We are not sure why Jan is so troubled, to begin with, or why he likes to be beaten- was he abused by his parents? sexually or otherwise? What deep-rooted issues does Elsa have?

I imagined the complexities that would have been offered had the film gone something like this- Elsa is a male character. Would the man-on-boy be too much? Is a female safer than a boy?

One wonders, but if Elsa were a male and Jan a female, I do not think the film would be half as controversial or daring. It would seem more exploitative or, dare I say, conventional.

Instead, Maccarone turns the film into a psychoanalytical feast as we wonder what makes both Elsa and Jan tick and why they enjoy the discipline scene.

Perhaps there is no clearly defined answer.

The supporting characters are not explored very well, other than a fellow troubled girl that Jan beds, commenting that she is too fat (she is not), or Elsa’s husband is revealed to have once had an affair with another woman, pronouncing “it was only sex, not love”.

From this, one concludes that Elsa and her husband will reunite and resume their middle-class life together, but what will become of Jan?

Thanks to effortless direction and good choices by Maccarone, she makes Punish Me (2005) an examine-worthy look at sexuality, desire, and emotions.

Many will loathe the film or not bother to give it the time of day because of the subject matter, but it is a treat for creative cinematic lovers and lovers of analysis.

13th-2016

13th-2016

Director Ava DuVernay

Scott’s Review #669

Reviewed August 5, 2017

Grade: B+

Hot on the heels of her successful feature film Selma (2014), director Ava DuVernay follows up with another race relations piece: an informative documentary entitled 13th, named after the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which abolished slavery.

The documentary, however, exposes loopholes in the Constitution and shows how progress has been too slow for black people since the Civil War and into modern times.

It looks at the escalating incarceration rates of the United States black population over the years and how the prison system as a whole has been used as both a money-making system and as a way of controlling minorities.

The documentary examines the United States prison system. It starts with an audio clip of former President Obama informing us that the United States has five percent of the world’s population. Twenty-five percent of the world’s prisoners are in the US, a direct message to those convinced that the US is the greatest country in the world.

This powerful message sets 13th off right as we explore why the statistic exists.

I thoroughly enjoyed the high production values of the documentary, including the modern graphics that edgily displayed the number of incarcerated blacks on screen.

13th does not feel dated or monotone as some documentaries do. Instead, it feels creative and nuanced with interviews and news clips of events such as the Civil Rights movement and Depression-era footage. Modern-day footage is included, representing over a hundred years of history.

A significant aspect of the 13th is its chronological progression through history, beginning with the Civil War and ending in 2017 when the unpopular Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

The gloomy implication is that, with the current (2017) presidency, the minority population is still repressed and discriminated against by many political figures and that they are still primarily feared and blamed for the “perceived” high crime rates.

DuVernay’s central point is that many political figures use “scare tactics” to influence voters to vote a certain way and repeatedly fall for this strategy.

She analyzes the history and dissects several presidents’ terms and individual campaign messages, heavily featuring Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Obama.

I love this aspect since it was a fresh history lesson for me on how the times have changed but have stayed the same.

13th avoids being too preachy and presents “both sides of the aisle.” Some feel that political figure’s harsh take on crime is not meant to repress minorities. A few of these folks are interviewed and given time to explain their viewpoints, but the film is mainly left-leaning in tone and views.

The negative portrayals of Trump, Nixon, and Reagan are proof of this.

Interviews with prominent activists such as Angela Davis, leader of the Communist Party USA, and a woman with close ties to the Black Panthers are informative. Considered a radical in her day (the 1960s), the documentary features clips of her interviews both then and now.

Current political figures Van Jones and Newt Gingrich are featured, giving 13th a crisp, modern, and relevant feel rather than a long-gone period.

Overall, I found 13th (2016) to be an educational and historical lesson in the challenges and race issues that people of color have dealt with over the years and how their world is still affected by current legislation and decisions by political figures (mainly white), who hold all the cards and repress people who speak out against them.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Documentary Feature

The Salesman-2016

The Salesman-2016

Director Asghar Farhadi

Starring Shahab Hosseini, Taraneh Alidoosti

Scott’s Review #668

Reviewed August 2, 2017

Grade: A

The Salesman is the latest film directed by Asghar Farhadi to win the coveted Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. 2011’s A Separation also won the crown, and 2013’s The Past, nestled between the other films, is nearly as good.

All contain mesmerizing and gripping plot elements that leave the audience in good discussion long after the film has concluded. That is what good storytelling is all about.

Rich with empathetic elements and crisp writing, Farhadi has become one of my favorite international filmmakers. Each of his pictures is as powerful in humanity as their counterparts.

Along with fellow contemporary Claude Chabrol (admittedly around a lot longer), similarities abound between the two creative maestros in the form of thrills, mystery, and differing character allegiances. I adore how both directors incorporate the same actors into their films.

Farhadi incorporates the classic stage production Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller into the story. The play and the film contain similar themes- humiliation and secrets.

The young and good-looking couple, Emad (Shahab Hosseini) and Rana (Taraneh Alidoosti), are community theater actors living in metropolitan Tehran, Iran.

They have wonderful friends and companions and are popular with their close neighbors and theater buddies. Emad, a well-liked high school teacher, and Rana, a housewife, make a perfect couple, but their bond will soon be severely tested.

Forced to move from their crumbling apartment into temporary quarters owned by a theater friend, they are unaware that the former tenant worked as a prostitute and had a bevy of gentleman callers.

She carelessly left the unit, leaving behind all of her belongings for them to sift through. One night, when Rana is home alone, she inadvertently allows a mystery person to enter, which leads to a terrible incident.

The film centers on determining what exactly happened between Rana and the intruder. Is she hiding the truth? Can she and Emad overcome the implications of the events?

The audience is presented with a powerful, intriguing mystery to absorb and unravel. Throughout most of the film, questions are raised to be considered: Who was the intruder? Will Emad exact revenge? What happened?

The brilliance of The Salesman is that we, as the audience, never actually see the incident inside Emad and Rana’s apartment, so we are baffled by what has transpired. We merely witness the after-effects and the questions the characters (mainly Emad) have.

Is Rana being truthful? Did she know the man who entered the apartment? Was it even a man or perhaps the former female tenant? With Farhadi, anything is possible, but rest assured, a startling climax will ensue.

The genius is how the viewer’s loyalties will be divided by character and change within a scene.

In one tense sequence, a heroic character becomes the villain and slowly returns to being the hero again, which is a topsy-turvy experience!

The Salesman is smothered with a roller coaster of emotions and feelings.

The way that more than one of the central characters changes their motivations is essentially the film’s most tremendous success. Rana, Emad, and “the Man” are flawed, complex characters, and what a treat it must have been for these actors to sink their teeth into these roles.

A special mention must be given to the other actors involved in the film. The Salesman is fraught with great performances, big and small.

In addition to the leads (Hosseini and Alidoosti), the supporting cast exudes immeasurable talent. Farid Sajadhosseini as “the Man” is astounding, and his family members, who appear mainly in the conclusion, deserve much praise.

These minor characters appear during the most pivotal part, giving it the acting chops to pull the result.

Asghar Farhadi hits another one out of the park with The Salesman (2016), and how deserving is the Oscar win for this man, a director whose films are always sure to be compelling, thought-provoking treats?

I cannot wait for his next film.

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

Dunkirk-2017

Dunkirk-2017

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #666

Reviewed July 24, 2017

Grade: A

Of the hundreds of war films made over the years, most have a similar style, with either a clear patriotic slant or a questioning/message-type nature.

Regardless, most have a certain blueprint—from the story to the visuals to the direction—and rarely stray from it.

The genre is not my favorite, as machismo is usually overdone, and too many films turn into standard “guy films” or “good guys versus the bad guys.”

Finally, along comes a film like Dunkirk (2017)that gives the stale genre a swift kick.

The story is both simple and historical.

In 1940, Nazi Germany, having successfully invaded France, pushed thousands of French and British soldiers to a seaside town named Dunkirk.

With slim hopes of rescue or survival, the soldiers are sitting ducks for the raid of German fighter planes, which drop bombs both on the soldiers and rescue ships.

In parallel stories, a kindly British civilian (Mark Rylance) and his son sail to Dunkirk to help rescue the soldiers, and two British fighter pilots chase the German fighter planes, attempting to thwart their deadly intentions.

One will immediately be struck by the film’s pacing, which is nonstop action from start to finish. The action, combined with very little dialogue and an eerie musical score, is what makes the film feel unique and fresh.

Directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, 2008 and Inception, 2010), critics herald this film as his most remarkable work yet- I tend to agree.

Scenes involving such differing musical scores as screechy violins mixed with thunderous, heavy beats shake up the film and keep the audience on their toes as to what is coming next.

An interesting facet of the film, and certainly done on purpose, is that the characters’ backstories are not revealed- we know very little about them.  Do they have families? Are they married? This is a beautiful decision by the screenwriters and by Nolan.

For instance, the first scenes involve a disheveled private named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead).  Panicked, he runs through the streets in pursuit of the beach, where he meets a fellow soldier named Gibson, who is burying another soldier in the sand.

Together, they find a wounded soldier and carry him to a departing ship. The men never speak but communicate through their eyes and gestures—it is a powerful series of scenes.

Another positive to Dunkirk is the anonymity of the enemy. The German soldiers are never shown. We see many scenes of fighter planes overhead, pummeling the soldiers with bombs and pulsating gunfire in various scenes. Still, the mystique of the enemy troops is a constant throughout the film.

The faceless component of the villains adds terror and haunting uncertainty.  In this way, the film adds to the audience’s confusion about where the enemy may be at any given moment.

The visuals and the vastness of the oceanside beach are at the forefront throughout the entire film, which is one hour and forty-six minutes, relatively brief for a war film. It elicits both beauty and a terrible gloominess.

Scenes of the vastness of the beach peppered with thousands of cold and hungry men are both pathetic and powerful.

The best scenes occur on Mr. Dawson’s  (Rylance) mariner boat. Aided by his son Peter and Peter’s frightened schoolmate, the trio heads for dangerous Dunkirk to help rescue, but en route, he picks up a shell-shocked soldier determined to stay as far away from Dunkirk as possible.

This leads to compelling drama and deep characterization of all the central characters.

Many list 1998’s Saving Private Ryan as the best film in the modern war genre, but Dunkirk may very well rival that film in intensity and musical effectiveness. Dunkirk (2017) also contains shockingly little bloodshed or dismembered soldiers—it does not need this to tell a powerful story.

The film is sometimes emotional and intense, but it never lets go of its audience from the very first frame—it is a war film for the history books and a lesson in film creativity and thoughtfulness.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Christopher Nolan, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

Closet Monster-2016

Closet Monster-2016

Director Stephen Dunn

Starring Connor Jessup, Aliocha Schneider, Aaron Abrams

Scott’s Review #665

Reviewed July 23, 2017

Grade: B

Closet Monster is a 2016 Canadian LGBTQ+ drama featured at the Toronto International Film Festival and crowned the Best Canadian Drama winner.

Stephen Dunn, an upstart director, adds interesting visual techniques and images.

The story is a compelling coming-of-age piece, but the film is sometimes uneven, mainly due to character underdevelopment.

Still, for the subject matter, it is a lovely film for LGBTQ+ teenagers to be exposed to.

The film is set in Newfoundland, where eighteen-year-old Oscar Madly (Connor Jessup) is a closeted, creative teenager. He aspires to be accepted into a prestigious school in New York, designing special effects makeup.

Through the opening scenes, featuring Oscar as an eight-year-old child, we learn that his mother has left the family to begin a new life and that Oscar witnessed the vicious beating of a gay teen, leaving him terrified of his developing feelings towards the same sex.

Oscar has issues with both of his parents- his mother’s abandonment and his father’s temper and homophobia. He frequently escapes into a private treehouse he and his father have built and daydreams of happier childhood times with his father.

Oscar’s best friend is Gemma, who his father mistakenly assumes is his girlfriend. When Oscar meets a suave co-worker, Wilder, he immediately becomes obsessed with him.

Director Dunn creates a talking pet hamster for Oscar, voiced by actress Isabella Rossellini, a fantastic, creative add-on to the film. Buffy is a source of advice and wisdom throughout Oscar’s constant trials and tribulations and has been with him through the years.

In a clever revelation that goes over his head, Buffy reveals to Oscar that she, in reality, has been replaced several times by other hamsters over the years.

Closet Monster has its positives and negatives. Certainly, it is relatable and hits it out of the park for teenagers or any age group struggling with sexuality issues or for children of divorce.

Dunn successfully makes Oscar an empathetic character with wit, charm, and just the perfect amount of vulnerability. In many ways, Oscar is mature beyond his years.

Oscar is, for the most part, a careful character. A world of chaos and disorder surrounds him, and he uses escapism (his fantasies and secluded treehouse) to get through life.

Oscar is a strong and well-written character.

Also, a hit is Oscar’s love interest, the sexy Wilder. Wilder, who is more of a bad boy and assumed to be straight, is rebellious and also becomes a sweet and trusted friend to Oscar.

When he realizes Oscar’s sexual preference and that he is the object of Oscar’s affection, he does not freak out or dismiss Oscar. Instead, the young men become even closer. In a tender scene, Wilder offers to be Oscar’s first kiss, and he can experience the monumental moment especially.

Still, the film would have been wise in better developing Oscar’s parents. At first, the father (Peter Madly) appears to be a decent man who was dumped by his wife and forced to raise his son alone.

Conversely, the mother (Brin) is written as abandoning her child to selfishly start a new life with a new family (Oscar even spits in her face!). Somewhere along the line, Peter becomes a reckless homophobic with severe anger issues, and Brin is painted as the sympathetic one who is suddenly there for Oscar.

The characters should have been better developed. Their motives were unclear and perplexing. Why did they split in the first place?

Dunn is excellent at making Closet Monster an atypical film. He does not pepper the story with predictability or tried-and-valid same-sex romance points, which is a brave choice.

He fills the film with non-cliche moments.

Closet Monster (2016) is a worthy entry in the LGBT film category and a must-see for those struggling with identity issues because the film acts as a form of therapy.

In the Flesh-1998

In the Flesh-1998

Director Ben Taylor

Starring Dane Ritter, Ed Corbin

Scott’s Review #663

Reviewed July 10, 2017

Grade: B

In the Flesh is a steamy, pre-Brokeback Mountain, LGBT film from 1998. The budget for this film is very small, and the acting is quite wooden.

My initial reaction was that In the Flesh is a terrible film, yet something sucked me in as a fan, whether the crime theme or the romance (or both).

The atmosphere is quite dreamlike and moody, which I find appealing, and the addition of a whodunit murder mystery amid the romantic drama is highly appealing; therefore, I hesitantly recommend this film for perhaps a late-night adult viewing.

But be prepared for endless plot holes and unnecessary subplots.

Oliver Beck (Dane Ritter) is a handsome college student who works as a hustler in a dive bar named The Blue Boy in Atlanta, Georgia. He has his share of loyal, older men who use his services and adore him, especially a lonely man named Mac, a barfly at the watering hole.

When closeted Detective Philip Kursch (Ed Corbin) begins an undercover assignment to bust a drug ring at The Blue Boy, their lives intersect, as Philip falls in love with Oliver and investigates his past.

As the drug investigation seems to be quickly forgotten, a murder mystery develops when Mac is murdered at the ATM- Oliver looks on, panics,  and speeds away. When Philip covers Oliver as an alibi, the plot thickens.

Other side stories, like a flashback sequence involving Oliver’s past- while driving drunk, he killed his best childhood friend, the introduction of his sometime boss and girlfriend, Chloe, and his caring for Lisa, his sister, addicted to heroin, are brought to the table, but really have little to do with the main story and only confuse the plot.

The most compelling element is the relationship between Oliver and Philip and their dysfunctional love story, but many questions abound.

Is Philip secretly married or dating a female? We know nothing about his personal life.

Oliver, hustling and hating every minute of it, merely as a way to support Lisa’s habit, is ridiculous- why not get her help?

Neither actor Ed Corbin nor Dane Ritter will ever be accused of being the world’s greatest actor, and can hardly act their way out of a paper bag.

Both actors’ performances are wooden and unemotional, even when emotion is required in the scene. Still, oddly, this somewhat works in the film.

Regardless of In the Flesh being riddled with plot holes and sub-par acting, the film has some charm.

The moody Atlanta nights, rife with sex and secrets, are quite appealing. A murderer on the loose and disguised, save for a green watch, is intriguing.

The film also has a mysterious, almost haunting quality, and the muted camerawork, whether intentional or the result of a poor DVD copy, works very well.

Since it is 1998, a time when more and more LGBT films were beginning to be made, but not yet in large numbers, In the Flesh and its director, Ben Taylor, deserve credit for even getting this film produced.

The mainstream success of the LGBT juggernaut Brokeback Mountain (2006) undoubtedly helped, albeit in a small way, this film.

Though, strangely, I never noticed the two main characters ever kiss- too soon for 1998?

Not the finest acting or the best-written screenplay, In the Flesh (1998) is a bare-bones film that will be enjoyed largely by an LGBT audience seeking a peek into a time when these types of films were not running aplenty and were typically made in the independent film circuit.

Life, Animated-2016

Life, Animated-2016

Director Roger Ross Williams

Starring Owen Suskind, Ron Suskind

Scott’s Review #662

Reviewed July 9, 2017

Grade: B+

Autism is still a baffling disease to many people (myself included) since I know nobody personally who is afflicted with it and, before watching this documentary, had many questions.

It’s terrific to see a documentary that not only teaches the viewer about autistic people but presents an incredible story of how Disney films helped an autistic child into a world of normalcy with the aid of loving parents.

Life, Animated (2016) is an empathetic film with a positive and inspirational message.

The production is based on a 2014 novel, Life, Animated: A Story of Sidekicks, Heroes, and Autism, written by journalist Ron Suskind. Ron tells the story of his son Owen and how Disney films helped him communicate with the outside world.

The documentary, however, is told from Owen’s perspective, from childhood to adulthood. The story incorporates not only Owen’s challenges with autism but also his love life, relationship with his brother and parents, and various other autistic people he has come to bond with.

He was fortunate to be invited to Paris, France, to speak at a conference.

How Owen, an energetic and “normal” three-year-old, suddenly shrunk into himself and away from the rest of the world is mysterious, but also how autism works.

Owen’s parents, baffled at the sudden change in Owen’s behavior, did the dutiful parental actions of doctors and studies, but, in essence, helped Owen on their own. When Ron, on a lark and with some desperation, began speaking in the voice of a Disney character, Owen sprung to life like magic.

The film will please fans of Disney films since Owen lives and breathes the various classic movies, immersing himself in their worlds and memorizing scenes and dialogue alike. Specifically, The Little Mermaid (1988) and Beauty and the Beast (1990) are heavily featured reference points.

Unfortunately, Owen was tormented by school bullies as a teenager, which caused him a setback. Fortunately, his creative mind allowed him to write stories using his characters to relieve everyday stress.

The film intersperses various drawings of Owen and his family throughout, adding a creative edge to the documentary.

The documentary wisely does not state that Disney films will cure anyone with autism, but Owen’s love of these films served as a stimulus to bring him back to life.

Presumably, any autistic child could find a source or something they love to help build self-esteem and achieve skills.

I highly recommend Life, Animated (2016) to anyone with an autistic child, sibling, relative, or friend seeking an empathetic experience and a heartwarming achievement.

From a film perspective, the documentary is clear, concise, and to the point, with videotaped images of Owen’s life.

Life, Animated received a 2016 Best Documentary Oscar nomination.

Oscar Nominations: Best Documentary-Feature

Homicidal-1961

Homicidal-1961

Director William Castle

Starring Jean Arless, Patricia Bresling

Scott’s Review #661

Reviewed July 8, 2017

Grade: A-

Homicidal is a 1961 horror film, shot in black and white, that is a direct homage to the successful Psycho, made only a year earlier.

While some would argue Homicidal is a direct rip-off of Psycho, I see the film as containing elements of Psycho but twisted around so that its unique story is created.

Regardless, Homicidal is a fantastic, edge-of-your-seat film that never drags or slows down and deserves recognition.

The surprise ending is terrific.

The story starts when a tall, leggy, blonde woman confidently walks into a local California hotel to request a room.

There is something mysterious about the woman. She appears to be a woman of some wealth and convinces a young bellhop to marry her for $2,000.

Hesitant but enamored by the woman, he accompanies her to the local justice of the peace, who marries them in the middle of the night. The woman (Emily) then savagely bludgeons the justice of the peace and flees the scene.

Later, she brags about the murder of a mute and sickly older woman named Helga, who she is caring for.

From this point, other characters in the small town are introduced, and we slowly learn more about the intriguing Emily (Jean Arless).

Flower shop owner Miriam (Patricia Breslin) and her brother Warren are central to the story. Warren will inherit a fortune on his twenty-first birthday the next day. Miriam’s boyfriend, Karl, is the local pharmacist whom Emily appears to fancy.

All of these characters come into play as the intriguing plot develops. Is Warren’s inheritance a motivating factor? Will he be killed? Why isn’t his sister, Miriam, receiving any money? Could she be secretly plotting something?

The comparisons to Psycho are endless.

The gender-bending twist during the final act is the most obvious. Arless deserves kudos for tackling both roles in a wonderful, compelling fashion.

The fact that Arless resembles Psycho actress Janet Leigh is another similarity. Otherwise, Miriam and Karl resemble characters from Psycho, and Helga could be a dead ringer for Mother Bates. Even some sets, specifically a staircase, resemble the one in Psycho.

Director, William Castle, brilliantly adds a gimmick to Homicidal that works very well as the film is about to reach its shocking climax, the action suddenly stops and the introduction of a “fright break” ensues.

At this point, Castle gives the audience forty-five seconds to leave the room to avoid what comes next. We see the clock countdown in real-time. What a fantastic idea!

Throughout the film, I noticed some actors, most notably Jean Arless, playing their roles within a melodrama. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door, or a car drives up, and the character quickly turns their head in a fast movement to look in an almost cartoonish way.

Rather than see this as a negative, this style works for me and adds a bit of humor to the film.

Another positive is the way the film is gruesome in several parts. As a character descends the staircase from a stairlift, the image of the body is shrouded in dark shadows. When the dismembered head topples down the stairs, it is macabre and compelling.

The justice of the peace death scene is also well done and will please horror fans with its hefty bloodletting. Surprisingly, only two murders occur.

Certainly not as crafty and containing a smaller budget (though Psycho was also small), Homicidal is quite a solid effort in a B-movie way.

Success is primarily due to the fantastic direction of William Castle, who carved a similar story to Psycho (1960) but in a different way so that his film does not feel like a carbon copy.

Homicidal (1961) is a film for fans of classic, solid horror films.

Bullitt-1968

Bullitt-1968

Director Peter Yates

Starring Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, Jacqueline Bisset

Scott’s Review #660

Reviewed July 7, 2017

Grade: B+

Bullitt (1968) is one of the ultimate “guy movies”, hardly a stretch considering it stars the “regular guy” hero of the time, Steve McQueen.

With his macho, tough-guy persona and his cool, confident swagger, he was a marquee hero during the late 1960s and into the 1970s.

While the film is rife with machismo stereotypes and is not precisely a women ‘s-lib film, it is also a good old-fashioned action thriller with plenty of chase and fight scenes to make most guys (and some girls) happy.

The story is not particularly thought-provoking, but the film works as escapist fare and is an example of good late-1960s cinema.

Set in San Francisco, Lieutenant Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is assigned to watch a Chicago gangster, Johnny Ross, over a long weekend, before the criminal is set to testify against his brother on Monday morning.

Robert Vaughn plays ambitious politician, Walter Chalmers, who is determined to see the case go off without a hitch and see convictions in the organized crime syndicate.

Predictably, the weekend does not go as planned, and hitmen attack Ross. This, in turn,  sets off a cat-and-mouse game of deception and intrigue. As expected, the action is virtually non-stop with many action sequences lighting up the screen.

The plot of Bullitt does not matter, and one does not need to completely understand what is going on to enjoy the film for what it is. The intent of a movie like Bullitt is not good storytelling, but rather good action.

This is not meant as a put-down, but rather good, honest critiquing. One can sit back, relax, and enjoy the testosterone-laden affair.

Bullitt contains some riveting scenes that raise it above an average, middling action flick. The muscle car chase involving a then-state-of-the-art, flashy Ford Mustang and a Dodge Charger is fantastic and one of the film’s high points.

The quick, edgy camera angles as the cars zip down the windy, narrow San Francisco roads build compelling tension.

Will one of the cars careen off the side of the road or blow up? Since one of the cars holds Frank Bullitt and the other car is the bad guy, it is not tough to guess how the sequence will end.

But it’s good fun all the same, and well filmed.

The other spectacular sequence is the finale: as Frank and company overtake a busy San Francisco airport in pursuit of a baddie about to board a transcontinental flight, the chase leads them throughout the airport, onto a taxiing plane, and finally onto the runway as a plane is about to take off.

It is action at its finest and a treat for the viewer, bringing us back to airport days, pre-9/11, when airports were just different—the luxurious flight crew, the innocence, and the glamour- all a distant memory.

The scene is such that it shows all of the airport elements- the people, the employees, the airport, and the planes, giving it a slice-of-life feel, circa late 1960s airport days.

Appealing is the period in which the film is made. 1968 was an excellent year for cinema; Bullitt capitalized on the newly liberal use of blood in films, making it an influential action film.

Dozens of imitators (some admittedly with superior writing) followed, including classics Dirty Harry and The French Connection (both 1971). These contain the exact basic blueprint that Bullitt has.

A negative of Bullitt is the trite way women are portrayed. Female characters are written as dutiful nurses, gasping in fear and helplessly running away when an assailant runs rampant in the hospital, praying for a man to save the day.

Or, they are written, in the case of Bullitt’s girlfriend, as a gorgeous yet insignificant character, given a laughable scene in which she questions whether or not she knows Frank after witnessing the violence in his job- hello?

He is in the San Francisco Police Department after all.

Bullitt is a meat-and-potatoes kind of filmmaking. An early entry into what would become the raw 1970s and the slick formulaic 1980s action genre, the film deserves credit for being at the front of the pack in style and influence.

The story and character development are secondary to other aspects of the film, and Bullitt (1968) is just OK as escapism fare.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound, Best Film Editing (won)

The Beguiled-2017

The Beguiled-2017

Director Sofia Coppola

Starring Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell, Kirsten Dunst

Scott’s Review #659

Reviewed July 4, 2017

Grade: A-

A remake of the 1971 film (also adapted from an earlier novel) starring Clint Eastwood, The Beguiled is a 2017 release directed by Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation, 2003), a director ready to burst onto the front lines.

Coppola carefully chooses her films, but each differs from the others, and The Beguiled is no different. A piece fraught with atmosphere and tension, Coppola does wonders from a directing standpoint.

The story has tons of unchartered potential and drags at times, but overall, The Beguiled is a hit if nothing more than to look at in wonderment.

The film gets off to a moody start as we follow a young girl, eerily humming as she picks mushrooms, along a deserted southern road. It is Civil War times (1864), and the setting is a mostly deserted all-girls boarding school in south Virginia.

The girl (Amy) is startled when she discovers an injured, handsome Union Army soldier, Corporal John McBurney (Farrell). Sympathetic, Amy helps the soldier back to the school, led by the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth (Kidman).

Slowly, the females in the school become enamored with John, developing rivalries to gain the upper hand in his affections.

There is something sinister and wickedly foreboding about almost every scene, as we shrink at the thought that something terrible will happen at any moment—sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not.

Almost like a horror film would, the camera angles are such that something or someone is bound to leap out and grab a character suddenly.

The colors are muted and almost pastel, and fog commonly floats through the exterior scenes.

Coppola does a fantastic job of portraying a deserted southern landscape. The film’s lighting is also intriguing, as lit candles enhance the dimness.

The final dinner scene (poison mushrooms, anyone?) is gloomy and Shakespearean.

Beyond the look of the film, The Beguiled is well-acted. With heavyweights like Farrell, Kidman, and frequent Coppola star, Kirsten Dunst, as the vulnerable and unhappy teacher, Miss Morrow, the acting is stellar and believable.

The audience is unsure if John is manipulating the women for his gain or if he has developed feelings for any (or all) of them.

With hormones raging, the lovesick teen, Alicia (Elle Fanning), sets her sights on John almost from the beginning, sneaking out of musical lessons to kiss an unconscious John goodnight.

While compelling, the story is relatively slow-moving, leaving the reader with infinite possibilities when the conclusion finally happens. Other than the tart Alicia, Miss Morrow and Miss Farnsworth could have reached endless romantic potential.

I was left wondering throughout the film when a romance would develop between Martha and John, but only towards the end was this ever addressed and barely skirted over. Stoic Martha slowly began to let her guard down as they took charge.

The film could have added some further romantic complications and beefed up the very short running time of ninety-three minutes.

As Nicole Kidman is one of my favorite film stars of all time (she can tell a story by facial expressions alone), she has wisely begun to choose fantastic supporting roles as she ages in Hollywood (2016’s Lion immediately comes to mind).

Dunst has aged gracefully into a middle-aged actress chomping at the bit for meaty roles, and Colin Farrell is as ruggedly handsome as ever, sprouting a dark and bushy beard for most of the role.

The acting in The Beguiled is fantastic.

The Beguiled is a film to watch if only to escape to the joys of superb, atmospheric filmmaking and to appreciate the outstanding talents of one of the few prominent female directors of today (hopefully, the mega success of 2017’s female-directed Wonder Woman will begin to change this).

The story has a few issues, but The Beguiled (2017) is worth the money.

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood, Patrick McGoohan

Scott’s Review #656

Reviewed July 2, 2017

Grade: B+

Made during the heyday (the 1970s and the early 1980s) of a slew of action and thriller films starring popular actor Clint Eastwood, Escape from Alcatraz is a gritty, man-focused film with not a single female character in sight.

The film is directed by Don Siegel, who also directed Eastwood in several previous films, most notably Dirty Harry in 1971, and contains a grittiness frequently used in this genre of film during the period.

Reminiscent in style of 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in its authority, repression, and exploitation of the victimized commoner, the film is also a good historical account of one of the most famous prison escapes ever achieved in 1962.

Having recently visited the long-since-shut-down Alcatraz prison near San Francisco, California, I found the film wonderful to watch, as much of it was shot inside and around the actual prison grounds.

We immediately meet Frank Morris (Eastwood) as he is unceremoniously led to the infamous Alcatraz prison on a stormy, chilly night in foggy San Francisco. The dark, harsh weather perfectly sets the tone for the dreary prison experience he will face.

Morris is stripped, searched, intimidated by the warden and the guards, and paraded around naked, finally taken to his tiny cell, where he will presumably spend the rest of his life.

The film does not reveal what crimes Morris committed to warrant his tenure at Alcatraz; as a result, the character is more sympathetic.

Slowly, Morris befriends other inmates and devises a plan to escape the impossible prison by digging through the concrete walls with spoons and using the pipes.

The other inmates featured in the film are the Anglin brothers, in for robbery, a kindly older man named Doc, who fervently paints the time away, nervous Charlie Butts, and English, an intelligent black man serving two life sentences for killing two white men in self-defense.

All of these men, in some way, aid Morris in his escape from the torturous Alcatraz.

A side story involves a bully named Wolf, who has designs on Morris from day one. Whether Wolf is actually gay or merely a menace is unknown and not explored.

Throughout the film, Wolf and Morris fight and spend time in solitary confinement, and their rivalry is an interesting subplot.

The film wants the viewer to be on the prisoners’ side, and I am not sure whether, in real life, the prisoners would be as sympathetic as portrayed in the film. Most of them seem to be confined to Alcatraz for robberies or crimes they did not commit, or for circumstances that deem the crimes inevitable in some way.

Furthering a liberal slant to the film is the friendship between Morris and English. An interracial friendship between the men reveals that our hero, Morris, is progressive-thinking and a “good guy”.

Conversely, most of the guards and certainly the Warden (Patrick McGoohan) are written as terrible, unsympathetic people. When an inmate drops dead of a heart attack, the warden coldly remarks, “Some men are destined never to leave Alcatraz alive”.

The Warden is the foil of the film, and in the final scene, the Warden gets a bit of comeuppance when a mocking souvenir is left for him.

To further compare Escape from Alcatraz to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the Warden is a similar character to the infamous Nurse Ratched in their mutual, diabolical sadism.

I am unsure if in “real life” the distinctions between the prisoners and the authority figures were so black and white, but it sure makes for good film drama. It is “the heroes versus the villains” but in reverse.

The inevitable escape sequence is predictable yet highly compelling as Morris and Company enact their escape plan over the course of an overnight.

The usage of papier-mache dolls to fool the guards is heavily dramatic and compelling.

Escape from Alcatraz (1979) is not high art, but it works as a historical account of a real-life incident in one of the most discussed prisons in United States history.

The film is also a perfect vehicle for Eastwood, as he is well cast in the gritty yet likable role of prisoner Morris.

The film is a good, solid late-1970s thriller.

Johnny Guitar-1954

Johnny Guitar-1954

Director Nicholas Ray

Starring Joan Crawford, Sterling Hayden

Scott’s Review #655

Reviewed June 15, 2017

Grade: B-

Johnny Guitar (1954) is an interesting film to review for several reasons, but its challenge to the traditional Western mold is the most distinct. Front and center is an aggressive and strong-willed woman, a saloon owner no less, engaged in an antagonistic feud with another woman of a similar disposition.

Of course, since the film stars legendary screen actress Joan Crawford, she is a strong character.

The writing is not brilliant, and other Western stereotypes abound, but Johnny Guitar is a decent watch for Crawford.

In the middle of an Arizona cattle town circa the Wild West, Vienna (Crawford) is a gorgeous woman who owns the local watering hole, which less-than-savory men frequent.

Vienna welcomes the men mostly because one of them is a former boyfriend. The rest of the town, led by Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge), despises Vienna and her support of the incoming railroad, which makes Vienna rich.

After a bank robbery, Vienna is pursued by Emma and the town into a standoff, in which lynchings, shootings, and fires encompass the rest of the film.

Mixed in with the drama is a romance between Vienna and handsome guitarist Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), and some musical numbers, but mostly, the film is a shoot ’em up led by women.

Let’s take the good with the bad surrounding the film—in my book, any picture starring Joan Crawford gets some credit, and the role of Vienna is undoubtedly uncharted territory for the glamorous star.

Tough-talking, gun-slinging, and with a short hairdo, rumors abounded that the character of Vienna was gay and in love with her arch-enemy Emma.

This might have happened decades later, but this was 1950s Hollywood, after all. Crawford still dazzles with heavy makeup and bright red lips and is feminine despite the masculine outfit.

Clever, especially for 1954 westerns, is a tough female character in the central role, bolsters Johnny Guitar above middling. Typically, in a genre that sticks to the tried-and-true, the main female rivalry between Vienna and Emma is the best part, but sadly, the back story is never fully explored.

Why do they hate each other? Were they in love with the same man? Is their hatred simply because they are the only women in the town?

The chase scene and the climax of the film are also quite good. How delightful to see Crawford prancing around in peril, riding a horse, and swimming in a creek.

The film turns into a good, old-fashioned adventure, and the cinematography and exterior sets are not bad.

Two aspects of Johnny Guitar stood out to me as negatives. First, the romance between Vienna and Johnny Guitar does not work. Crawford seems too old for Hayden as Johnny, and I never felt any chemistry between the characters. Second, the backstory scene revealing that they were once an “item” is weak.

There are no other female characters besides Emma (a coincidence?), which is a strange aspect of the film. Does one wonder if this was Crawford’s demand? (But I digress.)

The romance between the duo is lackluster, though admittedly, I did feel a rooting factor for them as the final chapter commenced and the pair was in danger.

The storytelling is mediocre, as I never felt invested in the writing, and the entire script feels silly and cheap. The story is laid out in an introductory way- Vienna is told by (arguably) the leader of the town, Ward Bond, to close up shop and leave town within twenty-four hours or else there will be hell to pay.

When some of the men rob a bank and plan to depart for California, Vienna is blamed for a sloppy, contrived plot device and is set to be hanged.

The script is not the high point of the film.

Johnny Guitar (1954)is worth watching for a gender-bending experience and the fabulous addition of Ms. Crawford. However, do not expect a masterpiece in storytelling or to be dazzled by character development.

Fans of the classic Western may be disappointed.

I Smile Back-2015

I Smile Back-2015

Director Adam Salky

Starring Sarah Silverman

Scott’s Review #654

Reviewed June 13, 2017

Grade: B+

As a fan of Sarah Silverman, the comedienne, I was anxious to see the 2015 film, I Smile Back, which garnered her a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination.

Silverman tackles a heavily dramatic role in a film that teeters on being a pure “downer”. Many fans expecting the actress’s comic wit to be featured need not see it.

Rather, I embraced the performance and found the film to be an independent film treat, thanks to Silverman’s powerful performance. She nails the part and carries it to success.

I Smile Back is a small film that I wish had garnered more viewers.

Laney Brooks (Silverman) appears to have it all. She lives an affluent existence in Westchester County, New York with her handsome husband, Bruce (Josh Charles), and their two young children.

With a gorgeous house, dinner parties, and friends, who could ask for anything more?

Bored and troubled by a tough childhood and “daddy issues”, Laney tends to drink too much, abuse drugs and prescription pills, and carry on an affair with her best friend’s husband, all while managing to run a household.

As she gradually spirals down a darker path, Laney sees her perfect world slowly crumble around her.

Throughout the film, I asked, “Are we supposed to root for Laney or dislike her?”

Director Adam Salky does not make it easy to like her.

In addition to her substance abuse use (or over-use), Laney is rather selfish. From the small scenes when Laney drops off her kids from school and is annoyed when the crossing guard and a teacher refuse to give her special treatment, she mutters insults under her breathe as she grabs a cigarette and heads for her scandalous rendezvous.

But when she is put in great peril later in the film, following one of her benders, I could not help but feel deep sympathy for her.

It is a bit unclear what the audience should feel.

This leads me to conclude that the film belongs to Silverman.

What impresses me most is how believable she is in most scenes. She packs creative lunches for her kids and plays fun birthday cake decorating games with them, but in the next breathe snorts cocaine and rails at a neighbor lady for not celebrating Thanksgiving.

Thanks to Silverman, she plays these scenes with gusto.

Some critics have complained about the script, but I find no real fault. While not the strongest element, it is fine, nonetheless.

I Smile Back is a low-budget indie drama that serves its purpose- it does not delve too deeply into the how’s and why’s of her addiction, and a nice scene with Laney’s father (Chris Sarandon) offers no concrete evidence of why this man drove her to drugs by his abandonment.

The film seems to be more about proving a good performance by Silverman than anything else.

Sarah Silverman commands great respect for her dark portrayal in I Smile Back.

This role, combined with her recent turn in Showtime’s Masters of Sex television series, portraying a pregnant lesbian in the 1960s, proves that she has what it takes to compete with the great dramatic actresses of today.

She is much more than a stand-up comic. Here’s to hoping for more drama from this talented lady in the years ahead.

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.