Still Alice-2014

Still Alice-2014

Director-Richard Glatzer, Wash Westmoreland

Starring-Julianne Moore, Alec Baldwin

Scott’s Review #224

untitled

Reviewed February 26, 2015

Grade: B+

Still Alice tells the story of a highly educated college professor who, at the young age of 50, is afflicted with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. She wrestles with, not only the gloomy diagnosis but also the emotional effects of the disease and what effects they will have on her husband and three grown children.

Also explored are the hereditary aspects of the illness and the effects on the offspring of the inflicted person.

In a nutshell, the film has a calm demeanor but is heartbreaking and a bit of a downer.

Alice Howland has always achieved success- she is a linguistics professor at the esteemed Columbia University in Manhattan and has a seemingly idyllic life. She lives an affluent lifestyle and has three grown, well-adjusted children.

Alec Baldwin plays John Howland and Kristen Stewart plays the most predominantly featured daughter, Lydia.

These points of perfection make the story and her gradual decline all the more tragic to watch. We root for Alice because she is an ideal character- kind, loving, the perfect mother and wife. How could a thing like this happen to her? When she goes for a jog near her campus and suddenly does not recognize her surroundings or where she is, the audience shares in Alice’s confusion.

The primary reason to watch the film is for the astounding performance that Julianne Moore gives, as Alice. The film borders on a very good Lifetime television movie, albeit, much better than that and arguably in the same vein, but the acting sets this one above the mediocre and that is largely due to Moore- with a lesser actress I ponder how the film would have succeeded.

The tender scenes are wonderful- when Alice wets her pants, the audience also feels her humiliation. When she breaks down in fear and anxiety we do the same with her.

The supporting cast also deserves praise- specifically Baldwin and Stewart. While not entirely fleshed out characters, their lending of support to their wife and mother respectively makes the characters themselves sympathetic and likable. An important scene in an ice-cream parlor late in the film when John asks Alice if she “really wants to be here” is misunderstood by Alice making the importance of what he is asking even more profound.

A scene where a coherent Alice, early in her diagnosis, leaves instructions for herself via video, to be seen when she is further along in her illness, is suspenseful and left me rooting for the result to be one way, which could be interpreted as drastic, and left me conflicted- a scene masterfully done.

My only criticism of the film is that despite the subject matter of Alzheimer’s disease which is devastating and life-altering not only for the victim but for the family, the film has a safe feel to it.

I would have liked to have seen some darker, grittier moments throughout the film to make it even more effective.

Certainly not a happily ever after story, bleaker moments might have prevailed. For sure a story centered on Moore, it also might have been interesting to further explore more of the effects the family have and will go through, especially Baldwin’s John. His character and Lydia could have been explored deeper instead of merely supporting and comforting Alice.

Still Alice is worth seeing if only for the performance of Julianne Moore- a talented actress doing a brilliant job in the title role.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Julianne Moore (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Julianne Moore (won)

American Sniper-2014

American Sniper-2014

Director-Clint Eastwood

Starring-Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller

Scott’s Review #223

American_Sniper_poster

Reviewed February 22, 2015

Grade: A-

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

A character study if you will.

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

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

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

I do not view the film as politically charged.

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

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

I hope audiences keep this in mind.

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

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

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

He is a perfect shot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia-1974

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia-1974

Director Sam Peckinpah

Starring Warren Oates

Scott’s Review #222

70020328

Reviewed February 20, 2015

Grade: B+

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia is a Mexican, cult-action film from 1974, directed by Sam Peckinpah, that influenced famed modern movie director Quentin Tarantino in multiple ways.

The film itself is violent, bloody, and traditionally Peckinpah in tone and look, similar to his other films (Straw Dogs from 1971 and The Wild Bunch from 1967).

The premise of the film is intriguing- a powerful man known simply as “The Boss”, turns furious and places a bounty on the head of the man who impregnated his daughter, whom he, by the way, tortures to garner this information out of.

He offers the enormous sum of 1 million dollars to the person who can “bring him the head of Alfredo Garcia”.

From this point, the action centers mostly on Bennie, a retired military officer who is intrigued by the bounty up for grabs.

Bennie, along with his prostitute girlfriend, Elita, traverses the lands of Mexico in search of Alfredo Garcia, whether he already be dead or still alive, which is a mysterious and fun element of the film.

I have a tough time taking the film too seriously as much as I enjoyed it- it seems an action farce and, without giving too much away, the scenes involving the carrying of a severed head, arguably the lead character, are as much comical as ghastly.

The illustrious lighting is a major focal point, especially during the outdoor scenes and specifically the nighttime desert scenes when Elita is almost raped by two bikers. The moonlight radiates onscreen.

The character of Elita is a fascinating one for me. On the one hand, she is an aging prostitute madly in love with Bennie and intrigued by a life with him living off their spoils. However, she almost enjoys the sexual experience with one of the bikers, played wonderfully by Kris Kristofferson, despite being roughed up by him.

The scene, while certainly violent, is in a way, almost tender as the biker and Elita realize their attraction for one another. It’s a surreal scene and has almost a sense of clarity for both characters. Are they in lust?

Peckinpah women are traditionally not treated well, but Elita borders on the exception.

The Tarantino influence is undeniable- the mixture of humor amid violence- a severed head being treated as a comical prop, is immeasurable in its comparison to later Tarantino films such as the Kill Bill chapters.

Daring and pure genius, the film contains a dark tone but does not take itself too seriously by going for any sort of melodrama or being overwrought.

It is only a film and has fun with that fact. It tries to be nothing more and embraces being bizarre.

Tarantino films are like Peckinpah films just made 20-30 years apart.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia has evolved into a cult classic after having flopped commercially and critically in 1974.

How wonderful when a gem is rediscovered and laden with influence, in this case as much stylistically as otherwise.

The One I Love-2014

The One I Love-2014

Director-Charlie McDowell

Starring-Mark Duplass, Elisabeth Moss

Scott’s Review #221

70299863

Reviewed February 18, 2015

Grade: C+

Reminiscent of a modern-day Twilight Zone episode, The One I Love tells the story of a young married couple (Ethan and Sophie), played by Mark Duplass and Elisabeth Moss respectively, who seek the assistance of a therapist, played by Ted Danson.

The therapist realizes the couple is out of sync with each other and recommends a weekend away. The therapist has an excellent reputation for rekindling faltering marriages and turning them into successful ones. He sends them to a sunny, beachfront house complete with a guest house, pool, and various trails along the water- it is simply a paradise.

I admire the creativity of the screenplay.

In a nutshell, the couple meets their ideal, perfect versions of each other while they are basking at the vacation house-just the two of them. Ethan’s alter-ego is suave, athletic, and sensitive to Sophie’s needs- while Sophie’s is sexy, flirtatious, and invested in Ethan’s life. The real versions are bored, lazy, and a bit disheveled.

The flaws they once saw in each other are replaced with the perfect spouses. It is fantasy-like. As one half of the couple slowly begins to fall in love with the fantasy version, the other half begins to get jealous and the film dives into a tale of who winds up with whom? But is it a fantasy? Are the perfect versions real people or something reminiscent of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

It is tough to know what the intentions of the film are- if any.

A weakness I felt the film has is it plods along a bit too much. At a brief 90 minutes, the film somehow has a sleepy, slow-moving undertone and could have easily been a short film or wrapped up within 45 or 50 minutes.

I did not feel the chemistry between Duplass and Moss as strongly as I would have liked. Individually fine actors, the spark did not ignite for me.

I wish Ted Danson had a larger role. The focal point was obviously the young couple, but the mysteriousness surrounding the paradise was never really explained and Danson’s character could have been the key to the entire story. Did he contrive the entire situation? Was it fantasy? His brief part left many plot holes unexplained.

The One I Love is a creative effort and has an imaginative angle, but left me wanting a bit more clarity than I was served up. The film is mysterious, yes, but also confusing and slightly dull and uneven.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

The Guest-2014

The Guest-2014

Director-Adam Wingard

Starring-Dan Stevens

Scott’s Review #220

70300664

Reviewed February 7, 2015

Grade: C-

The Guest is a thriller from 2014 that can, perhaps, be classified under the adage “it’s so bad that it’s good”, though as I pondered writing this review, that could be a bit of a stretch.

As poor as the film is, there is something that I slightly enjoyed about it.

The premise is simple- a Midwestern family- the Peterson’s, is suddenly visited by a veteran soldier, named David, who claims to be a friend of the parent’s deceased son Caleb. David easily insinuates himself into their lives and the Peterson’s extend an invitation for him to stay a few days to rehash details about Caleb.

The family is a middle-class one, yet struggling financially, and consisting of a mother and father, a college-aged daughter named Anna- the actress eerily resembling a young Gwen Stefani, and a bullied, timid, high school-aged son named Luke.

From the get-go, something is off with David, but his motives are unclear to the audience.

The issues with the film are aplenty.

For starters, the acting is rather poor. The most notable actors in the film are Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) and Sheila Kelley (L.A. Law) and a collection of unknowns. Stevens and Kelley give better performances, and I particularly thought Stevens very believable in a role opposite of his Downton Abbey alter ego, but the rest of the cast is wooden and un-compelling.

The weakest parts of The Guest, though, are the inane plot points and the 1980’s style soundtrack- were the filmmakers going for a retro throwback? The film is set in present times so this aspect remains a mystery.

To be fair, the story does start as interesting- I wondered, Is it a Fatal Attraction type of film? What is David’s motive? What was his relationship with the deceased Caleb? Does he intend to help or harm the family?

The reveal towards the end of the film is as much implausible as it is ridiculous and an enormous disappointment. Without giving too much away, the government plays a large role in the meat of the film and it does little to provoke sympathy for any of the characters, but rather, only elicits further confusion.

The attempted (and botched) love story between David and Anna does not work. They have little chemistry and the rooting value is not there especially as he picks up her drunken best friend at a party. Is the audience supposed to root for David and Anna or is it merely a weak sub-plot to the thrill aspect of the film? I suspect the latter.

Despite all of these negatives, I did not find myself despising the film as it trucked along- rather, I found the film to be more of a muddled mess than anything else.

It is not a good film, but there is something slightly appealing about it. Some of the death scenes are well done and the budding friendship between David and the bullied son is rather sweet.

The son is enamored with the strong, masculine David, and David, in turn, serves as protector of the boy, humiliating the bullies who gave the kid a black eye. The film does not delve into a sexual angle regarding this, but rather it is a bond that is nice to see in the film. It has a nice, warm element.

Another impressive point to The Guest is that it ends with a surprise that leaves room for a sequel. However, due to the success that the film did not achieve, I doubt a sequel will ever see the light of day.

A poorly written, weak acted film, The Guest has moments of interest but fails miserably at providing a strong film viewing experience.

By the end of the film, I still had no idea of the main character’s motivations and that is a huge problem.

Confusing and convoluted are adjectives best to describe this film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Editing

Under the Skin-2013

Under the Skin-2013

Director Jonathan Glazer

Starring Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #219

70293812

Reviewed January 31, 2015

Grade: A

Under the Skin (2013) is a tough film to review- in a word it is mysterious.

The consensus is that people either love the film or hate it- it is one of those types of films. I love it and it appears on many 2013 top ten film lists.

The visual creativity alone astounds me.

To summarize, Scarlett Johansson plays the female alien presumably sent to Earth to meet young men and lure them, using her feminine wiles, into a pool of dark liquid where they are entrapped and subsequently peeled, their skin used for an unknown reason.

The oddity of the story is as appealing as it is confusing, but somehow fascinating beyond belief.

The film is set in Glasgow, Scotland, during present times. The film has a cold, dark tone to it and the city itself seems bleak.

Johansson, in an unnamed role, takes the clothes of a dead human woman and begins traversing the streets of Glasgow, picking up the men as they walk home or go to the grocery store.

She carefully selects men who will not be missed- men who are loners or family-less.

As the film goes along Johansson becomes more sympathetic. She yearns to become a human and to do what humans do- she goes to a diner and attempts to eat a delicious slice of cake and vomits the contents.

She has a strange man on a motorcycle following her, making sure she completes her assigned tasks. Some of these conclusions are surmised as the lack of dialogue in the film adds to the mystique.

A particularly frightening scene, and my favorite in the film, involves the female alien meeting a swimmer on the beach, who is on holiday in Scotland.

Her flirtation with him as she attempts to accost him is thwarted by a family in peril. A father, mother, and infant son are enjoying a day on the secluded beach.

Suddenly, their dog begins to drown as the waves become too intense. The mother struggles in a panic to swim to the dog and rescue it- the father then does the same.

What happens next is very sad and the female alien and the motorcycle man both leave the screaming infant to die without so much as a second glance.

This poses a few questions- are they, aliens, without emotions for human suffering? Do they not care? Do they revel in the misery? Do they simply not realize what is going on? The viewer will ponder these questions and others long after the film ends.

Later, the audience is confused further as the female alien meets a severely deformed man, and they bond as she drives him to, presumably, his death. She loves his hands and is fascinated by his tenderness towards her. As they talk she shows signs of caring for a human being as they begin a sweet friendship.

Why does she bond with this disfigured man instead of the more handsome men she meets? Does she relate to him due to her growing feelings of being a misfit and desiring to be human?

Visually the film is creative. Spellbinding is the sequence involving the men being submerged in the black fluid as they slowly disappear leaving only the skin. Their transformation is slow, methodical, and imaginative and one relishes what is going on.

The score is reminiscent of Rosemary’s Baby (1968) in its eeriness and visually the film must have been influenced by Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

Under the Skin (2013) is a fantastic journey through a weird, perplexing, sometimes confusing world, but leaves me thinking and glued to the activity onscreen.

It is an art film that breaks barriers and provokes interest and intrigue not catering to mainstream expectations. It is what art films are meant to do- challenge.

More films should take risks like these.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best International Film

Once Upon a Time in America-1984

Once Upon a Time in America-1984

Director Sergio Leone

Starring Robert De Niro, James Woods

Scott’s Review #218

60028306

Reviewed January 19, 2015

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boyhood-2014

Boyhood-2014

Director-Richard Linklater

Starring-Ellar Coltrane, Ethan Hawke

Scott’s Review #217

70301281

Reviewed January 19, 2015

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a wonderful film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone can relate to Boyhood.

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

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

Big Eyes-2014

Big Eyes-2014

Director-Tim Burton

Starring-Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #216

70095129

Reviewed January 18, 2015

Grade: B

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

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

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

Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz portray Margaret and Walter Keane.

Tim Burton directs the film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, my sympathy for her was affected.

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

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

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

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Screenplay

Pride-2014

Pride-2014

Director-Matthew Warchus

Starring-Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton

Scott’s Review #215

80013480

Reviewed January 17, 2015

Grade: B-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Poseidon Adventure-1972

The Poseidon Adventure-1972

Director Ronald Neame

Starring Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, Shelley Winters

Top 100 Films #12

Scott’s Review #214

867891

Reviewed January 17, 2015

Grade: A

The disaster genre, mainly encompassing the 1970s in film, includes some of my personal favorites and The Poseidon Adventure (1972) is easily at the top of the pile.

Set on a lavish ocean liner, the SS Poseidon, on New Year’s Eve, the doomed ship falls victim to a powerful tsunami while sailing from New York to Athens on its final voyage, causing it to topple over and leaving a handful of survivors to meander through the bowels of the ship in an attempt to find a way out and be rescued.

They are led by a stubborn preacher, played by Gene Hackman.

The appeal of The Poseidon Adventure is, of course, watching the cast of characters in peril and guessing which ones will meet their fates and how- think a slasher film without the horror component.

Featuring an ensemble cast of Hollywood celebs of the day, the characters are introduced to the audience before the tidal wave erupts, so, therefore, we care for them immensely.

There is the former hooker with the heart of gold married to a gruff cop (Stella Stevens and Ernest Borgnine as Mike and Linda Rogo).

Then there is the sweet-natured older couple on the cruise to see their grandchild (Shelley Winters and Jack Albertson as Manny and Belle Rosen).

Pamela Sue Martin plays the teen girl, Susan, who falls madly in love with the preacher- Reverend Scott. Along with her younger brother, Robin, they are traveling to see their parents, who await their arrival.

Roddy McDowall plays a waiter named Acres.

Lastly, Red Buttons plays James Martin, a health-conscious bachelor, and Carol Lynley plays shy singer Nonnie.

Reverend Scott is the moral focal point of the film and questions god several times throughout.

The sets are extraordinary- the colorful Christmas tree in the grand dining room is fantastic. The entire New Year’s Eve party scene is my favorite- it is festive, extravagant, and mixed in with a scene where the ominous tsunami is rapidly approaching.

The festive celebration quickly turns into confusion as the sirens begin to sound, and finally, panic as furniture begins to fly.

Visually this scene is the most intricate- the ship turns upside down after the crash, thus giving the illusion that the bottom of the ship is the top.

Tricky.

From this point on all of the sets to follow are intended to be upside down- a crafty and effective style, but none more than the dining room scene.

A victim toppling and crashing into a giant clock is a memorable scene.

As the group of survivors haggardly make their way throughout the ship they encounter underwater explosions, dead bodies, rushing water, and disputes, mainly between Reverend Scott and Rogo, as to how to proceed to safety.

One by one a handful of the group meets their fates in gruesome fashion- falling into a fire, a heart attack, and falling to one’s death.

Shelley Winters is the comic relief of the film with her humorous quips about her weight, and her death scene brings me to tears each time I experience it.

A heavyset older woman who at one time was a dynamite high school swimmer, she attempts to help the group by holding her breath and swimming underneath the engine room, which is blocked- she does inevitably save the Reverend Scott’s life but succumbs to a heart attack shortly thereafter.

It is a powerful, heartbreaking scene.

The film is a great adventure. What makes The Poseidon Adventure (1972) so timeless and continues to bring so much pleasure? Certainly not high-brow nor high art, but it does not need to be.

It is simply meant to be enjoyed for what it is- a thrilling, fun, entertaining ride.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Shelley Winters, Best Song Original for the Picture-“The Morning After” (won), Best Original Dramatic Score, Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

The Imitation Game-2014

The Imitation Game-2014

Director-Morten Tyldum

Starring-Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley

Scott’s Review #213

70295172

Reviewed January 15, 2015

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly, this was too little too late.

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

The Conformist-1970

The Conformist-1970

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Jean-Louis Trintignant, Stefania Sandrelli

Top 100 Films #28

Scott’s Review #212

70054715

Reviewed January 10, 2015

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The scene is wrought with drama and sadness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Barry Lyndon-1975

Barry Lyndon-1975

Director Stanley Kubrick

Starring Ryan O’Neal

Top 100 Films #34

Scott’s Review #211

284790

Reviewed January 4, 2015

Grade: A

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

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

The film is nothing short of a marvel to view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foxcatcher-2014

Foxcatcher-2014

Director-Bennett Miller

Starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum

Scott’s Review #210

220px-Foxcatcher_First_Teaser_Poster

Reviewed January 2, 2015

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Special Distinction Award (won)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-1974

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-1974

Director Tobe Hooper

Starring Marilyn Burns

Top 100 Films #35 

Top 20 Horror Films #10

Top 10 Disturbing Films #5    

Scott’s Review #209                                                      

15815343

Reviewed December 31, 2014

Grade: A

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is one of the grittiest, raw, frightening horror films that I have ever seen and still holds up incredibly well in present times.

Containing a documentary-like look it is incredibly scary in its grainy, visual, real-life feel. It is not psychological horror- it is in-your-face, brutal horror.

The perception of an incredibly hot, sticky, backwoods Texas summer is incredibly well done and only adds to the terror.

A group of five teenagers travels to the vast fields of Texas- aka- the middle of nowhere, presumably on a road trip. On their drive, they pick up a strange hitchhiker who ends up stabbing one of the teens and cutting his arm.

Spooked by this odd occurrence, they stop for gas and directions, but veer off course and accidentally wind up at a slaughterhouse owned by cannibals.

The group of teens is led by Sally Hardesty, played by Marilyn Burns.

As the teens are chopped off grotesquely, similar to a slew of similar fashioned, but less interesting horror films to follow, Sally winds up the lone survivor of the group.

Burns plays the first “final girl”, a title made famous in horror films as the last female remaining alive- it was almost always a female- to take on the maniacal killer.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre features one of the horror genre’s best villains- Leatherface.

The viewer knows little about him since he does not speak- is he mentally disabled? Is he an intelligent man? He is disguised behind a mask made of strewn-together human skin and wields a scary chainsaw.

We know nothing about him- only that he loves to kill.

The ambiguity is immeasurable.

Besides the way that the film is shot, another shocking element is the reality of the story. Could this happen to the viewer? The answer is yes of course it could. How many times have we been driving and gotten lost in surroundings unfamiliar to us?

There are no supernatural beings or CGI effects in this film- only a group of youngsters crossing paths with maniacs and this could happen in real life. This realization adds to the fright.

The famous- or infamous- dinner scene is revolutionary in disgust and distaste. The family attempts to serve Sally as dessert to the elderly patriarch and as he begins to suck blood from Sally’s finger, it will force the squeamish to turn away.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a short film, running at only 84 minutes, but the breathtaking finale- Sally running through the endless woods followed by Leatherface, seems interminable. Will he catch her? How can she possibly escape?

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is dirty, ugly, and intense. It is no-holds-barred brutality. It is one of the best horror films ever made.

Harold and Maude-1971

Harold and Maude-1971

Director Hal Ashby

Starring Bud Cort, Ruth Gordon

Top 100 Films #59

Scott’s Review #208

60000591

Reviewed December 30, 2014

Grade: A

Harold and Maude (1971) is the bravest and most left-of-center film that I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. A subject matter so taboo that it had never before been explored in cinema and, to my knowledge, has not since.

The film challenges so many mainstream views of aging, sex, and relationships.

Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort give performances of a lifetime.

The film tells the story of an unhappy, wealthy teenager named Harold (Cort) whose mother- hilariously played by Vivian Pickles- is a cold socialite attempting to reform Harold of his rebellious adolescent behavior.

Harold frequently plays suicide pranks on her and the numerous females she tries to set him up with, reducing them to tearful exits from the family mansion in frightened hysterics.

Obsessed with attending funerals for fun, one day Harold meets Maude (Gordon), an elderly woman, at a funeral, and it turns out that both share the same fascination, but for vastly different reasons as the story shows.

They embark on a tender romance despite their age difference of over sixty years.

In many ways, Maude is the real adolescent of the film, which I love. It is a role reversal of sorts. On the cusp of age eighty, she has a pure zest for life, living each minute as if it was her last, unconcerned with the consequences of her actions- she is a true free spirit.

She gleefully steals cars that happen to be parked on the street and her erratic driving is comically brilliant.

Harold becomes the more responsible one despite being the tender age of only nineteen. He cares for Maude and her shocking revelation towards the end of the film floors Harold.

It will also shock the audience.

Harold and Maude deal with death but the film is not a downer. It is hilarious at times, brilliantly written, and Maude, a Nazi prison camp survivor, does not fear death- she has seen her share of it and almost embraces it.

Harold is just beginning his life and the contrast of the characters and their growing bond is what works best in this film.

The aforementioned Vivian Pickles knocks it out of the park with her portrayal of Harold’s mother- her comic wit and timing are excellent- she callously hosts a dinner party and boasts of her travels to France to the guests while Harold sits ignored, bored, and depressed, staring at his mother in disbelief.

He wants nothing to do with her or her trivial lifestyle. She makes an unimportant phone call while Harold dangles from the ceiling in a faux suicide attempt- clearly a cry for attention from his mother.

This is a total black comedy.

The implied intimacy between Harold and Maude was too much for many viewers in 1971. I find it sweet and quite tastefully done. They simply fall in love and it feels wonderful for both of them.

I would be remiss for not mentioning the wonderful, lively soundtrack by Cat Stevens.

Edgy, laugh out loud, unusual, and witty are words to describe Harold and Maude (1971)- one of the most intelligent comedies in film history.

Heathers-1989

Heathers-1989

Director Michael Lehman

Starring Winona Ryder, Christian Slater

Scott’s Review #207

580335

Reviewed December 25, 2014

Grade: B

My gut tells me that Heathers was quite controversial and influential upon release in 1989 and has sustained a cult following that continues to this day- 2014.

Having seen the film for only the first time, in 2014, the film is good, but now suffers from a slightly dated look and feel. Still, it is a brave and unique expression of creativity.

It is a film that sends the message that the popular kids are bad and that the meek shall inherit the earth. The uncool kids will rise.

To summarize the plot, Heathers is told from the perspective of high school student Veronica Sawyer, played by a young Winona Ryder. She is a second-tier popular girl- she is lieutenant to the generals if you will.

The school is run by three popular girls named Heather. As popular as they are, they are also despised and feared by the other students but carry great influence. They enjoy playing cruel jokes on other students and ridiculing anyone beneath them.

A rebellious male student, J.D., played by Christian Slater, befriends Veronica and they hatch a plan to destroy the popular clique, including another pair of popular jocks.

Shannon Doherty plays second in command Heather.

The tone of Heather’s is surreal and dream-like. For example, in the opening scene all three Heathers- along with Veronica- are on a perfectly manicured lawn in the suburbs playing croquet.

The hierarchy is established as Veronica seems to be buried up to her neck and is the target of the croquet balls making her, without question, the lowest of the four girls. Whether or not this is a dream or real is unclear.

The film is well-written and edgy. It reminds me at times of The Ice Storm and American Beauty, which Heathers preceded, and are superior in my opinion.

Heathers is a teen angst film and quite dark at times- the various deaths are committed viciously (drain cleaner poisoning, concocting a setup for the jocks to appear to be having a love affair with each other and then passionately shooting each other), but with sly wit and humor.

Veronica is, at heart, a good girl, albeit misguided and heavily influenced by J.D., but her intentions of having a fair, just school society are noble. The character is likable.

All the parents are hilariously portrayed as buffoons and have no idea of the darkness that exists in their kid’s lives- Veronica’s parents in particular.

Fearing that Veronica has committed or soon will attempt suicide, they fret that it is their fault stemming from childhood negligence, however, their concern has more to do with themselves than with Veronica’s well-being.

Small gripes about the film are the 1980s style outfits and hairstyles, which, since made in the 1980s is not a particular fault of the films- though it does contain a slightly dated feel to it while watching in present times.

Also, Christian Slater mimicking Jack Nicholson’s voice is odd- was this a decision by the film or by the actor himself? Either way, the imitation is both distracting and confusing. What is the point?

The ending of the film is a happy and satisfying conclusion- however, different from the dark tone of the rest of the movie- rumor has it the studio had some influence in toning down the original ending.

1989 was not a stellar year for film so Heathers deserves major props for thinking outside the box and doing something dark and creative.

Brave, inventive, and unique, Heathers is a cult classic worth a look.

Independent Spirit Award Nominees: 1 win-Best Female Lead-Winona Ryder, Best Screenplay, Best First Feature (won)

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-1971

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-1971

Director Mel Stuart

Starring Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson

Top 100 Films #17

Scott’s Review #206

60020949

Reviewed December 18, 2014

Grade: A

More than just a children’s movie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is a terrific, imaginative, fantasy film that is timeless and meant for all ages to enjoy.

The mastery and creativity of the sets and art direction are astounding and the story is sweet, whimsical, and capturing. Often with children’s movies, we are treated to dumb or contrived stories that will entertain five-year-olds, but make adults bored or cringe.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is none of the above. It is intelligent and filled with magic and heart.

Charlie Bucket is a poor child whose mother washes clothes for a living. Along with his four bedridden grandparents, they live a meager existence in a small cottage somewhere in Europe.

Particularly close with his Grandpa Joe, the two of them become obsessed with a contest held by mysterious Willy Wonka, the owner of an enormous chocolate factory nearby.

The contest consists of five “Golden tickets” being hidden in Wonka bars. The five lucky winners will receive a lifetime supply of candy and a tour inside the long-since-closed chocolate factory.

After a series of circumstances, Charlie obtains one of the tickets and the adventure begins.

The build-up to the trip into Willy Wonka’s factory is gripping- mainly because the viewer knows that a magical treat is in store and is filled with curiosity- what will the chocolate factory look like? What is Mr. Wonka like?

The four other winners- Augustus Gloop, Veruca Salt, Violet Beauregarde, and Mike Teevee are all unique and creatively written characters- all spoiled brats in their way, so Charlie is the “normal” child and has a true rooting value to him.

As the five children, along with a designated parent- or in Charlie’s case, Grandparent, begin their journey throughout the chocolate factory the audience is treated to a psychedelic experience with fantastic sets- a river made of chocolate, an entirely edible garden, lickable wallpaper, a bubble room, and a frightening riverboat.

The film is bright and colorful within the walls of the factory which perfectly contrasts Charlie’s dreary existence in the outside world.

As the four bratty children meet their fates in joyfully imaginative ways- gum chewer Violet blows up like a blueberry after chewing experimental Wonka gum that she is warned not to, Veruca is deemed rotten after throwing a fit and topples down a garbage chute.

The film is breathtaking and imaginative, filled with wonderment.

Gene Wilder plays the role of Wonka as over-the-top and it works tremendously.

All of the child actors play their roles competently as each character is distinguished from the others.

I love the scary riverboat tunnel scene as it is frightening, psychedelic, and magnificent. I also love the contrast between the enchanting colorful second half to the bleakness of the first. The sets are some of my favorites in their lavishness.

Specifically, the relationship between Charlie and Grandpa Joe is wonderful. Grandpa Joe is a father figure to Charlie, but so is Willy Wonka in a completely different way.

The greed of the children is also interesting and one hurrahs as each one gets his or her comeuppance.

The songs from the film are remarkable and quite cutting edge- each time one of the lucky five golden ticket winners meets their doom, the Oompa Loompas sing a tune that visually has weird shapes and colors-psychedelic and very hippy, of the late 1960’s-early 1970s era.

Other numbers such as “I’ve Got a Golden Ticket”, “Cheer up Charlie”, and “The Candy Man” are memorable.

A film for the ages, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is a celebration of creative film and quite cerebral at times and is far superior to most children’s fantasy/musical films.

Skip the 2005 remake starring Johnny Depp and enjoy the original.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring: Adaptation and Original Song Score

Eastern Promises-2007

Eastern Promises-2007

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts

Scott’s Review #205

70059994

Reviewed December 15, 2014

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

The Greatest Show on Earth-1952

Director Cecil B. DeMille

Starring Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, James Stewart

Scott’s Review #204

60034703

Reviewed December 14, 2014

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The scene does not look silly.

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

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

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

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

Oliver!-1968

Oliver! -1968

Director Carol Reed

Starring Mark Lester, Oliver Reed

Top 100 Films #55

Scott’s Review #203

822391

Reviewed December 10, 2014

Grade: A

Oliver! is a 1968 film based on the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, which was then adapted into a successful stage musical. The film surprisingly won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year.

Surprising, not because Oliver! is poor, it is magnificent, but it was not predicted to take home the honor.

Telling the tale of the woeful orphan Oliver, the film wonderfully comes across as a dark musical with a wholesome happy ending feel, largely due to the musical compositions which inevitably make for a cheerier tone.

When the film begins, Oliver lives in a despicable orphanage outside of London. A drawing of straws forces meek Oliver to ask for more gruel.

After being deemed a problem child he is sold for cheap to an undertaker where he is bullied. Defeated, Oliver makes his way towards the big city in hopes of finding his fortunes.

He then meets sinister characters such as Fagin, the Artful Dodger, and Bill Sykes, as well as the sympathetic Nancy and Mr. Brownlow.

I love the musical numbers of the film and for me, it is the strongest aspect of Oliver. The film would have been much darker had it not been for the musical that it was.

Numbers such as “Consider Yourself”, “Food, Glorious Food”, and “As Long As He Needs Me” stick with audiences for days.

The entertaining songs lighten the somber moments- as noted earlier when meek Oliver dares to ask for more gruel, the enchanting “Food Glorious Food” cannot help but be hummed along to, which lightens the mood of the scene.

I also enjoy how the film contains the long-ago popular trend of containing two acts with an intermission in between- very grand and classy and an aspect of the film I wish would return in today’s movies.

The London art direction is magnificent, revealing a cold, industrial feel, mixed in with a warm, sunny atmosphere when Oliver stays at the palatial estate of Mr. Brownlow.

The bright and enchanting musical number “Who Will Buy?” is the perfect backdrop for this setting and my favorite number.

Nancy (Wallis) is one of the most complex characters- a prostitute, she happily sings, in denial about her life, in “It’s a Fine Life”, secretly wishing her life was better than it is.

Later, conflicted over helping Oliver or standing by her man she sings a melancholy number, “As Long As He Needs Me”, which cements her role as a tragic, sad character.

However, as she leads a drunken barroom in a dance of “Oom-Pah-Pah”, the drama is thick when she attempts to help Oliver at the risk of putting her own life in severe jeopardy.

Shani Wallis fills the character with heart and feeling.

Oliver! is a much darker film than one might imagine.

Curiously rated G, the film should have at least been rated PG. The film’s heart is that of a children’s movie- to me personally a turn-off, but the film is much stronger than that.

Some subject matters (like pedophilia) are toned down from Dicken’s novel, but not completely toned down.

Examples- the novel made clear overtones of child abuse by the thieves by Fagin, yet there is none of that in the film. Contrasting this, the film blatantly shows the beating death of Nancy- albeit out of camera range, but the audience gets enough of a glimpse to ascertain what is happening.

The shooting and swinging death of Bill Sykes border on brutality.

A glaring flaw of the film is that the voice of Oliver is dubbed by a female singer and not voiced by actor Mark Lester. To me, this seems quite obvious that the voice is not male.

The character of Bill Sykes is convincingly played by Oliver Reed, nephew of director Carol Reed.

Perfect around holiday time, Oliver! (1968) is a terrific musical drama, to be enjoyed for eons to come.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Carol Reed (won), Best Actor-Ron Moody, Best Supporting Actor-Jack Wild, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Score of a Musical Picture-Original or Adaptation (won), Best Sound (won), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

Last Tango in Paris-1972

Last Tango in Paris-1972

Director Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring Marlon Brando, Maria Schneider

Top 10 Disturbing Films #8

Scott’s Review #202

687496

Reviewed December 5, 2014

Grade: A-

Last Tango in Paris is a very dark 1972 erotica art film directed by Bernardo Bertolucci (The Conformist-1970), starring Marlon Brando as a disturbed, angry American man named Paul, whose wife has committed suicide.

He is left to survive on his own in Paris lost and without her where he runs a decrepit apartment complex.

Lonely and bitter, he meets a much younger Parisian woman (Maria Schneider), equally disturbed for different reasons, and they forge a relationship that is sometimes brutal, and degrading, but also contains mutual affection and need.

They are addicted to each other.

This film may very well be my favorite performance by Marlon Brando. He plays a hateful, unpleasant character, yet something is appealing about him and the viewer sympathizes with his grief.

That is to Brando’s credit, of course. A lesser actor would not be as effective.

He is damaged, treats everyone like shit, but there is also a vulnerability to him that is mesmerizing to watch. Brando was such a great, method actor that he simply morphs into the characters he plays. Paul is certainly the most raw and emotional performance of his career.

Actress Maria Schneider is also tremendous in the film. Equally disturbed, her character Jeanne experienced a vastly different upbringing- that of wealth and pampering.

She has a fiancé who loves her dearly, yet she is drawn to the power and abuse of Paul- the fact that he is an older man is sexy to her.

I kept thinking, “What is wrong with this woman?” She seemingly has everything, yet she yearns for excitement. Is Paul a fling for her? Does she care about him or is she using him? Is he using her? Could they be using each other?

The film raises many psychological questions. Jeanne is clearly in emotional turmoil. Both Jeanne and Paul are.

Last Tango in Paris is a difficult film to watch- several scenes are unpleasant, even brutal, but it is a character study of two damaged individuals.

When Paul anally penetrates Jeanne on the floor of his apartment, forcing her to recite gibberish, it is almost too much to bear. Paul wants to know nothing about Jeanne. He does not want to know her name, her past, nothing- complete anonymity. He lives for the present and their sex is animalistic, filled with lust and need.

But these examples are a testament to the power of Last Tango in Paris. It is not boring.

The finale leaves you wondering what will happen to Jeanne. Will she commit suicide? Will she return to her fiancé and life of luxury, her affair with Paul over? Was the affair only a fling for her or does she love Paul?

The film is a dark, tragic, romantic story. It is brutal, raw, and honest and is not to be missed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Bernardo Bertolucci, Best Actor-Marlon Brando

Gone With The Wind-1939

Gone With The Wind-1939

Director Victor Fleming/George Cukor

Starring Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland

Top 100 Films #15

Scott’s Review #201

70020694

Reviewed December 4, 2014

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second half has a much darker tone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?-1966

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? -1966

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton

Top 100 Films #41

Scott’s Review #200

1120753

Reviewed December 3, 2014

Grade: A

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

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

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

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

They have a bitter love/hate relationship.

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

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

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

When their young friends arrive, the tension is thick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will they say or do next?

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

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

The final reveal still gives me chills.

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

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

Welcome to my blog! 1,400 + reviews posted so far! My name is Scott Segrell and I reside in Stamford, CT. My blog is a diverse site featuring tons of film reviews I have written since I launched my site in 2014. I hope you enjoy perusing the site for latest or greatest films or to search for your own favorites to see how we compare. Please take a look at my featured sections at the top of the page which change often! Utilize the tags and category links.