Tag Archives: Thriller

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 way that I would classify The Night of the Hunter is by describing it as a fairy tale for adults. I categorized it as a thriller, but it certainly teeters on the edge of being a horror film. In addition to being a well-written film, it also contains breathtaking cinematography.

Made in 1955, 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 in a highly intelligent way, and director Charles Laughton is responsible for the immeasurable success of the film, though the film was not a success upon release. It has only been as the years passed that it has finally received its due admiration.

The film is way ahead of its time.

It is based on the 1953 novel by Davis Grubb.

The time is the 1930s in rural West Virginia, and the action takes place 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 on the run along the river to seek refuge with a kindly older woman, Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish).

The film is a combination of majestic, haunting, and artistic. Each scene seemingly glows as the dark black and white colors mix gorgeously, making the film tranquil, despite the dark tone of the film’s subject matter.

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

The flowing hair of the victim, and the posture, is a mesmerizing scene and 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 actions of 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 with the flowing river are just incredible to see and I can watch this scene over and over again.

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

The Night of the Hunter 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 to it.

Laurence Olivier stars as rich 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, named Manderley, a character in its own right.

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

Rebecca is a fantastic, old-style film, that provides layers of mystery and wonderment thanks to Hitchcock’s direction. The mansion that is Manderley is central to the story as is the obsession that creepy 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 have not been noticed at the time, but in more recent times, this is quite obvious.

The film is also a ghost story of sorts 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 true love?

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

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 Jimmy Stewart, Farley Granger, John Dall

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 rather 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.

All of the action takes place inside a luxurious Manhattan apartment, with a gorgeous panoramic skyline in view. 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) 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.

Phillip is ironically the weak and submissive one, despite actually committing the crime. Brandon is dominant and keeps the whimpering 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 drunker and drunker, he becomes more unhinged.

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

The chilling way that the plot unfolds 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, went way 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 to each other, so that one can easily imagine them kissing.

This is purely intentional by Hitchcock.

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

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 involving complex, interesting characters, including one of the greatest villains in screen history, and a plot that is riveting and heart-pounding.

Who can forget the important 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 from each other, accidentally bumping 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 are aware that Bruno is assertive, Guy the more passive individual.

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 that Bruno is joking.

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

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

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

The fact that Hitchcock wisely makes the victim Miriam (wonderfully played by Laura Elliot) devious, only lends to the rooting value of Bruno during her death scene. His character, although dastardly and troubled, almost rivals Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter as a lovable, but evil, villain.

Later in the film when Guy is playing tennis, he gazes into the stands to see the spectators turning left and turning 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 this a coincidence?

The casting of Roman was forced upon Hitchcock by the studio, Warner Brothers.

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 tough to pin down.

She and Bruno comically joke about bombing the White House, which gives the scene a jarring, confusing edge. Is she the 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. In black and white, the scene is gorgeous and cinematic 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 important 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, and panicked riders, combined with the cat and mouse chase scene leading to a deadly climax is an amazing end to the film.

Strangers On A Train lines up as 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

There are several Alfred Hitchcock films that I love dearly and Rear Window is very high up on that list.

The film is a unique experience in that much of the filming is through the point of view of the main character L.B. Jeffries, played with conviction by James Stewart who is 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 full of neighbors across the street.

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

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

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

Rear Window 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.

He aborts a photoshoot one day because he is bored. He is not the nicest guy in the world and is rather an unlikable character.

But perhaps that is secondary or even intentional. While walking in Maryon Park one day, he comes upon a couple in the distance. They appear to be amid a secret rendezvous, 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 quite psychological and open to much interpretation, which is the genius of it. The main questions asked 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 other than she has secrets, but is she responsible for the crime? Thomas and Jane play a sort of cat-and-mouse game throughout the film, both seemingly trying to outwit and outmaneuver the 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 of events”? One will revel in the magnificence of these questions.

Comparisons to The Conversation were apparent to me right away- both feature one of the senses as a means to 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 quite 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 and it is a good example of a film that requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate 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, a wonderful director whom before watching this film, 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 and, by all accounts, that is an accurate statement.

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

It has resonated with me on a profound level and I cannot stop thinking of it 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.

As the girls are at the zoo one day, 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 now that I ponder this point. Rather, a sense of chilling violence is in the air. A brooding, cold, ugly feeling transpires and it is due to superior direction and the overall mood.

Paris, one of the world’s most gorgeous cities, looks 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 something bad is imminent.

Early in the film, two of the 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 owner of the shop tells a story of 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 they begin to spend time together. They are happy. The irony of this is that during these later scenes, in which an act of brutality occurs (one character is murdered), the tone of the film is suddenly sunny, warm, and bright. A lovely afternoon in the woods turns evil, and quickly.

This was a shocking scene for me to experience 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 kind of director. His films are known to be stormy with dread looming. But 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)

(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.

Notorious-1946

Notorious-1946

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman

Scott’s Review #265

813874

Reviewed August 11, 2015

Grade: A

Notorious is a classic Alfred Hitchcock film from 1946, a period that preceded his golden age of 1950s and 1960s brilliant works, but is a marvel all the same.

Perhaps not as wonderful as future works, but that is like comparing prime rib to filet mignon if you will. Shot in black and white, the subject matter is a familiar one for Hitchcock fans- political espionage.

The film contains elements common with Hitchcock’s films- a romance mixed with a suspenseful plot.

Starring two greats of the time (and Hitchcock stalwarts), Carey Grant and Ingrid Bergman, one is immediately enthralled by the chemistry between the characters they play- T.R. Devlin and Alicia Huberman. Devlin, a government agent, recruits Alicia, per his bosses, to spy on a Nazi sympathizer, Alex Sebastian (Claude Raines), who is affiliated with her father.

Her father, having been convicted and sentenced to prison, has committed suicide. Alicia’s allegiance is questioned as she goes to drastic measures to prove her loyalty and complete the hated assignment.

The film gloriously is set between Miami and the gorgeous Rio De Janeiro, where much of the action takes place at Alex’s mansion.

A blueprint for his later works, Hitchcock experiments with creative camera shots and angles- specifically the wide and high shot overlooking an enormous ballroom. I also love the airplane scene- subtly, Hitchcock treats the audience to background views of Rio, from the window of the airplane, as Devlin and Alicia carry on a conversation.

The plane is slowly descending for landing, which allows for a slow, gorgeous glimpse of the countryside and landscape in the background.

Subtleties like these that may go unnoticed make Hitchcock such a brilliant director.

The character of Alicia is worth a study. Well known for his lady issues, did Hitchcock hint at her being an oversexed, boozy, nymphomaniac?

Personally, I did not think the character was written sympathetically, though to be fair she is headstrong and loyal in the face of adversity. She parties hard, drives at 65 miles per hour while intoxicated, and falls into bed with more than one man. It is also implied that she has a history of being promiscuous.

Made in 1946, this must have been controversial during that period. The sexual revolution was still decades away.

Notorious also features one of the most sinister female characters in Hitchcock history in the likes of Madame Sebastian (Leopoldine Konstantin). The woman is evil personified and her actions are reprehensible. She is arguably the mastermind behind all of the dirty deeds as well as a fan of slow, painful death by poisoning.

My favorite scene is without a doubt the wine cellar scene. To me, it epitomizes good, old-fashioned suspense and edge-of-your-seat entertainment.

A cat-and-mouse game involving a secret rendezvous, a smashed bottle, a key, champagne, and the great reveal enraptures this scene, which goes on for quite some time and is the climax of the film.

Perhaps Notorious is not quite as great a film as Vertigo, Psycho, or The Birds, but is a top-notch adventure/thriller in its own right, that ought to be watched and given its due respect.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor- Claude Rains, Best Original Screenplay

The Gift-2015

The Gift-2015

Director-Joel Edgerton

Starring-Jason Bateman, Joel Edgerton

Scott’s Review #264

80046694

Reviewed August 9, 2015

Grade: A-

The Gift is a throwback to the type of psychological thriller made famous by Fatal Attraction in 1987 and similar films throughout their heyday into the 1990s.

An unstable psycho threatens a happy couple.

Interestingly, The Gift is similar in genre to a film released earlier in 2015- The Boy Next Door- though The Gift is worlds superior to that film and contains surprises, frights, and twists and turns that I pleasantly did not see coming. The film is not predictable which is refreshing in this particular genre.

Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall star as Simon and Robyn, a successful young couple who have relocated from Chicago to sunny California, near Simon’s childhood hometown, to begin a new life with the intent of starting a family.

They soon run into a man named Gordo, played by actor/director Joel Edgerton, a high school chum of Simon’s from twenty years ago whom Simon barely remembers. Simon and Gordo plan to re-connect over dinner, but the audience can sense that something is not right with Gordo.

As Simon, Gordo and Robyn get to know each other again, Gordo begins leaving pleasant little gifts on Simon and Robyn’s doorstep as well as showing up at their house unannounced, which is particularly unnerving to Robyn as she is home alone all day long with Simon consumed with his new career and possible promotion.

To make matters more interesting, their home is located in a remote area with lots of seclusions.

The film soon reveals that in high school Gordo was nicknamed “Gordo the Weirdo” and that an incident involving Gordo occurred, though nobody seems to remember the exact circumstances or perhaps they choose not to remember?

The vagueness of this situation is appealing because the audience is sure that these circumstances will be revealed later on in the story and play a large part in the climax of the film, which it certainly does.

We also learn that another incident took place with Robyn in Chicago and that she suffered a miscarriage. She does not drink and avoids pills. Could she be unstable or imagining things or just overly cautious? It is revealed that she does not handle stress well.

A wonderful aspect of The Gift is its surprise factor. As the plot twists and turns, I found myself changing allegiances and wondering who the villain is? Gordo? Simon? Robyn?

Edgerton (along with a great acting performance) compellingly directs the film and was undoubtedly influenced by Alfred Hitchcock in his style of moviemaking.

The camera angles and score are particularly excellent in establishing the correct level of tension at just the right moment. In more than a few scenes the audience knows something will jump out at the screen, so there is anticipation, but when and how it will happen is a surprise.

Many scenes take place when Robyn is alone- during the day thank goodness- and she hears a noise, or notices the water running. These scenes are traditional fare in horror or the thriller genre but are so well done in The Gift.

A perfect thrill ride.

Simon is an interesting character. Sophisticated, educated, and with a high-level executive job, he has a strange fear of monkeys stemming from childhood.

The past is a common theme of the film- past events encase the three lead characters leading to conflict and ultimately these events come back to haunt them. Most of Simon’s friends are unlikable and appear to be interested in style over substance. They seem to be drawn to Simon more for his success than because they care about him.

This contradicts his wife’s character- Robyn is down-to-earth, kind, and does not place as much stock in wealth and achievements as she does with personality and being a kind individual. She and Simon bicker and disagree about Gordo and as events unfold this conflict only increases.

It is not often in films anymore that one is truly frightened and “jumps out of your seat”, but two intense scenes in the film- one involving a dog, and the other a shower, made me jump, and the hairs on my arm stand on end. Everyone in the audience gasped together.

Now that is fun!

The only negatives I perceived in The Gift are some continuity issues as well as the suspension of disbelief in some scenes. Without giving anything away, how is Gordo able to perfectly do some things he can do?

A good old-fashioned thriller with excellent acting, compelling characters, and a wonderful debut for Edgerton in the director’s chair.

The film will leave the viewer pondering moral questions, and relating to each of the three main characters in different ways.

The Passenger-1975

The Passenger-1975

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring Jack Nicholson, Maria Schneider

Scott’s Review #259

70042799

Reviewed July 19, 2015

Grade: A

A true art film in every sense of the word, The Passenger (1975) is a thinking man’s film, not for those content to munch on popcorn and escape the day’s stressors, but rather, custom-made for a film fan willing to ponder the meaning of the film, revel in the slow pace, and appreciate the film as an art form.

The Passenger is tough to “get” throughout most of its over two-hour running time, but its complexities are also its most beautiful characteristics. To say that the film will leave the viewer with questions is quite an understatement, but is pleasing to analyze and come up with conclusions of meaning.

Michelangelo Antonioni directed this film and is well-known for directing Blowup and Zabriskie Point, neither of which I have seen as of this writing.

Jack Nicholson stars as a journalist named David Locke, who is on location in Africa (specifically the Sahara desert in Chad). David’s assignment is to produce a documentary film. While there he mysteriously assumes the identity of a businessman named Robertson, who he finds dead in his hotel room.

This task is easy because David and Robertson look very much alike. As events unfold, it becomes clear that Robertson is involved in arms dealings and smuggling matters related to the ongoing civil unrest within the country.

Flashbacks reveal David’s former life, including his friendship with the businessman, and his relationship with his wife, Rachel, and these scenes are mixed in with the current action until they become more linear with each other.

The film is complex, to say the least. The initial scene when David spontaneously decides to switch identities is excellent. We wonder, what are David’s motivations and what is the appeal of him taking over another man’s life? Who is the man? Why is David so unhappy in his own life?

The film succeeds immeasurably as the plot is not simply told to the audience like so many other mainstream films. Events seem genuine and not forced for plot purposes.

In the current time, whereabouts in London, Rachel sadly mourns the assumed “death” of her husband David, though we learn that Rachel has secrets of her own she has been hiding and suffers from tremendous guilt.

To further complicate matters for everyone, she is attempting to find the businessman, since she has learned that he was the last person to see her husband alive. Also mixed into the story is a mysterious young woman whom David meets when the story moves to Barcelona, Spain.

What makes The Passenger so compelling to me is its intricacies- story as well as camera styles. The seven-minute-long shot towards the end is brilliant filmmaking and the climax is quietly intense.

The camera’s focus is on a hotel room, switches to the parking lot, and returns to the hotel room. I was transfixed by the character of David enormously, struggling to empathize with him, while all the while enjoying an intelligent character study mixed in with a story of political intrigue.

I do not confess to understanding everything about The Passenger and will surely need more viewings to make more sense of it all, but the film fascinates me.

In a time of mediocre films, how refreshing to stumble upon a forgotten relic from 1975 and have a renewed appreciation for film as an art form.

The Nanny-1965

The Nanny-1965

Director Seth Holt

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #256

70089620

Reviewed July 11, 2015

Grade: B

The Nanny is a 1965 Hammer productions thriller starring legendary film icon Bette Davis as a mysterious nanny caring for a ten-year-old boy named Joey.

Joey has recently been released from a mental institution and returned home to resume normal life, but has he been “cured”?

There is an obvious tension between Joey and Nanny, but the audience at first does not know what that tension is exactly. Why do they dislike each other? Why is Joey afraid of her?

As the plot unfolds the suspense and tensions thicken as various events occur and Joey’s parents and Aunt Pen are further fleshed out to the plot. Past events are revisited and the story becomes thrilling.

At one point, long before Joey’s return home, his younger sister has drowned and the circumstances are vague. It has devastated the family, including Nanny. Joey has been blamed for her death though he insists that Nanny is the culprit.

Nobody except the neighbor girl believes Joey and the audience is left to wonder who to believe and who to root for- Joey or Nanny? Davis, like Nanny, brings a warmness to her character, but is she sincere? Is it an act? Is Joey a sweet boy or maniacal?

These questions race through the minds of the audience as the film progresses. When the mother, Virginia eats tainted food, the obvious conclusion is that Nanny poisoned the food since she prepared it. But why? Did she do this?

As the plot is slowly explained, there are a few chills, though the ending is not all too surprising.

Any film starring Bette Davis is a treasure in my mind, though admittedly it is not her finest. Still, her finest is tough to match.

The Nanny is a good film, though not a great film. It is shot in black and white which is a nice touch for a thriller.

The main reason to watch is certainly Davis’s performance, which is always mesmerizing. Traditionally playing gruff, mean, or bitchy parts (especially in her later years), The Nanny allows Davis to play a traditionally sympathetic role.

She is seemingly sweet, proper, and well-organized. A perfect nanny on paper.

The role of Virginia, played by Wendy Craig, is a bit too neurotic and slightly over-acted. She is rather one-note as the fretting mother worried about her son. The character of the father is also a bit one-dimensional.

The Nanny is more of a classic thriller from the 1960s that is often lumped together with some of Bette Davis’s other films around the same period (Dead Ringer, Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?), and the aforementioned films are in large part superior to The Nanny, but as a stand-alone, it is a decent film.

The Boy Next Door-2015

The Boy Next Door-2015

Director-Rob Cohen

Starring-Jennifer Lopez

Scott’s Review #254

80013272

Reviewed July 5, 2015

Grade: C-

A steamy direct rip-off of the 1987 classic film Fatal Attraction, The Boy Next Door is a by the numbers, a mainstream thriller starring Jennifer Lopez as a separated suburban Mom raising her son alone.

One day a handsome young man moves in next door and befriends her son and also develops an unhealthy obsession with her.

The film is your basic thrill ride with some jumps mixed in but is as predictable as they come and is safe mainstream fare.

Claire Peterson (Lopez) lives a cozy suburban existence with her socially awkward teenaged son Kevin and works as a literature teacher at the local high school. She lives a modest yet successful life.

Her estranged husband Garrett (John Corbett from My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Sex and the City fame) has cheated on her with his secretary.

One day a hunky twenty-year-old neighbor, Noah, moves in, takes a shine to Kevin and an attraction develops between Noah and Claire, despite him being half her age. The audience knows that there is something off about all of this, but the inevitable happens- a lonely Claire winds up in bed with Noah after a disastrous blind double date with her friend and confidant Vicky (the talented stage actress Kristin Chenoweth), who is also the vice-principal of Claire’s school.

The sex scenes are titillating and sensual with lots of skin.

I went into my viewing of this film not expecting an invigorating or thought-provoking film and was not disappointed in that regard.

The film is lightweight, predictable, and has a lifetime television movie feel to it. The acting is not great and the setups are seen a mile away. When Claire and Noah meet there is instant chemistry between them (duh! They are both great looking!), but there is also a sinister quality to Noah that the audience is aware of. There is no doubt he will be trouble in Claire’s life.

As we progress we become aware that Noah has a temper- another setup for things to come. If he feels wronged he strikes back. Once Claire realizes their passionate night was a mistake, Noah becomes obsessed with and then vengeful of Claire and everyone around her.

Certainly, the plot is filled with one implausibility after another and I could list silly nuances for hours, but here are a few that immediately come to mind- I do not for one second buy Jennifer Lopez as an intelligent, sophisticated, literature genius (despite the film hysterically having her wear nerdy glasses) nor do I buy the very good-looking Ryan Guzman (Noah) as a scholarly expert in literature either.

This is done to construct the plot with no believability whatsoever.

Throughout the film, Noah is magically able to do whatever he wants- somehow hacking into Claire’s computer, arranging for printouts of his liaison with her to fly endlessly from the ceilings, tamper with brakes, and seamlessly splice Claire’s voice into conversations.

The entire film is ridiculous and unbelievable, but, again, it is what I expected it to be.

The ending surprised me in that it ended abruptly with no cliffhanger or hint at a sequel as is common with thrillers of this sort. Perhaps the filmmakers had low expectations for audience turnout?

One jarring point to notice is that Jennifer Lopez, clearly Latina, is playing a character living in a suburban neighborhood, named Claire Peterson. Nowhere is her Latina heritage mentioned. The character is about as white as you can get.

A dumb, entertaining 90 minutes of escapism, The Boy Next Door is not a good film, but has some fun, thrilling moments, and is fun to kick back relax and take it for what it is. It is comparable to a McDonald’s hamburger- you know what you will get and expect nothing more.

The Captive-2014

The Captive-2014

Director-Atom Egoyan

Starring-Ryan Reynolds

Scott’s Review #235

80013547

Reviewed April 18, 2015

Grade: C-

The Captive is a 2014 thriller that reminds me quite a bit of a 2013 thriller, Prisoners, which certainly must have been an influence.

A similar plot involving a blue-collar, working-class family attempting to track down a missing child as the father takes matters into his own hands and is also considered a prime suspect in the crime by detectives, is used.

Set in snowy upstate New York, the film tells the tale of Matthew (Ryan Reynolds) and Tina Lane (Mireille Enos), a struggling young couple whose 9-year-old daughter, Cassandra, is snatched out of Matthew’s truck while he runs into a store to buy her a pie.

Told using flashbacks, the story picks up several years later as the defeated couple is periodically taunted by Cassandra’s abductors, who leave clues to indicate she may still be alive. Via video cameras, the abductors watch the parent’s emotional reactions to the clues and sell this “entertainment” to subscribers.

As the film moves along we learn of a major crime syndicate involved in the kidnapping of Cassandra and other similar-aged girls.

At times the plot of The Captive is compelling with a few nice twists and turns and surprises- other times the plot moves quite slowly and plods too much.

The film sets the story in a cold, wintry season which successfully emits a tone of darkness, loss, and harshness. The cinematography is beautiful and deserves major recognition for the mood.

The major problem with the film, though, is the extreme plot holes throughout and the ludicrous nature of the story- I still do not understand the pivotal childhood ice-skating message at the end.

As the film progresses the plot becomes tough to follow and many questions resonate. Who is paying to watch parents emotionally tortured? How can Cassandra seemingly come and go as she pleases and remain a prisoner? Why, years later, is Matthew still a suspect?

These points seem way too plot-driven for my taste and seem to be simply created to further the plot. The main villain- Mika- is a weird guy for sure, but what is his motivation? Why is he part of the kidnapping syndicate? What is anyone’s motivation besides Matthew and Tina striving to get their daughter back? This is not explained.

The casting of some of the actors is problematic- I had difficulty buying Enos working as a maid in a small town- she is way too glamorous a woman for that to be believed.

Similarly, the casting of Rosario Dawson and Scott Speedman as central detectives in the case seems unrealistic. The film is pure fantasy- these actors are too good-looking to be believable as upstate New York, small-town, detectives.

While very handsome, Ryan Reynolds is the only actor I bought as a grizzled, broken father with a glimmer of hope that his daughter is still alive.

All in all, besides some interesting turns, The Captive is too unrealistic and convoluted to follow closely. A bit of a mess.

For this type of film (kidnapping thriller?), I would recommend the superior Prisoners, though the plot holes are prevalent in that film too.

Nightcrawler-2014

Nightcrawler-2014

Director-Dan Gilroy

Starring-Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo

Scott’s Review #225

70295182

Reviewed March 1, 2015

Grade: B+

Nightcrawler is best described as an intense crime-thriller set in Los Angeles featuring a wonderful performance by Jake Gyllenhaal as an unstable thief named Lou, who cons and manipulates his way to success videotaping accident scenes and selling them to news stations.

The film is the directorial debut of Dan Gilroy, who could become a household name in the future. Nightcrawler was deservedly awarded the Best Screenplay and the Best First Feature Independent Spirit award honors.

The film is set mainly at night as Lou courses the city in search of accidents, crimes, and violence- the bloodier the better. Later, he is told by Nina Romina, successfully played by Rene Russo that violent crimes in affluent neighborhoods are the best, as they garner the highest ratings.

Lou sells his video footage of the crimes to the highest bidder and Nina becomes his main customer. Lou is eventually assisted by Rick Carey, a desperate accomplice in need of money, played by Riz Ahmed.

The interesting thing for me about Nightcrawler is its moody setting and dim lighting. It reminds me of the 2004 film Collateral, starring Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise, also set in Los Angeles.

Mostly set at night time and heavily set on the actual streets of L.A., I found this mood excellent and a compelling aspect of the film.

It makes Nightcrawler look great.

Gyllenhaal deserves heaps of praise for his role of Lou and is largely responsible for the success of the film- he was co-producer.

From an acting standpoint, he is excellent and reminiscent of the frightening performance that Robert DeNiro gave in Taxi Driver. With an angular face and eyes that seemingly never blink, the character is intense and driven on every level- he is a sociopath.

When he quietly threatens Nina and Rick on separate occasions one can tell he means business. Why Lou has become a thief desperate for money is never explained- does he have a family? Is he a convict? He seems highly educated, but is he? How did he land in this predicament and resorts to the life that he does?

As Lou becomes more manipulative and resorts to adjusting crime scenes to make them all the more shocking, he seems to teeter over the edge of sanity. In one scene he sneaks into a victim’s home and videotapes photos of the victims from their refrigerator to promote an empathetic angle and therefore make more money from them.

This is a brilliant performance by Gyllenhaal.

Another fascinating performance I admired is that of Rene Russo- absent from films for what seems like years, Nightcrawler is a nice return for her. Her character also has a little backstory.

We know that she is a driven newswoman who has trouble maintaining success at individual news stations and moves around a lot. Nina is a cut-throat news director eager for violent stories and determined to keep her existing job. She also becomes begrudgingly fascinated and enamored with Lou. Does she like bad boys or does she admire his talent?

The third major character is Riz Ahmed’s Rick. Rick comes across as a sweet, yet gullible guy strapped for cash. Like Lou, we do not know why he is broke, but it is hinted at that he may do or have done some male prostitution- he is desperate.

As the film goes along the character develops tough skin and inquisitiveness takes over he is attracted to this new lifestyle and excitement, but will not be bullied by Lou.

On a social level, the film presents an interesting, albeit disturbing take on the relationship between the media and the viewers. What will news channels do for a good story? How bloodthirsty are news audiences? How often is a positive news story presented? It makes the audience reflect and ponder.

Nightcrawler is a dark thriller, independently made, which deservedly garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and a slew of Independent Spirit Awards. Intense, rich, visually appealing, it is one of the success stories of 2014 cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Jake Gyllenhaal, Best Supporting Male-Riz Ahmed, Best Screenplay (won), Best First Feature (won), Best Editing

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

The Sixth Sense-1999

The Sixth Sense-1999

Director M. Night Shyamalan

Starring Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment

Top 100 Films #56     Top 20 Horror Films #15

Scott’s Review #182

26797528

Reviewed October 8, 2014

Grade: A

The Sixth Sense is a psychological thriller/horror film directed by M. Night Shyamalan, made in 1999, about ghosts, that was an incredible box-office and critical success at its time of release and made the line, “I see dead people” universally imitated.

Bruce Willis stars as Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a successful and admired child psychologist, who lives a perfect life with his wife Anna in Philadelphia.

Enjoying a romantic night at home, Malcolm and Anna are interrupted by a deranged former patient- played by an unrecognizable Donnie Walhberg.

Malcolm is shot by the patient, who also shoots himself, and the story picks up a year later as Malcolm takes an interest in Cole, a troubled 9-year-old boy, played by Haley Joel Osment. Cole is a peculiar boy- an outcast taunted at school, who can see the dead.

He’s worried, over-worked mother, Lynn, is played by Toni Collette. Meanwhile, Malcolm and Anna appear to be going through marital problems and lack any meaningful communication with each other.

Anna begins to be pursued by a new beau much to Malcolm’s chagrin. Malcolm and Cole develop a special bond as Malcolm convinces Cole to speak to and help the ghosts that he sees rather than be terrified of them.

As the plot slowly unfolds, Cole helps a recently deceased girl named Kyra Collins, who is around his age. Kyra gives Cole a videotape that reveals she was murdered and proves who killed her.

The subsequent scene is my favorite- there is a haunting quality to it and the camera follows the events interestingly- slowly and sedately.

The setting is a service at Kyra’s house where family and friends are gathered to pay respects and support Kyra’s parents. Malcolm and Cole arrive and present Kyra’s father with the plain videotape.

The entire scene is powerful in its simplicity yet high emotional value. It is slow, but devastating in its climax and reveals. Small nuances are revealed- why is Kyra’s mother wearing bright red when the other guests are all wearing black? Will Kyra’s younger sister be the next victim?

Superlative filmmaking.

A scene involving Cole’s teacher is riveting- being able to sense aspects of people’s pasts Cole realizes his teacher had a stuttering problem as a child. When his teacher is condescending towards Cole, the young boy explodes with rage and begins a chant of “Stuttering Stanley” which reduces the teacher to childhood traumas.

Yet another powerful scene involves Cole and his mother sitting in a car caught in traffic- Cole admits the truth of his skill of seeing dead people to her and introduces an emotional story to her as proof.

This is a scene where Toni Collette shines brightly.

Well over a decade since The Sixth Sense was released, most people know the twist and subsequent surprise ending and it is such a joy to go back, see the manipulations in the story and individual scenes, add them all up, and revel in the clever way that Shyamalan puts them all together.

The Sixth Sense is not dated and is quite fresh, holding up tremendously, and I personally still get chills during the big reveal all these years later.

But more than this pleasure, the film is written beautifully. Somewhere between horror and psychological thriller, it successfully tells a ghost story with interesting characters and jumps-out-of-your-seat thrills that are not contrived and predictable in the traditional horror film way.

From an acting perspective, Bruce Willis is amazing and under-appreciated as Malcolm- he is calm, cool, and collected and his performance is quite understated as the inquisitive and pensive psychologist.

More praise should have been reaped on Willis.

Haley Joel Osment gives an astounding performance of a lifetime- he emits an image to the audience of being strange yet sympathetic and he relays his very frightening fear of the ghosts so well that the pain and conflict he endures is evident on his face.

Toni Collette is effective as the scared, concerned, haggard mother. Collette and Osment were rewarded with Academy award nominations- sadly Willis was not.

Shyamalan was subsequently ridiculed for his later films (The Village-2001, and Unbreakable-2001) – perhaps the manipulation and trickery from The Sixth Sense angered some people.

The Sixth Sense (1999) is a film that remains with you for days, weeks, even years and can be revisited and rediscovered for an intelligent, chilling good time.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-M. Night Shyamalan, Best Supporting Actor-Haley Joel Osment, Best Supporting Actress-Toni Collette, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Film Editing

Gone Girl-2014

Gone Girl-2014

Director-David Fincher

Starring-Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike

Scott’s Review #181

70305893

Reviewed October 6, 2014

Grade: A-

Gone Girl, directed by dark yet mainstream filmmaker David Fincher, offers a simple premise- an affluent woman disappears without warning and a loved one is suspected of the crime.

This type of story has been done many times before in film- think Prisoners from 2013 to cite a very recent example, but what makes Gone Girl unique is its storytelling, pacing, and twists and turns aplenty.

The film is based on the best-selling novel, written by popular novelist Gillian Flynn, who also wrote the screenplay of the film.

Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, a man in his 30’s, whose wife Amy, magnificently played by Rosamund Pike, mysteriously disappears, causing a media frenzy to ensue.

After clues are revealed, Nick is thought to be a sociopath and responsible for Amy’s disappearance. Nick and Amy have the perfect marriage….or so it appears. Until fairly recently Nick and Amy have lived an idyllic, well-to-do lifestyle in New York City. Amy’s family is wealthy and writes as successful children’s authors.

Following the recession of 2010 causing both Nick and Amy to lose their jobs and all of their money, combined with Nick’s parent’s health problems, they wind up in a state of peril, and their marriage is severely tested. They are forced to move to a small town in Missouri where Nick grew up. Their lifestyle completely changes.

These facts are naturally revealed as the film progresses, via flashbacks, mostly told from Amy’s perspective, as she chronicles events by writing in her diary.

The story is so smart and layered that the audience continually asks questions throughout the film- Is Amy dead? Did she fake her death? Is Nick involved or innocent? Could Amy’s parents be involved in her disappearance? Can we trust Nick’s sister Margo? What involvement does Amy’s wealthy college sweetheart Desi Collings (Neil Patrick Harris) have?

As more of the plot is revealed new questions are asked.

Intelligently written, with twists and turns galore, after a slow start, the film is a thrill ride. The slow start is necessary to lay the groundwork of the film and it wisely keeps the audience guessing throughout.

The film seems to be a puzzle (literally and figuratively) as each layer is unraveled leading to further questions and new theories.

The film’s score is composed by Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails), which adds a dark, techno-gloomy feel, which increases the mood wonderfully.

The acting in Gone Girl is very good- Affleck is capable in the lead male role, though I did not find the part as meaty as one might think. Affleck is handsome and charismatic, though unlikeable too, and I think that is all the part requires.

The standout and breakout performance belongs to Rosamund Pike. After years of struggling along in support film roles as someone’s wife or friend, Pike finally has a complex role that allows her to sink her teeth in. Pike displays almost every emotion- kindness, anger, rage, deception, humor.

The character of Amy is nuanced and certainly resourceful and more than one movie-goers mouth dropped open at her actions in a couple of scenes- think wine bottle and hammer for reference. Neil Patrick Harris is dynamic in the role of Desi- he brings a healthy dose of creepiness mixed with child-like sweetness.

Gone Girl features one of the most shocking scenes in recent history involving a bedroom, a box-cutter, and lots of blood. Fincher’s setting of North Carthage, Missouri is interesting- hardly the intelligentsia of Manhattan that Nick and Amy are accustomed to, the perfect mix of homespun kindness turned to lynch mob of the townspeople is effectively portrayed- the sweet neighbors, happily offering casseroles and hugs to Nick one minute, suddenly turn into sharks when detail is revealed.

The media is, almost ironically, portrayed as menacing and ready to pounce- mainly female reporters played by Sela Ward and deliciously and comically played by Missi Pyle. More than a handful of female characters are written as borderline man-hating and eager to either castrate, figuratively speaking or bed (or both!), Nick Dunne.

Gone Girl contains a few plot holes- how could there be no recorded tapes of the goings-on at Desi’s lake house? The entire plot is so far-fetched when one decides to ponder it.

Gone Girl is mainstream yet dark Hollywood thrill-ride with a theme of dishonesty, and a film exceptionally well-written and layered.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Rosamund Pike