Tag Archives: Thriller

To Catch A Thief-1955

To Catch A Thief-1955

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Cary Grant, Grace Kelly

Scott’s Review #455

60000732

Reviewed July 24, 2016

Grade: A-

Cary Grant starred in five Alfred Hitchcock films in his day, and 1955’s To Catch A Thief is right smack in the middle of Hitchcock’s prime period of masterful pictures.

Grace Kelly (her third and final Hitchcock film) co-stars, making this film a marquee treat as both actors were top-notch in their heyday and had much chemistry in this film.

While not my all-time favorite of Hitchcock films, To Catch a Thief has mystery, a whodunit, and some of the most gorgeous cinematography of the French Riviera. The breathtaking surroundings are my favorite part of this film.

Grant plays John Robie, aka. “The Cat,” an infamous jewel thief who has now gone clean. He spends his days quietly atop the French Riviera growing grapes and flowers and keeping out of trouble.

When a new jewel thief begins to strike wealthy tourists, Robie is immediately under suspicion by the police. He is forced to prove his innocence by catching the real thief in the act, as the thief uses the same style of stealing as Robie once did.

Amid this drama, Robie meets the beautiful heiress Frances (Kelly) and her interfering mother, Jessie Stevens (Jessie Royce Landis), which leads to romance.

Although Grant could be old enough to be Kelly’s father, we immediately accept Robie and Frances as the perfect couple- she is sophisticated, stylish, and rich, and he equally has a bad-boy edge.

To Catch A Thief has a strong romantic element and a glamorous and wealthy tone. After all, the subject matter at hand- jewels- equates to lavish set decorations, women dripping in expensive jewelry, and a posh resort among the gorgeous French waters.

The supporting characters are interesting, too. A triangle emerges as Frances plays catty with a young girl, Danielle, eager for Robie’s affection. Danielle, much plainer looking than Frances, though no shrinking violet, holds her own in a match of wits with Frances as they bathe in the water one afternoon.

Frances’s mother, Jessie, provides tremendous comic relief as she attempts to bring Robie and Frances together. She is always searching for a handsome suitor for her daughter.

Finally, insurance man H.H. Hughson also contributes to the comic relief by begrudgingly providing Robie with a list of wealthy visitors with jewels.

In their playfully awkward lunch- delicious quiche is the meal of the day- at Robie’s place, Robie proves how Hughson himself is a thief of sorts to accomplish what he needs to get from Hughson.

Despite all of the positive notes, something about To Catch A Thief prevents it from being among my all-time favorite Hitchcock films. Perhaps it is because I never doubted Robie’s innocence, and if dissected, the caper is a bit silly.

I get the sense that the audience is supposed to question whether Robie is truly reformed or playing a game and is back to his dirty deeds, but I wasn’t fooled.

This is a minor gripe, but To Catch A Thief is a fantastic film.

The way the film is shot is almost like being on the French Riviera. Countless coastal shots of the skyline will amaze the viewer with breathtaking awe of how gorgeous the French country is and how romantic and wonderful it is.

This is my favorite part of To Catch A Thief.

The visuals of the film rival the story as the costumes created by costume designer and Hitchcock mainstay, Edith Head, are simply lovely. And who can forget the costume ball near the conclusion?

Though the story might be the weakest and lightest element of the story,  who cares? The visuals more than make up for any of that, as To Catch A Thief (1955) will please loyal fans of Hitchcock’s vast catalog.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Art Direction, Color, Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Costume Design, Color

Killer Joe-2011

Killer Joe-2011

Director William Friedkin

Starring Matthew McConaughey, Emile Hirsch

Scott’s Review #450

70209632

Reviewed July 14, 2016

Grade: A-

Killer Joe (2011) is a must-see for any fan of director Quentin Tarantino because this small, independent, gem of a feature is worth checking out.

Tarantino’s films influence the film in style, characters, and violence. The violence mixed with humor, wit, and great writing is stamped on the film.

Surprisingly, given the influence of another director, Killer Joe is directed by William Friedkin, who is a very acclaimed filmmaker in his own right. Classics such as The Exorcist (1973) and The French Connection (1971) were created by this talent.

Matthew McConaughey owns Killer Joe and he has thankfully graduated from silly, fluffy, romantic comedies to smart, delicious roles in independent films of late. He has come to be a respected Hollywood actor.

His lengthy nude scene is daring for such an A-list actor.

The film is satirical, without being too campy, and the setting of a suffocating, trailer-trash, Texas town is extremely well done.

I loved the violent and gruesome fried chicken dinner table scene the best.

I especially liked the overall food references throughout the film which adds even more macabre comedy to this dark (on the surface) film.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Matthew McConaughey

House at the End of the Street-2012

House at the End of the Street-2012

Director Mark Tonderai

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Elisabeth Shue

Scott’s Review #438

70215438

Reviewed July 2, 2016

Grade: B

House at the End of the Street (2012) is a perfect example of a horror/thriller film that has excellent effects and great potential, but the storytelling brings it down.

It is also a film starring Jennifer Lawrence before she was the Oscar-winning star. Her performance is an adequate effort, and she does what she can in the lead role.

Lawrence is likable in this role and is the clear hero of the film.

The film itself looks great. It has all of the necessary horror elements: a creepy house in the woods, darkness, and sudden scares.

The buildup during the first half of the movie is very interesting and the audience is not quite sure what’s to come and what mysteries and secrets lurk in the title house.

During the final thirty minutes, however, when the twist is revealed, the film becomes predictable, by the numbers, and disappoints at the end.

The story becomes so convoluted it hardly matters anymore.

The first half is great but the second half fails.

I was happy to see Elisabeth Shue in this movie, as she has been out of the limelight for years, her character, though,  is quite one-dimensional.

Film summary- great-looking horror film, with mediocre writing.

Compliance-2012

Compliance-2012

Director Craig Zobel

Starring Dreama Walker, Ann Dowd

Scott’s Review #435

70229062

Reviewed June 30, 2016

Grade: A

Compliance (2012) is a ninety-minute riveting experience that will leave you thinking, talking, and feeling for days or weeks after viewing it.

The film is that intense.

The fact that it is based on true events is even more startling. It is, at times, quite disturbing and unsettling to watch, and if one likes their movies happy and wrapped in a bow, this will not be for you, but for film fans who truly want an emotional experience check it out.

At times I wanted to scream at the characters, look away from the screen, and shake my head in disbelief.

A truly riveting experience.

Major props to actress Ann Dowd, who does a bang-up job as the restaurant manager, and main character. What an amazing talent this actress is.

My range of emotions toward this character (sympathy, confusion, anger, disbelief) blew me away.

Compliance (2012) is one of the best modern films of late.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Female-Ann Dowd

Ex Machina-2015

Ex Machina-2015

Director Alex Garland

Starring Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac

Scott’s Review #410

80023689

Reviewed June 17, 2016

Grade: B+

Ex Machina (2015) reminds me of another recent science-fiction film, Her (2013), with more of a female empowerment edge. The latter is more of a romantic drama with undercurrents of love.

In contrast, Ex Machina has a cynical tone and elements of imprisonment and psychosis, even narcissism.

The film features excellent visual effects and a futuristic mystique, making it a successful treatment.

Directed by first-timer Alex Garland, who could very well be a director to watch rise the ranks with subsequent projects.

Young, fresh-faced computer programmer, Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson), wins a week-long trip to remote Alaska, to spend it with his mysterious boss, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac), the CEO of a software company.

Caleb must arrive at the luxurious, sprawling estate via helicopter as it is in a deserted area of the world and exists on mile after mile of the gorgeous landscape.

Nathan, played by Oscar Isaac, is both charismatic and creepy. He lives alone save for a beautiful Asian servant named Kyoko, who speaks no English, and a female robot named Ava (played by rising star Alicia Vikander).

Caleb’s assigned task is to study Ava and determine whether he can relate to her as a human while knowing she is a robot. It is soon revealed that Nathan plans to reprogram Ava, thereby killing her. Caleb schemes to rescue Ava, but is all that it seems?

With a cast of only four principals, it is not difficult to assess each character and their relations with each other. Caleb is the least complex of the four or rather, the one with motivations readily apparent.

The others are shrouded in mystery. Caleb expects a fun getaway but instead finds himself amid experimentation. Is Nathan’s desire to perform psychological tests on Ava, by way of Caleb, genuine?

The audience can sense immediately that there is something off about Nathan. Merely in his thirties, how could he amass such financial success so soon?

Why is he, a servant, and a robot the only inhabitants? Why does the helicopter pilot refuse to venture further than the drop-off point?

Some of these questions are answered, some remain unanswered. It is part of what makes the film mysterious and complex. Could Ava be the one doing her share of experimentation or manipulation?

Alicia Vikander deserves much praise for her role as Ava and some would argue that the talented young actress should have won the Best Supporting Actress trophy for this role instead of for The Danish Girl (2015).

I’m not sure I would leap to the same conclusion, but she does amass a ton of subdued emotion as Ava. She is complex and profound. She longs for exposure to the outside world and would love to cross a crowded street to see all the faces and different types of people.

Like Nathan, there is also something not right about Ava.

Is she calculating or simply soulful? But how can she be, she is a robot.

I compared her to another famous film robot/computer- HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

Along with Vikander, Isaac steals the film in a role that mixes creep with genius. He sits around his estate in comfy clothes a blue-collar man might wear drinking beer and studying Ava. He has sexual relations with his servant and she is expressionless.

He does not treat her well so we do not root for his character. At the same time, his character is tough to read. Is he experimenting on Ava or Caleb?

Visually, Ex Machina has a sleek blend of modern, crisp CGI, not at all usurping the story. There is also a scene of bloodletting that chills as much as any good horror film would.

Garland was heavily influenced by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Altered States (1980) and made the film with as little budget as possible and without outside influences that might change his vision.

I commend this and wish more filmmakers would follow suit.

Ex Machina (2015), while perhaps not perfect, could be a blueprint for what is to come from this young director.

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

Legend-2015

Legend-2015

Director Brian Helgeland

Starring Tom Hardy

Scott’s Review #405

80057599

Reviewed May 24, 2016

Grade: B+

Tom Hardy is one of my favorite modern film actors (he should have won the 2015 Oscar for his riveting performance in The Revenant, in my humble opinion) and in Legend (2015) fans are treated to a dual role by the handsome Brit.

Hardy portrays Reggie and Ronald Kray, two of London’s most feared and brutal gangsters.

The film belongs to Hardy in every way, shape, and form, the locales of London are fantastic, and more than one scene is jaw-dropping violent, but the film meanders quite a bit and the vocals of Ron Kray are quite difficult to understand.

Still, impressive effort as a whole.

The time is late 1950s London. Reggie Kray, the more mainstream of the Kray brothers, is a feared member of the organized crime community.  He is coddled by his mother and can do no wrong in her eyes. This makes any relationships difficult as his mum disapproves of his mates.

He falls in love with Frances Shea, a young woman who narrates most of the film, so it is told from an outsider’s perspective. Reggie’s brother Ron has recently been released from a mental hospital and if off of his medications, is certifiably crazy, and very volatile.

He is gay and makes no bones about it.

Ron and Reggie have a love/hate relationship, and this dynamic is the most interesting aspect.

Thanks to Hardy, as the writing is not Legend’s strongest suit, we see two very different characters, even though they look alike. In the myriad of scenes shared between the brothers, it appears that two actors are playing the roles which is to Hardy’s credit.

An important scene emphasizes the relationship between the two. When a rival dares to mention Reggie’s wife’s name disparagingly, he points a gun and fires at the man’s head.

Fortunately, the gun is not loaded, so the audience breathes a sigh of relief. Yet, a worse fate awaits the victim. After the deed is done, Reggie whispers in Ron’s ear that he killed the man “because I can’t kill you”.

This means Reggie would kill Ron if he could- shocking since they are brothers. To add to this, it is implied that he would kill his brother with the same savageness as his victim.

This makes the audience ponder.

Impressive is Ron’s sexuality, especially since he is not written stereotypically. He is brutal, masculine, and hardcore. The fact that Ron Kray was a real figure is important to note. His entourage of boyfriends follows him around in dedication.

Who can blame them as his charisma oozes- think of an unstable James Bond.

The twin’s relationship is the best part of the film, but as a mob film, Legend meanders quite a bit, so much so that it becomes tough to identify what the point is, if not for Hardy.

Save for Frances, none of the supporting characters are written with interest and are all rather forgettable.

The wonderful Chazz Palminteri is wasted in the role of Angelo Bruno, head of a Philadelphia crime family and friend of the Krays. There is little meaning or interest in his role.

A mediocre story, but with leading characters with depth, makes Legend (2015) an interesting film that flies under the radar and receives little notice.

Hopefully, if nothing else, it continues the success that Tom Hardy is currently achieving in modern film.

La Femme Infidele-1969

La Femme Infidele-1969

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Stephane Audran, Michel Bouquet

Scott’s Review #397

220px-UnfaithfulWifePoster

Reviewed April 23, 2016

Grade: A-

Another gem by French director Claude Chabrol, La Femme Infidel (The Unfaithful Wife) is a 1969 film later remade in the United States in 2002, directed then by Adrian Lynde.

Having seen the remake a few times before watching the original, I cannot help but compare the two films, which in itself is fun for me since both films are vastly different from one another, especially as I find myself further pondering each.

One is more conventional- the other more psychological.

Successful insurance executive Charles Desvallees lives in the suburbs of Paris with his beautiful wife Helene and their young son.

Life is seemingly idyllic, as they enjoy every luxury imaginable beautiful house with a beautiful landscape and a dutiful maid.

Charles has a sexy secretary, smokes, drinks, and enjoys life at work and Helene frequently goes to Paris for shopping sprees, beauty treatments, and to attend the cinema.

What could be missing from their lives?  Helene is a bored housewife and has embarked on an affair with Victor Pegalla, a writer who lives in Paris.

When Charles grows suspicious of Helene, he hires a private investigator to track her activities and reveal the true story of how she spends her time.

Admittedly, I was highly influenced by Unfaithful, the 2002 remake starring Diane Lane and Richard Gere when I viewed La Femme Infidel.

The remake is set in New York instead of Paris and is more polished and less psychological- a Fatal Attraction-type slick thriller if you will.

The “other man” is much sexier and more passionate, and the connection is more primal than in the original. This changes the tone of the film from a sexual and lustful one to a more complex and psychological dynamic- La Femme Infidel is a more thinking man’s film.

Victor is handsome and well-groomed, but he is rather similar to Helene’s husband, so we wonder what the main appeal is- if she is seeking adventure.

Lane’s 2002 character’s choice is easy- her affair is based on the physical attractiveness of the man. 1969’s Helene is not having her affair for that reason-, the reasons, besides boredom, are unclear, making the film more complex.

When the main action (death) occurs at the midway point, the film goes in a different direction and becomes complicated. No longer is the main plot of Helene’s adultery, but rather what Charles has done and the repercussions bound to follow.

Do we see Charles as the villain and Helene as the victim? Who do we feel sorry for? Do we root for anyone? Certainly, the character of Victor is not explored in much depth. What are his motivations? Is he in love with Helene?

Helene is an interesting character. Is she meant to be sympathetic or hated? Or just complex?  One can interpret her in different ways- the woman has it all beauty, a faithful husband, and a wonderful home life- why does she risk sacrificing it all for a fling?

Does she dare to want more out of her life and have some adulterous fun? It does not seem that Helene is in love with Victor or has any desire to run away with him or leave her husband.

Charles is also a character to be analyzed closely.

Throughout the film’s first portion, he is seen as a victim- his gorgeous wife has mysterious contempt for him and plays him for a fool. She spends his money and cheats on him, while he adores her and resists his young, flirtatious secretary, who has a thing for Charles and wears short skirts seemingly for his benefit.

She is much younger than Helene. Later, his character’s actions and motivations shift from victim to arguably brutish and primal. A momentary outburst changes his motivations and the texture becomes calculating.

In the end, Charles and Helene come together and resume normalcy in their lives, but will things ever be the same? Will the trust ever reappear in their lives? Is Helene now afraid of or intimidated by her husband or rather, does she now have a newfound desire for her alpha, take-charge husband?

The 1969 version of La Femme Infidel is layered, complex, interesting, and left me thinking about the film and that is a very good sign.

The remake, while very good, is more of a blockbuster, produced kind of film, while the original goes more for thought.

The lack of sex appeal in Victor is a negative of the film as are his motivations, but the character-driven nuances of the other characters make this a thought-provoking watch.

Violette Noziere-1978

Violette Noziere-1978

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Isabelle Huppert

Scott’s Review #378

70067611

Reviewed February 16, 2016

Grade: B+

Another in the legion of thrilling and mysterious films by French director Claude Chabrol, Violette Noziere (1978) tells the true story of an eighteen-year-old Parisian girl, who plots her parent’s murder in 1930’s France.

The fact that the tale is true to life makes it even more horrific and mesmerizing.

It is beautifully shot, though the action largely takes place in interior settings.

This film is a cerebral experience.

The film is classy in every way- like French films typically are, and Isabelle Huppert (Violette) takes center stage. She is gorgeous and interesting-looking (reminiscent of a young Jennifer Jason Leigh) in the lead role.

Violette appears to be a typical French teen but harbors a dark secret and something always appears glum about the character. She works nights as a prostitute accosting wealthy men.

When she meets handsome but spendthrift, Jean Francois, a young man she fancies, she becomes his main source of income and slowly begins to plot the murder of her low-income, yet stable parents, in an attempt to inherit their apparent savings.

The story is somewhat murky as Violette’s version of events (mainly in the past and concerning her father) is accusatory. She insists that her father sexually abused her as a child, but is this in her fantasy world, or did this happen? One never knows.

Making the film compelling is that Violette’s parents are quite likable. Struggling to make ends meet and provide quality life, they prepare home-cooked meals, enjoy life, and appear to be decent people.

What is the reality?

Later, we witness a rivalry between Violette and her mother. In one scene we see Violette’s father bouncing his daughter on his knee while the mother looks on filled with hatred.

When she attempts to seduce her husband, unsuccessfully, Violette looks on amused. Is this solely in Violette’s mind?

Chabrol, an admirer of Alfred Hitchcock, keeps the suspense going throughout the film, but the heart of the film belongs to Huppert.

From the start of the film, amid meaningless banter with her more refined girlfriend, the audience can tell there is something amiss about Violette. She seems lonely, like a lost little girl yearning for some excitement as her eyes stare into the distance.

Her true colors are slowly exposed, yet Chabrol never makes her all-out crazy. Violette always has a cool, calm, demeanor and that is why the film succeeds.

For fans of Chabrol, or film fans eager for a foreign language treat, Violette Noziere is a rare find, a welcome addition to the growing number of his films I have watched with interest, and heartily enjoyed.

The mystique, the beauty of the artistry, and the twists and turns are top-notch.

Irreversible-2002

Irreversible-2002

Director Gaspar Noe

Starring Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel

Top 10 Disturbing Films #4

Scott’s Review #375

60026141

Reviewed February 7, 2016

Grade: C+

As I ponder my review of Irreversible,  a 2002 French thriller and “art film”, I am attempting (as I always do) to look at the film critically, from a story and a technical standpoint, as well as a myriad of other aspects that make up a film.

This is admittedly a toughie.

On the surface, I despised the film wholeheartedly (more on that later), but from a critical standpoint, I found characteristics to admire and give credit to. One thing is for certain- I never want to see this film again.

The story is told in a non-linear style, begins after the story, and works backward, which I credit the film for, giving it a unique storytelling experience, cleverly done.

Two Parisian friends, Marcus and Pierre, go on a rampage after Marcus’s girlfriend is brutally raped and beaten. In panic mode, they learn the name of the attacker (Le Tenia) and go to a gay BDSM club aptly named “The Rectum”, a place the attacker requests, where they fervently search for him all the while beating club-goers and cause havoc.

Since the story is told in reverse, the audience is initially in a state of confusion at the events transpiring, and the jagged, shaky camera work, a very creative technique, only adds to the chaos. We only know that two maniacs are running rampant, destroying everything in their path.

Slowly, we realize what their motivation is as we work backward.

We are introduced to Alex, a beautiful young woman- in the early stages of pregnancy, who is Marcus’s steady, but used to date, Pierre. They are all very good friends. We see the romance between Marcus and Alex, and, working even further backward, we see Alex sitting alone in a park, reading a novel, and enjoying a bright, pleasant day in the park.

This peaceful closing scene contrasts drastically with the rest of the dark film. The film then becomes a flashing, frenetic, black-and-white experience, which I do not understand.

The film is quite bizarre and intensely brutal. The rape of Alex in a dark, gloomy underpass is one of the most intense and disturbing scenes I have ever witnessed in the film, and at one point I needed to leave the room briefly.

The scene is ten minutes in length and Alex is anally raped and then beaten into a comatose state. It is a sickening scene and we witness her pain, misery, and humiliation.

When Pierre and Marcus avenge her rape on who they think is Le Tenia, the scene is also extremely brutal. After (supposed) Le Tenia is captured by them, he attempts to rape Marcus, and Pierre grabs a fire extinguisher and bashes the victim to death as the face is repeatedly destroyed in full detail. It is a tough scene to watch.

I question the motivations of the director wholeheartedly and wonder if he intended to story-tell, or simply make as gruesome and shocking a film as possible.

I have read that when the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, many people walked out of the auditorium in disgust- I can see why.

Irreversible is severely homophobic, with repeated gay slurs being used throughout the gay club scenes, and is also anti- Asian as evidenced by Pierre’s and Marcus’s racial slurs directed at a taxi driver.

The motivations of the character of Le Tenia make no sense to me as it is revealed he is a gay man. Why a gay man would brutally rape a female is unclear to me. This, combined with the extreme brutality, anti-gay, anti-minority, and anti-women, renders the film rather pointless from a story perspective.

My assumption after processing the film is that the director wants us to sympathize with nobody in the film, except Alex. Pierre, Marcus, and Le Tenia are all hateful characters.

It is interesting how, at first, since the beginning is the end, the motivations of the characters are unclear and confused.

My admiration of Irreversible (2002) comes solely from the unique camera work, the clever pacing of the film in the form of backward chapters, and the frenetic style of the opening work, however, the homophobia, racism, and brutality left me cold and I could not shake the feeling that this film is shocking for the sake of being shocking, and one that I ultimately cannot applaud.

Showgirls-1995

Showgirls-1995

Director Paul Verhoeven

Starring Elizabeth Berkley, Kyle MacLachlan

Scott’s Review #372

962109

Reviewed January 31, 2016

Grade: D

Having heard much about the infamously badly reviewed Showgirls (1995), and its ranking as one of the worst films ever made, I finally got around to watching this (twenty years after its release).

Now considered something of a camp classic, I am glad I did.

While I recognize the dubious distinction it holds and does not disagree with it, I also found something slightly entertaining about the film, and my thought process throughout was “this film is so bad that it might be good”, but in the end, it is pretty much just a bad film.

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) hitchhikes to Las Vegas intending to find success as a showgirl. Having her belongings stolen, she is then befriended by a kind-hearted woman named Molly, who works as a seamstress at the topless dance revue, Goddess.

Molly takes her in and introduces her to the star of the show-Cristal (Gina Gershon).

A rivalry immediately develops between the women as Cristal mocks Nomi’s job at another topless club. The main story centers on this rivalry, as Nomi attempts to climb the ranks and achieve success in the shady world of adult entertainment.

Along the way she becomes involved with various men, specifically entertainment director (and Cristal’s boyfriend), Zack, played by Kyle MacLachlan, leading to further tensions.

Let me be honest here- Showgirls is a bad film in every way. I observed three major flaws in the film- poor acting, poor writing, and the film being over-the-top on every level.

Let’s break it down.

Within minutes, I knew the acting was sub-par, and I wondered if that was the fault of the director’s (Paul Verhoeven) directing or the actors themselves- or a combination.

Known for directing Basic Instinct (a sexy, smoldering film), one wonders if he had the same success in mind for Showgirls.

Berkeley gets the brunt of the mention since she is the lead character, but, wow what a bad performance. From the over-dramatic delivery to the phony earnestness, I did not buy the performance for a minute and fantasized on more than one occasion about how a different actress might have tackled the role (Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts came to mind).

Gershon was almost worse as her sexiness and vixen-like character were fraught with an irritating brooding pout.

The writing is one-dimensional- a poor girl tries to achieve success in a bad, bad world and meets challenge after challenge. Nothing new here.

The predictability was apparent almost immediately and most of the characters were unlikable. When Nomi garners interest in a man, he turns into a player with another aspiring female star on the side, feeding her the same lines as he did Nomi.

Even the one sympathetic character (Molly), exists only to make Nomi more likable as is the case when Molly is attacked and Nomi races to her bedside.

Forced and formulaic, this scene is a prime example of poor and contrived writing.

Most scenes play over the top.

Brimming with nudity and sexual excitement, the film is bawdy and party-friendly. In one scene, dancers take a line of coke before hitting the stage and a feud between two of the dancers results in one sabotaging the production so that the other dancer will break her hip.

The larger-than-life (in more than one way) x-rated, well-endowed, mama dancer, while entertaining, is also silly and foolish.

Chaotic and pointless, each scene was hard to believe and take seriously.

You may be wondering what positives can be found in Showgirls- the answer is not many, but there is a charm I found in the film, but perhaps I am glutenous for punishment.

I think the film “feels” like it wants to have fun and a certain level of entertainment can be found in viewing it, but this is like trying to find a needle in the haystack to see any good in Showgirls.

I do not disagree with the distinction that Showgirls (1995) is one of the worst films ever made, but I found a sliver of charm, interest, and fun mixed in with the more prevalent drivel, poor quality, and painfully bad acting.

But perhaps that is because it is so bad.

The Hand That Rocks the Cradle-1992

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle-1992

Director Curtis Hanson

Starring Rebecca De Mornay, Annabella Sciorra

Scott’s Review #360

569891

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

One may argue that the slick 1992 thriller, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, is a direct rip-off of the 1987 blockbuster hit Fatal Attraction, which spawned countless imitators, and they may be accurate, but I simply adore this film.

It contains great tension and is well-acted, but above all, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle features Rebecca De Mornay in a wonderful performance as one of the screen’s most memorable villains, Peyton Flanders.

This is a film that will admittedly not win any awards for originality, but that I love all the same.

Peyton Flanders is very pregnant when we meet her. Her husband is creepy Dr. Mott, an obstetrician who sexually molests Claire Bartel (Sciorra) in his office during an exam.

Humiliated and upset, Claire, after being encouraged by her husband, Michael, files charges against Dr. Mott. He commits suicide and Peyton loses her child. Filled with vengeance, she vows to destroy Claire.

The plot may sound like a tawdry daytime soap plot device, but The Hand That Rocks The Cradle somehow works like a charm.

Unlike Fatal Attraction, there is little rooting value between Petyon and Michael- we know she is a crazed lunatic- the fun is seeing how she gets hers. She manipulates him and insinuates herself into their home- she pretends to be a nanny and subsequently manipulates Michael and Claire’s daughter.

Julianne Moore- in an early role in her storied film career- is believable as Claire’s best friend, who is the only one who sees Peyton for the monster she truly is.

Sadly, her screen time is limited.

Regardless of the other fine performances from the rest of the cast, this is De Mornay’s film- she is psychotic, then sweet, and plays both to the hilt.

I suppose a film like The Hand That Rocks The Cradle (1992) is not intended to be analyzed too much since it tries to thrill, scare, and make the audience uneasy, but boy is it sure fun.

The Night of the Hunter-1955

The Night of the Hunter-1955

Director Charles Laughton

Starring Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters

Top 100 Films #66

Scott’s Review #351

804679

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

The Night of the Hunter (1955) is a fairy tale for adults. Although it is categorized as a thriller, it certainly teeters on the edge of being a horror film. In addition to being well-written, it also contains breathtaking cinematography.

Made in the mid-1950s, it is shot in black and white and tells the tale of good versus evil in a small town. The film is a masterpiece and one of my all-time favorites.

The film is creepy but intelligent, and director Charles Laughton is responsible for its immeasurable success. Although it was not a success upon release, it has only finally received its due admiration as the years pass.

The film is way ahead of its time.

It is based on the 1953 novel by Davis Grubb.

The time is the 1930s, and the setting is rural West Virginia along the Ohio River. Ben Harper, a local family man, robs a bank and hides the stolen money inside his daughter’s doll.

His son and daughter (John and Pearl) are central characters in the story. Caught, Ben is out of the picture, leaving his wife, Wilma (Winters), vulnerable and alone.

A serial killer, Reverend Harry Powell (Mitchum), a misogynist, is on the loose disguised as a preacher. In prison with Ben, he knows the money is hidden and is determined to find out where. He has designs on wooing Wilma.

When dire events occur, John and Pearl are left along the river to seek refuge with a kindly older woman, Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish).

The film is majestic, haunting, and artistic. Each scene seemingly glows as the dark black-and-white colors mix gorgeously with tranquility despite the dark tone of the subject matter.

The Night of the Hunter also has a dream-like visual quality. In one pivotal scene, we see a dead body submerged at the bottom of the river. The scene is horrific, with bulging eyes and bloating beginning to set in, but it is also creatively beautiful.

The flowing hair of the victim and the posture are mesmerizing scenes that stick with you for some time.

Poetic and a sense of good versus evil, clearly laid out as Powell has two words imprinted on the knuckles of each hand- “L-O-V-E” and “H-A-T-E.”  These words create the basis of the film as both words can be applied to the characters.

My favorite scene is when John and Pearl travel along the Ohio River in flight from their rival. The shapes of the trees mirrored by the flowing river are incredible, and I can watch this scene again.

A thriller, written intelligently well, with creativity for miles, is a recipe for pure delight. Director Laughton directed only this one film and encouraged creative collaboration and participation from his actors, which is shown in the resulting masterpiece.

The Night of the Hunter (1955) has influenced countless directors.

Rebecca-1940

Rebecca-1940

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine

Top 100 Films #63

Scott’s Review #345

895272

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

The only Alfred Hitchcock film to win the coveted Best Picture Oscar trophy, Rebecca is a very early offering in the famous director’s repertoire.

His heyday being well ahead of this film (the 1950s and 1960s saw his best works), Rebecca is a blueprint of fine things to come and, on its own merits, is a great film.

Shot in black and white, the film is a descent into mystery, intrigue, and madness with a gothic look.

Laurence Olivier stars as wealthy widower Maxim de Winter, whose first wife, title character Rebecca, died sometime before the story begins. In a clever twist, the character of Rebecca is never seen but takes on a life of her own through the tellings of the rest of the cast.

Joan Fontaine plays a nameless, naïve young woman who meets the sophisticated Maxim and marries him, becoming the new Mrs. de Winter.

This development is met with disdain by the servants who work in the Grand de Winter mansion, Manderley, a character in its own right.

The housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), is cold and distant from Maxim’s new wife. She begins to reveal an obsession with the deceased Rebecca, which creates jealousy and intimidation for Fontaine’s character—so much so that she begins to doubt her sanity and decision-making capabilities.

Thanks to Hitchcock’s direction, Rebecca is a fantastic, old-style film with layers of mystery and wonderment. The mansion that is Manderley is central to the story, as is the creepy obsession that Mrs. Danvers has with Rebecca.

She keeps the dead woman’s bedroom neat, a sort of shrine to her memory, so much so that, despite the time the film is made, 1940, a lesbian element is crystal clear to attention-paying audiences.

This aspect may not have been noticed then, but it is apparent now.

The film is also a ghost story since the central character, Rebecca, is never seen.

Could she be haunting the mansion? Is she dead, or is this a red herring created to throw the audience off the track? Is the new Mrs. de Winter spiraling out of control? Is she imagining the servant’s menacing actions? Is Maxim in on the tormentor simply seeking a replacement wife for his steadfast love?

The pertinent questions are asked not only of the character but also of the audience as they watch with bated breaths.

The climax and finale of Rebecca (1940) are fantastic.

As the arguably haunted mansion is engulfed in flames and the sinister Mrs. Danvers can be seen lurking near the raging drapes, the truth comes to the surface, leaving a memorable haunting feeling to audiences watching.

Rebecca is a true classic.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Outstanding Production (won), Best Director-Alfred Hitchcock, Best Actor-Laurence Olivier, Best Actress-Joan Fontaine, Best Supporting Actress-Judith Anderson, Best Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, Black and White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing, Best Special Effects

Blue Velvet-1986

Blue Velvet-1986

Director David Lynch

Starring Kyle MacLachlan, Laura Dern

Top 100 Films #62

Scott’s Review #343

319022

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Taken from a 1963 Bobby Vinton tune of the same name, Blue Velvet (1986) is an independent thriller noir film directed by the master of the weird and the unusual, David Lynch.

It is surreal in look and so mysterious- almost a pre-cursor to Lynch’s fantastic television series, Twin Peaks. I adore the film and find new facets to it with each passing viewing.

Though it’s not an easy or mainstream watch- the payoff can be big and you know you are watching a deep, layered, film.

The story can be tough to completely understand with only one show, but it goes something like this- Under the guise of a cheerful, suburban surface, evil is lurking somewhere. College student, Jeffrey (MacLachlan) discovers a severed human ear lying in an abandoned lot delivers it to police detective John Williams, and reconnects with the detective’s daughter, Sandy (Dern).

Sandy, being privy to secret information about the case, reveals that a mysterious woman, Dorothy Valens (Isabella Rossellini) resides in an apartment key to the case. Jeffrey and Sandy decide to investigate further and get themselves in over their heads as the mystery deepens.

The dreamlike quality of the film is very compelling and intriguing. Layers upon layers come to the forefront as the story unfolds and very few answers are ever provided- this adds to the mystery and is really the point of the film.

Many aspects are open to interpretation.

The relationship between Jeffrey and the much older Dorothy is fascinating, but what about his chemistry with the innocent Sandy? And who is the Yellowman? When the youngsters see Dorothy perform “Blue Velvet” at her nightclub, it is a great moment in the film.

The character of Frank Booth, played by Dennis Hopper, must be one of the strangest in film history as the man is maniacal and bizarre beyond measure. With his unusual sexual tastes- he enjoys inhaling gas, and sadomasochism, he is a unique character. He is also quite abusive to Dorothy.

The film is a throwback to classic film noir from the 1950s and a clear femme fatale in Dorothy is central to the film.

I find the film so compelling since its subject matter is secrets. Many secrets and dark corruption or various forms of left-of-center dealings reside in this small North Carolina town- it is the audience’s challenge to put all the pieces of this puzzle together.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-David Lynch

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-David Lynch, Best Male Lead-Dennis Hopper, Best Female Lead-Isabella Rossellini (won), Laura Dern, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography

The French Connection-1971

The French Connection-1971

Director William Friedkin

Starring Gene Hackman, Roy Scheider

Top 100 Films #69

Scott’s Review #342

60011660

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

The French Connection had the notable distinction of being the first R-rated film to win the coveted Best Picture Oscar back in 1971.

This praise, similar to The Silence of the Lambs being the first horror film to win Best Picture in 1991, is well worth pointing out and is quite honorary.

The film succeeds, both for myself and other critics, because of the unique style of the camerawork, shot documentary-style, and use of quick edits.

It is much more intricate in every way than the traditional crime thriller.

Gene Hackman stars as the feisty detective, Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle, who along with his partner, Buddy “Cloudy” Russo, (Scheider) are determined to crack the case of a huge heroin smuggling syndicate from France.

The narcotics are flowing into New York City and the duo is determined to get to the bottom of the drug ring, figuring out who is the mastermind and defeating their foe.

The primary culprit is a suave French drug lord named Alain Charnier, brilliantly played by Fernando Rey.

Throughout the film, the action is non-stop, traversing throughout Manhattan and Brooklyn, via subway, and car, as Popeye becomes more and more obsessed with the case.

Director William Friedkin, who also directed the legendary 1973 film, The Exorcist, deserves a heap of praise for creating a film of this caliber. The French Connection can be enjoyed by all and is well beyond the limitations of a “guy film”- it is much more than that.

The editing and frenetic pacing work wonders for the film, all the while not ruining the experience or overshadowing the good plot. Quite simply, the film is a chase across New York City.

Friedkin distinguishes the boroughs by making Manhattan seem sophisticated and stylish, and Brooklyn dirty, grizzled, and drug-laden.

The settings are perfect.

The best scene in the film is the well-known car chase throughout New York City. Popeye is determined not to lose his man, the man riding in a subway on an elevated platform. Popeye steals a car and proceeds to chase the subway narrowly missing pedestrians, including a woman with a baby carriage, as he recklessly weaves in and out of traffic at a high speed, to keep pace with the train.

This is a phenomenal scene as the excitement and tension continue to build.

The conclusion of the film and the final scene is cynical and also leaves the audience perplexed and unsure of what has transpired.

The French Connection is open to good discussion and even interpretation, a novel aspect of the action film.

Providing a tremendous glimpse into 1970s Manhattan and Brooklyn, The French Connection is an exciting film that oozes with thrills, car chases, and a good story.

The film is unique in style and still holds up incredibly well- one of my favorites in the action genre.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Richard Friedkin (won), Best Actor-Gene Hackman (won), Best Supporting Actor-Roy Scheider, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Sound, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

Fatal Attraction-1987

Fatal Attraction-1987

Director Adrian Lyne

Starring Michael Douglas, Glenn Close

Top 100 Films #45

Scott’s Review #329

60010341

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

Fatal Attraction is a film that was a monster smash hit at its time of release (1987) and has all the makings of a trashy, forgettable, slick Hollywood film from a disastrous time in the film.

Guess what? It is a fantastic, gripping, thriller that still holds up well after all of these years.

Say what you will about Anne Archer, who is very good, but this film truly belongs to Michael Douglas and Glenn Close, who made it the believable thrill ride that Fatal Attraction is.

The subject matter is adultery, which made it the water-cooler topic of its day.

The plot is quite simple- Douglas plays Dan Gallagher, a successful New York City attorney, happily married to Beth (Archer), and raising a cute young daughter, Ellen.

When Beth and Ellen are away looking at new houses one rainy weekend, Dan embarks on a torrid affair with sexy, successful businesswoman, Alex (Close), not realizing that she is an unbalanced, needy woman, who is not about to let Dan out of her life.

I adore this film in large part because it’s a film that can be debated.

Many seem to blame either (mostly) Dan or Alex, but the question of monogamy can always be a topic of conversation after viewing this film, so in that regard, it is multi-faceted, rather than solely a well-acted Hollywood potboiler.

Was it okay for Dan to cheat? Does Beth overreact or does she forgive too easily? Do we sympathize with Alex? Is she a victim?

The film is unique in that many folks were rooting for Dan and Alex, despite her being the other woman.

So many memorable lines or scenes contribute to this film- who can forget the infamous “boiling pet rabbit” scene or the wonderful line that Alex utters to Dan, “I will not be ignored, Dan”.

They are so ingrained in pop culture that it brings a smile to think of these aspects of Fatal Attraction.

The real selling point, though, is the natural and honest chemistry that Douglas and Close share. Their scenes, mainly the romantic weekend they spend together, flow so nicely that they have real rooting value and I instantly bought them as a couple.

Without this undeniable chemistry, Fatal Attraction would be a standard romantic thriller- and not much else. And the smoldering sexuality during their love scenes is erotic and intense.

Surely not suffering from the dreaded “1980s look”, Fatal Attraction is a gem that holds up very well and is a slick thrill-ride, easily watched and enjoyed time and again.

Dozens upon dozens of carbon copy films cropped up in the years to follow, but none were ever as fantastic as Fatal Attraction (1987).

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Adrian Lyne, Best Actress-Glenn Close, Best Supporting Actress-Anne Archer, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Deliverance-1972

Deliverance-1972

Director John Boorman

Starring Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty

Top 100 Films #74    

Scott’s Review #324

433193

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Deliverance is a disturbing, gritty, yet wonderful 1972 thriller, directed by John Boorman, starring a cast of all-male principal actors.

The film is an adventure, albeit a dark one, with a subject matter difficult to watch, the film takes dark twists along the way, which is also the beauty of it. The viewer will get a harsh look at the backwoods of Georgia, not to mention gorgeous outdoor scenery.

A group of middle-aged, metropolitan businessmen, (played by Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox), from Atlanta, decide to go rafting for a weekend getaway along a remote river in a desolate area of Georgia.

It is a guy’s weekend.

Lewis and Ed (Reynolds and Voight) are experienced at canoeing and are therefore the leaders of the group.

The guys are jovial but soon come upon a strange group of very poor townspeople. The men ask for a ride to the river and one of the men, Drew (Cox) engages a strange young boy in a friendly duel of banjo versus guitar, but Drew is then snubbed by the boy.

Later, events take a dark turn when a hunter versus hunted game emerges between the city-dwelling men and the country rednecks.

The film is interesting as it begins as a light-hearted adventure- nearly a buddy movie. The men laugh and joke as they relish in anticipation of the exciting weekend lying ahead of them.

The film then becomes slightly eerie during the banjo scene. We know that something strange or sinister has occurred, but we cannot put our finger on it.

Does the redneck boy hate the city men or is he simply mentally challenged? Why the strange looks of the poor people of the tiny town?

From this point, Deliverance takes a dark turn as a brutal event occurs involving two deaths- one under mysterious circumstances, and a male rape scene that is disturbing in its intensity and humiliation.

The rawness of these aspects of the film is unprecedented, especially interspersed with the contrast of the beautiful nature that is also at the forefront.

The acting is spot-on. In my opinion, Jon Voight makes this film and gives a layered, character-driven performance, so much so, that the audience becomes invested in his life. Ed is a good guy- arguably the kindest of the bunch- and is forced to become a different person as the film progresses, far from his true self.

He struggles in one scene- one beautifully peaceful scene- to shoot and kill a deer calmly grazing in the woods. He cannot do it. I love this scene as it shows Ed’s true nature. He does not dare tell the other men of his perceived shortcomings.

Ironically, he is then forced to make another painful decision involving human life.

On the surface a straightforward mainstream film, but as the film moves along, it becomes a layered masterpiece. Happy, tragic, strange, depressing, peaceful, and brutal capture Deliverance (1972).

The film is a disturbing, memorable gem and needs to be viewed to appreciate the golden age of 1970s cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-John Boorman, Best Film Editing

Rope-1948

Rope-1948

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, John Dall, James Stewart

Top 100 Films #33

Scott’s Review #323

60020558

Reviewed January 5, 2016

Grade: A

Rope (1948) is one of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films and a film that instead flies under the radar amongst his catalog of gems. Made in 1948, the film- set as a play (and based on a 1929 play), using one set only- and appearing to be one long take- is an understated film.

The action is inside a luxurious Manhattan apartment with a gorgeous panoramic skyline. Intelligent with subtle nuances that in current viewings are not as subtle, the tiny (nine) cast is fantastic at eliciting a fine story that never seems dated.

Starring Hitchcock stalwart Jimmy Stewart, the film features Farley Granger (Strangers On A Train-1951) and John Dall.

Granger and Dall portray Phillip and Brandon, two college students who strangle a fellow student as an experiment to create the perfect murder. Immediately after the murder, they host a dinner party for friends, including the father, aunt, and fiancée of the victim, all in attendance.

Stewart plays Brandon and Phillip’s prep school housemaster,  Rupert Cadell, who is suspicious of the duo.

To further the thrill, the dead body is hidden inside a large antique wooden chest in the center of their living room, as their housekeeper unwittingly serves dinner atop the dead body.

The film is macabre, clever, and quite experimental.

The very first scene is of Phillip strangling the victim, David, with a piece of kitchen rope, which is an unusual way to start a film. Typically, there would be more buildup and then the climax of murder, but Hitchcock is far too intelligent to follow the rule book.

Ironically, Phillip is the weak and submissive one despite committing the crime. Brandon is dominant and keeps Phillip in check by coaxing him to be calm and in control.

The fact that many of the guests have a relationship with the deceased, munching on their dinner while wondering why David is not attending the party, is gleeful irony. Plenty of drinks are served, and as Phillip gets drunk and drunk, he becomes more unhinged.

The film reminds me of some aspects of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, also based on a play and primarily featuring one set- both dinner parties with alcoholic consumptions, secrets, and accusations becoming more prevalent as the evening goes along.

The plot unfolds chillingly throughout one evening as Rupert slowly figures out that what he had previously taught Brandon and Phillip in an intellectual, hypothetical classroom discussion has been taken morbidly seriously by the two.

The homosexual context is hard to miss in this day and age, but remarkably, it was over the heads of the 1948 Production Code censors, who had no idea of what they were witnessing.

Phillip and Brandon are a gay couple who live together, and this Hitchcock has admitted to in later years. If watched closely, one will notice that in any shot where Brandon and Phillip are speaking to one another, their faces are dangerously close, so we can easily imagine them kissing.

This is purely intentional by Hitchcock.

Rope (1948) is a daring achievement in innovative filmmaking. It should be viewed by any aspiring filmmaker or anyone who enjoys robust and clever camera angles and stories and is seeking an extraordinary adventure in a calm, subtle, great story.

Strangers on a Train-1951

Strangers on a Train-1951

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Farley Granger, Robert Walker

Top 100 Films #27

Scott’s Review #318

70002912

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

A thrill-ride-per-minute film, a classic suspense story filled with tension galore, Strangers On A Train is a great Alfred Hitchcock film from 1951, which began the onset of the “golden age of Hitchcock,” lasting throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

A British version of the film exists somewhere, but I have yet to see it.

The American version is a brilliant, fast-paced experience with complex, interesting characters, including one of the greatest villains in screen history, and a riveting, heart-pounding plot.

Who can forget the essential ominous phrase “criss-cross”?

The film begins with a clever shot of two pairs of expensive shoes emerging from individual taxi cabs. Both are men, well-to-do, and stylish.  They board a train and sit across each other, accidentally bumping their feet.

We are then introduced to the two main characters: tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and wealthy Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). They engage in conversation, and immediately, we become aware that Bruno is assertive and Guy is more passive.

Ultimately, Bruno manipulates Guy into thinking they will exchange murders- Bruno will kill Guy’s unfaithful wife, Miriam, while Guy will murder Bruno’s hated father.  While Bruno takes this dire “deal” seriously, Guy thinks Bruno is joking.

A psychological complexity of the film is the implied relationship between Guy and Bruno. Indeed, there are sexual overtones as flirtation and bonding immediately develop while they converse on the train.

They are complete opposites, which makes their relationship compelling—the devil and the angel if you will. The mysterious, profound connection between these two men fascinates throughout the film.

Robert Walker makes Bruno a delicious villain. He is devious, clever, manipulative, and even comical at times. His wickedness is mesmerizing, so much so that the audience roots for him.

Hitchcock wisely makes the victim, Miriam (wonderfully played by Laura Elliot), devious, adding to Bruno’s rooting value during her death scene. His character is troubled and almost rivals Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter as a lovable, evil villain.

Later in the film, when Guy is playing tennis, he gazes into the stands to see the spectators turning left and right in tandem with the moving tennis ball, and the audience sees a staring straight ahead Bruno immersed in the sea of swaying heads.

It is a highly effective, creepy scene.

The pairing of Guy and his girlfriend Anne (a seemingly much older Ruth Roman and, interestingly, despised by Hitchcock) does not work. Could this be a result of the implied attraction between Bruno and Guy? Or is it a coincidence?

Roman’s casting was forced upon Hitchcock by the Warner Brothers studio.

Hitchcock reveals his “mommy complex,” a common theme in his films, as we learn that there is something off with Bruno’s mother, played by Marion Lorde, but the exact oddity is tricky to pin down.

She and Bruno comically joke about bombing the White House, which gives the scene a jarring, confusing edge. Is she he reason that Bruno is diabolical?

The theme of women’s glasses is used heavily in Strangers On A Train. Miriam, an eyeglass wearer, is strangled while we, the audience, witness the murder through her dropped glasses. The scene is gorgeous and cinematic in black and white and continues to be studied in film schools everywhere.

Later, Anne’s younger sister Barbara (comically played by Hitchcock’s daughter Pat Hitchcock), who also wears glasses, becomes an essential character as Bruno is mesmerized by her likeness to the deceased Miriam, as a mock strangulation game at a dinner party goes wrong.

The concluding carnival scene is high-intensity and contains impressive special effects for 1951.

The spinning out-of-control carousel, panicked riders, and cat-and-mouse chase scene leading to a deadly climax is a fantastic end to the film.

Strangers On A Train (1951) is one of Hitchcock’s best classic thrill films.

Rear Window-1954

Rear Window-1954

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly

Top 100 Films #50

Scott’s Review #317

60000397

Reviewed January 2, 2016

Grade: A

I dearly love several Alfred Hitchcock films, and Rear Window (1954) is high on that list.

The film is a unique experience in that much of it is shot from the point of view of the main character, L.B. Jeffries, played with conviction by James Stewart, a fixture in several of Hitchcock’s great films.

Wheelchair-bound and confined to his Manhattan apartment, he has nothing more to do than spy on an apartment entire of neighbors across the street.

He witnesses a crime, and a cat-and-mouse game ensues.

What is great about this film is that the viewer gets to know the series of neighbors L.B. watches and glimpses into their lives, some happy and some sad.

Rear Window is shot sort of like a play. The chemistry between Stewart and Grace Kelly is nice but secondary to the tremendous main story.

Rear Window (1954) can be watched repeatedly and enjoyed with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Alfred Hitchcock, Best Screenplay, Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Color

Blow-Up-1966

Blow-Up-1966

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave

Scott’s Review #305

60033579

Reviewed December 21, 2015

Grade: A

Blow-up is a mysterious and compelling 1966 (the spawn of more edgy films) thriller that undoubtedly influenced the yet-to-come 1974 masterpiece The Conversation, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, as both films are tense tales of intrigue focusing on technology as a tool to witness a murder.

This film is legendary director Michelangelo Antonioni’s first English-speaking film, and what a film it is.

Set in hip London in the 1960s, it certainly interestingly portrays the fashion world. The story is about a fashion photographer named Thomas, who is in high demand. He revels in bedding women so they may have their photos taken by this rock star photographer and is chased around London by gorgeous women.

One day, he aborts a photo shoot because he is bored. He is not the nicest guy in the world but an unlikable character.

But perhaps that is secondary or even intentional. One day, while walking in Maryon Park, he encounters a couple in the distance. They appear to be having a secret rendezvous and nervously kissing, so he begins photographing them.

The woman, Jane,  (played by a very young Vanessa Redgrave) realizes they have been snapped and is furious- demanding the film.

This sets off the mystery and the meat of the film.

The film is a tremendous achievement in cinematic intrigue. It is pretty psychological and open to much interpretation, which is its genius. The main questions are: “What exactly transpired in the park, and who is responsible?”

We feel little sympathy for Thomas, which perhaps is intentional. and what about Jane?

Talk about mystery!

We know little about her besides that she has secrets, but is she responsible for the crime? Throughout the film, Thomas and Jane play a sort of cat-and-mouse game, seemingly trying to outwit and outmaneuver each other.

The unique aspect of the film is that the viewer will often ask questions- “Was there even a crime committed”? “Are the events all in Thomas’s imagination, or has he misinterpreted the series”? One will revel in the magnificence of these questions.

I immediately recognized similarities to The Conversation (1974). Both feature one of the senses as a means of solving or realizing the crime committed—in The Conversation, it is hearing; in Blow-Up, it is sight.

In both, the main character uses these senses for a living, and both are arguably not the most likable characters. Both films feature mimes.  Both films are pretty cerebral, and both are cinema gems for the “thinking man.”

Blow-Up has weird, little intricate moments- a very tall female Russian model experiences an odd photoshoot with Thomas. Later,  a giggling pair of young girls end up in a grappling match with Thomas after asking him to take their photos.  A topless (from behind) Jane prancing around Thomas’s apartment is an unusual scene.

As a first-time viewer, I adored this film. It is a good example of a film that requires multiple viewings to appreciate fully, and I look forward to doing just that.

A fantastic creative achievement, Blow-Up (1966) is a masterpiece that can be dissected with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Michelangelo Antonioni, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

Les Bonnes Femmes-1960

Les Bonnes Femmes-1960

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Bernadette Lafont

Scott’s Review #303

60000531

Reviewed December 19, 2015

Grade: A

Les Bonnes Femmes (1960) is a French film by Claude Chabrol, an excellent director whom I was shamefully unfamiliar with, save for the recently viewed Les Biches, made in 1968.

He has been labeled the French equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock, which is an accurate statement.

Les Bonnes Femmes is a brilliant film that came about during the experimental New Wave films of the 1960s and cannot be forgotten upon viewing it.

It has resonated with me, and I cannot stop thinking and analyzing it.

The film centers on four shopgirls living in Paris, all of whom happen to be young and beautiful and mysteriously look similar to one other.  Their names are Jane, Jacqueline, Ginette, and Rita.

They are rather bored with their lives and meander aimlessly through life and the doldrums of their job by looking forward to social occasions, which mainly include men.

The girls party (some more than others), date, go to the zoo, swim, and enjoy typical young lady festivities.

So far, the film might sound like a typical, lighthearted, nice story- think a French Sex and the City. It is, by and large, this way on the surface, but throughout the film, there is a calm sense of dread- like something bad might be lurking in the shadows of coming around the bend.

One day, while the girls are at the zoo, a mysterious individual begins following them, though the viewer has no idea why or who it is.

The film contains more than a sense of dread. Instead, a sense of chilling violence is in the air. A brooding, cold, ugly feeling transpires due to superior direction and overall mood.

Paris, one of the world’s most gorgeous cities, appears bleak, dark, and gloomy throughout the film. The black-and-white cinematography undoubtedly adds to this, as greyness envelopes every shot.

Throughout  Les Bonnes Femmes, there is plenty of foreshadowing as situations arise that give a sense of danger or that something terrible is imminent.

Early in the film, two girls are walking along the street when they are approached by two men in a car wanting to party with them. They accept, and the viewer wonders what a bad decision they may have made. The men wine and dine the women, who are looking for love.

One of the girls is quite a bit more reserved than the other and ends up spending the night with the men. Later, the shop owner tells a story about how she once acquired a serial killer’s bloody handkerchief after he was guillotined and has kept it for years.

Creepy? Yes.

The tigers snarling at the girls when they visit the zoo is laced with symbolism as is a, at first, fun game at the pool, as the men dunk the girl’s heads underwater until things escalate towards danger.

Jacqueline, the sweetest of the girls, meets a motorcycle man and spends time together. They are happy. The irony is that during these later scenes, in which an act of brutality occurs (one character is murdered), the tone is suddenly sunny, warm, and bright. A lovely afternoon in the woods quickly turns evil.

This was a shocking scene, as I was caught off guard. The ending of the film can be discussed in vast detail.

During the murder, it almost seems like the victim is welcoming death. Could this be? Additionally, is one of the shop girls his next intended victim, or is a new girl the killer’s next target?

In the final shot, we see him dancing with a girl, but it is unclear (at least to me) if it is one of the shopgirls.

Chabrol is not a happily-ever-after director. His films are known to be stormy, with dread looming. However,t they are also laced with style, sophistication, and a dark appeal.

I cannot wait to sink my teeth into more of his works.

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Director David Lynch

Starring Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin Theroux

Top 100 Films #14

Scott’s Review #297

60021646

Reviewed December 12, 2015

Grade: A

Mulholland Dr. (2001) is my favorite David Lynch film and as far as I am concerned, a pure masterpiece in experimental filmmaking.

Championed by many; hated by others for its non-linear and very confusing storyline, to try and make sense of the mishmash of dreamlike plots is wasteful and undoubtedly headache-inducing, as the film simply must be felt and appreciated for its creativity.

My best analogy is Mulholland Dr. is to film what Pink Floyd is to music- it must be savored and experienced. It is a film to be interpreted and studied.

The main story, if one is attempting to summarize in a paragraph, goes something like this:

Part 1- aspiring actress Betty Elms (played by then-unknown Naomi Watts) arrives in sunny Los Angeles, as a perky, clean-cut girl, and stays in her aunt’s gorgeous suburban apartment while, she an actress, is away on location shooting a film.

Betty meets an amnesiac woman, the gorgeous Rita (Laura Harring), who is hiding in the apartment. Before meeting Betty, we learn that Rita was involved in a car accident on Mulholland Dr. and is carrying a large sum of cash, but she does not know who she is or even her name, making up the name “Rita” from a poster of Rita Hayworth she sees on the wall while showering.

Part 2: Betty (now named Diane) and Rita (now Camilla) are lovers and Betty, no longer aspiring, now has become a neurotic, struggling actress with no work, and is involved in a love triangle with Camilla and another man, who are both great successes and pity Diane.

Diane and Camilla go to a club named Club Silencio, where a gorgeous singer brings them to tears with her singing only to collapse and be revealed as a phony. The host warns that everything is an illusion.

Intersecting vignettes seemingly unrelated to the central part of the story- a young director forced to cast a woman after threats from the mafia, a terrified man who sees a demented man behind the dumpster of a burger joint, and a detective searching for the clues to the car accident involving Rita, all come together to relate to the main story.

Mixed in with all of these stories are recurring odd characters- the seemingly sweet elderly couple that Betty meets on the airplane, a strange cowboy who appears every so often, Coco, the landlord, played by legendary film actress Ann Miller, in her last film, Coco then doubles as a shrewish character in the alternate story, and finally, a mysterious blue key.

How do all these facets of story and character add up?

That is open to interpretation.

Some details support the theory that “Betty” is a figment of Diane’s imagination- she dreams of being fresh-faced and ready to take on L.A., and that the woman that Betty and Rita find dead is Diane.

When the plot changes direction, the cowboy utters the line “Hey, pretty girl. Time to wake up.”, which seems to support this theory, though, as mentioned before, Mulholland Dr. is meant to be enjoyed not stressed over if the puzzle does not always come together.

Mulholland Dr. (2001) is a masterpiece pure and simple. An odd masterpiece with plots that can be discussed and dissected for ages…..and not understanding the film is not a bad thing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-David Lynch

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

The Visit-2015

The Visit-2015

Director M. Night Shyamalan

Starring Olivia DeJonge, Ed Oxenbould, Kathryn Hahn

Scott’s Review #276

80045505

Reviewed September 24, 2015

Grade: B

A modern-day thriller/horror/comedy hybrid (admittedly it is tough to classify this film as exclusive horror with the dreaded and watered-down PG-13 rating) directed by M. Night Shyamalan, The Visit (2015) has its moments of genuine scary frights and surprises.

It contains a wonderful twist at the end but suffers from some clichés, one severely unlikeable character, and suspensions of disbelief.

Bringing grandparents to the forefront of the film is a clever idea, albeit, stereotypically, The Visit is a decent watch, but laden with a few misfires.

Paula (Kathryn Hahn), a single mother on the outs with her parents for some years, but recently reunited, sends her two children- Rebecca and Tyler, for a week, to stay at their grandparent’s farmhouse, whom they have never met.

At the kids prompting, Paula decides to go on a romantic vacation with her new boyfriend.

Naturally, when the kids arrive at Grandma and Grandpa’s strange events happen. The children are warned never to go into the basement, not to leave their bedrooms after nine-thirty pm, plus the grandparents have a creepy, weird, look to them.

Rebecca and Tyler, in true modern horror fashion, arguably contrived at this point, record all the events (think Paranormal Activity from 2007) and begin to realize there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

The Visit contains positives and negatives.

The mother and the two kids live in New Jersey and the grandparents in Pennsylvania. That is one state away, yet Rebecca and Tyler have never met, seen photographs, spoken to their grandparents on the phone, not even to discuss the impending visit.

The kids constantly use Skype to communicate with Mom throughout their visit, but doesn’t occur to anyone to chat with the grandparents before embarking on a week-long visit to introduce themselves.

This is a convenient plot manipulation.

Another negative is the film contains one of the most annoying characters in recent memory, Tyler. I am baffled as to whether this was intentional or unintentional.

The kid is about twelve years old and is written as dumb as possible. There are at least three to four endless scenes of him rapping, mostly to the video camera, that I found to be an utter waste of valuable screen time and lends nothing to the plot.

Filler and for a ninety-minute movie, unnecessary.

In the end, though, I got the last laugh, as the character, a germophobe, has his face smeared with human excrement.

The third negative I observed is the constant “old people jokes”, which bordered on the offensive after a while. The grandparent’s unusual behavior was blamed numerous times on their age as if all elderly people were scatterbrained, daffy, or just downright strange.

Many seniors are intelligent, useful, and lively so there was a feeling of disrespect towards the elderly that I could not shake. The film could have portrayed the grandparents with more dignity than it chose to.

Now for some positives, the compelling twist at the end of the film I did not see coming and I loved that about The Visit.

Rarely is the audience surprised anymore, especially in the horror genre, and I was. Having replayed the film in my mind the plot makes perfect sense, but is a positive in the heart of the climax.

On the subject of the conclusion, The Visit has a unique slow-motion/dreamlike feel and an odd, classical-type musical score playing throughout the ending that adds much depth to the typical thriller-type music heard in most genre films.

The oven scene inevitably viewed by all during early trailers for The Visit is excellent. When Grandma convinces Rebecca to crawl completely inside her oven to clean it we know this will not end well.

Additionally, the look and texture of the setting, an old deserted farmhouse in a small, rural town in the middle of nowhere has a feeling of being trapped.

This successfully provides a scary backdrop for the film and all the elements scream horror.

The Visit (2015) has genuine scares and will make the viewer jump, and perhaps even shriek. That is what good horror does yet I am still unsure if this film is more horror or comedy.

Unintentionally so, perhaps.

(Le Boucher) The Butcher-1970

(Le Boucher) The Butcher-1970

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Stephane Audran, Jean Yanne

Scott’s Review #273

60026770

Reviewed September 14, 2015

Grade: A-

(Le Boucher) The Butcher is a French thriller made in 1970 that is slow-moving at first but progresses to a dramatic crescendo as the latter part of the film escalates, and turns from plodding to cerebral mind-blower.

Mirrored after and inspired by director Alfred Hitchcock, The Butcher is surprisingly not quite horror (based on the title one might assume it is), but rather, an intelligent dreamy thriller.

Gorgeous schoolteacher Helene Daville is smart, confident, and filled with a zest for life. She tutors children needing extra help laughs with them and even lets one sip champagne during a wedding to try the taste of it. She enjoys living and the occasional adventure.

One day, at a wedding, she meets the local butcher, Paul Thomas, and they immediately hit it off as they tenderly walk home together. Cordial and kind, they develop a friendship and laugh together.

As time goes on, a series of killings begin to occur in the town.

Helene begins to suspect Paul of the murders and wrestles with her conflict between her budding love for him and her revulsion at the thought of being in love with a vicious murderer. Her conflict is the point of the film.

The relationship between Helene and Paul is an interesting dynamic and, I now realize, the reason for the slow pace of the picture. Helene and Paul enjoy a nurturing, caring courtship and the film successfully achieves the intended slow build.

The murder mystery is rather secondary and helps support the main plot. We know little- almost nothing- about the female victims. They are strangers to the audience and the reason for their deaths is unknown.

The killer simply kills- no motivation is revealed. This is what makes the film so cerebral and mysterious.

The Butcher is a love story intertwined with a thriller. It is not a mainstream thriller in the conventional sense and the final twenty or thirty minutes reeled me in completely and gave me great admiration for the film, which I had been hedging about throughout.

The meat of the film might have started an additional thirty minutes before it did in my opinion, but then again the slow build may have been intended to make the result more powerful. The moral conflict, love versus hate, tenderness, affection, caring, devastation, and betrayal are all explored during this relatively brief finale.

Besides, the blurry camera shots and angles from the vantage point of an automobile driver traveling down a dark, tree-lined street are highly creative and unique.

The comparisons to Hitchcock are evident.

Helene is similar to Tippi Hedren’s “Melanie Daniels” from The Birds. She is glamorous, alluring, blonde, tall, well-dressed, and the heroine of the film. Attractive and blonde are traits featured in many Hitchcock films.

Paul, on the other hand, reminds me of Rod Taylor’s Mitch, also from The Birds, though not as handsome or charismatic. Still, their relationship reminds me of the two of them as the chemistry oozes from the screen and a romance and thriller are combined.

Helene is perceived as a wholesome wonderful person by the audience, but is she truly?

In the end, we are left questioning her true feelings and are left with a distaste in our mouths. Her choices confuse us or is she simply a complex human being like each of us is?

The interesting aspect of The Butcher (1970) is it leaves one questioning how we would handle Helene’s dilemma, and more importantly, how we would channel our feelings if faced with a similar predicament.