Tag Archives: Comedy

You Again-2010

You Again-2010

Director Alan Fickman

Starring Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #510

70127239

Reviewed November 4, 2016

Grade: C

If not for the cast (Jamie Lee Curtis, Betty White, and Sigourney Weaver) You Again (2010) would have been a bad experience and a dimwitted, by-the-numbers comedy, but the talent involved has helped matters greatly.

This is not meant to parlay much credit to the film.

As it is, it is not a great film, and quite silly and dumb, but the cast successfully turns it into a light, fun, dumb movie instead of solely drivel- with a less likable cast this would have undoubtedly been the case.

Bell is not my favorite actress, but alas she seems to be currently receiving star turns in these types of films.

The premise is basic and tried and true- A twenty-eight-year-old “beautiful” woman (Kristen Bell) who was an ugly duckling in high school, returns to her hometown for her brother’s wedding and his fiancé turns out to be her high school nemesis.

It is a standard Hollywood comedy cliched with typical gags, and a “we have seen this before” story.

A gripe- Kristen Bell is a cute, sort of all-American, girl next door, but I would be remiss if I did not point out she is not the beauty they make her out to be.

Thanks to the aforementioned cast, and the wit that Curtis and Weaver bring to their rivalry (as mothers of the respective fiancé and Bell’s character- they were high school rivals a generation before), You Again (2010) does get some meager credit.

Not much, but some.

Solitary Man-2009

Solitary Man-2009

Director Brian Koppelman, David Levien

Starring Michael Douglas, Susan Sarandon

Scott’s Review #508

70117589

Reviewed November 3, 2016

Grade: B-

Solitary Man (2009) is an indie drama that has good points and bad.

Michael Douglas stars as a one-time successful, but womanizing, car dealership owner who hits rough times and loses everything.

Michael Douglas’s performance is very good and believable as a cad who hits a difficult stretch in his life. As an actor, Douglas still possesses his good looks and charm despite being an older leading man by this time- he plays 60 very well.

The film centers around him and wisely so- despite the film containing other notable actors. His character of Ben Kalman has swagger and is narcissistic, but yet lovable at the same time and this is unmistakably due to Douglas’s talents.

Annoyingly, the supporting characters played by Susan Sarandon, Danny Devito, and Jesse Eisenberg are quite one-note and not interesting, which is a shame in light of their immense talents.

The story is okay, but nothing fantastic.

I felt as though I had seen films like this many times before- the quirky edge and the attempted dark humor with laughs and some melodrama mixed in was forgettable.

However, as a character study, the movie succeeds.

Solitary Man (2009) is recommended for Michael Douglas’s performance only.

April Fool’s Day-1986

April Fool’s Day-1986

Director Fred Walton

Starring Amy Steel, Jay Baker

Scott’s Review #498

60024022

Reviewed October 24, 2016

Grade: B-

Emerging at the tail end of the late 1970s and early 1980s slasher film craze that encompassed that period in cinema (for better or worse), April Fool’s Day (1986) capitalized on the “holiday theme” marketing tool that escalated Halloween and Black Christmas to superstar ranks.

Unfortunately, for this film, it is not a traditional horror flick, in that it has plenty of comic elements, but also contains the standard slasher characteristics, thereby making it a blockbuster failure.

It does not know what its identity truly is.

From a story perspective, the film has one great twist but otherwise suffers from mediocre writing and unmemorable characters that nobody cares about.

We are treated to an ensemble of actors, most of the unknown variety, except for horror maven Amy Steel, (Friday the 13th Part 2), who portrays Kit, arguably the most relatable of the female characters.

A clever facet, weaved by director Fred Walton, is the casting of eight principals in April Fool’s Day, all with similar amounts of screen time, rather than one obvious “final girl” surrounded by minor characters, who we know will be offed.

The set-up is all too familiar in the slasher genre- the group of college-aged kids escapes mundane life for a spring break weekend getaway at their wealthy classmates, Muffy St. John’s, island estate.

Conveniently, her family is away- leaving the friends to have the run of the mansion, with a dinner party as part of the plan. Even more convenient is that the ferry the group takes does not run on weekends, so once they are dropped off at the island, they stay until Monday.

This sense of foreshadowing gets the anticipated peril and dread going.

We also sense that there is something very off with Muffy- despite being everyone’s friend. When Muffy finds a jack-in-the-box stored in her attic and has a childhood recollection, we know this is the set-up to the mystery.

Is she mentally unstable? Is someone out to get Muffy for a childhood prank or event that once occurred?

Since it is April Fool’s Day weekend, the groups spend most of the film playing pranks and amateurish jokes on each other (a whoopee cushion, an exploding cigar), mixed with a dash of intrigue- someone is leaving trails of history as part of the jokes.

One girl had an abortion, so the prankster leaves an audiotape of a baby crying. In another room, heroin paraphernalia is left for someone with a former drug habit.

Slowly, one by one, the college kids disappear, but is it just a hoax? Or is the hoax just a hoax?

The final twenty minutes or so is really the main reason to watch this film. As Kit and boyfriend Rob is the last remaining “alive” there is suddenly a startling twist that changes the entire dynamic of the film- in one moment everything the audience thinks of the story is turned upside down-this is wise writing, but comes too late in the game.

Sadly, some parts of the film are downright silly and most of the characters are of the stock variety- the flirtatious blonde, the obnoxious jocks, the stuck-up preppy, which ruins the creative twist that is aforementioned.

With glimpses of genius and striving for something more clever than the standard, run-of-the-mill 1980s horror film, April Fool’s Day (1986) has some potential but ultimately winds up with something missing.

Show Me Love-1998

Show Me Love-1998

Director Lukas Moodysson

Starring Alexandra Dahlstrom, Rebecca Liljeberg

Scott’s Review #496

60000454

Reviewed October 22, 2016

Grade: B

Throughout the latter part of the 1990s, films with more of an LGBT perspective (then simply referred to as the gay and lesbian genre) were being released more readily, though it was not until the 2000s when mainstream offerings on the subject (Monster-2003, Brokeback Mountain-2006) hit the big screen to wide acclaim.

Show Me Love (1998) is a Swedish coming-of-age story about two high school girls, opposites in social acceptance, who find love.

Interestingly, the film was directed by a male- Lukas Moodysson.

Show Me Love originally had a different title, a crude reference to the town the film is set in, in western Sweden, but when the film was considered for Academy Award contention (it did not cut), filmmakers were advised to modify the title for the film to have any shot.

The film contains a grainy look- using handheld cameras in parts and, of course, is in the Swedish language.

Agnes is sullen, introverted, and brooding. Known throughout the high school hallways as the angry, weird lesbian, she has few friends, and the ones who are kind to her, she shuns away.

Elin, by contrast, is popular, lively, and charming- everybody loves her. However, Elin is restless in the tiny Swedish town where she lives and yearns for excitement. When Agnes develops a crush on Elin, she confesses all to her computer, but nobody else.

The film is nicely put together and given the time of 1998, is quite brave. Today, many years have passed and progress within the LGBT community made, a film like Show Me Love is a more common occurrence.

Director, Moodysson, does not go for anything gratuitous or steamy but rather spins a sweet coming-of-age tale, not only of teen love and hormones but of outcasts and feelings of loneliness.

It’s a film that most can relate to in some way.

The actresses portraying the leads (Dahlstrom and Liljeberg) are fantastic in their roles and play the parts with conviction and believability. Despite being opposites, we buy their attraction and chemistry. Nothing is forced or dishonest.

My favorite scenes are the awkward 16th birthday party for Agnes, thrown by her well-meaning yet clueless parents. When nobody except a handicapped girl shows up, Agnes viciously insults her, causing her to leave.

The family sits in the living room eating the food that was planned for anticipated guests. It’s a poignant moment and rather sweet. Despite Agnes’s unpopularity at school, she has a very strong, loyal family unit- that is nice to see.

Later, Elin and her sister attend the party, but more as an excuse to avoid another one. Finally, Elin and Agnes share a kiss, but is it a mean dare or is it authentic?

A clever aspect of the film is how Moodysson distinguishes both Elin and Agnes’s sexuality. Agnes is gay, open, and out. Elin is very different and has boys interested in her.

The girls could not be more different and this adds a layer of complexity as each is in a different place in self-discovery. This feature also makes Show Me Love very honest in its storytelling.

The film is not a masterpiece and could have dared to venture into more controversial territory. Could they be harmed for being lesbians given the town they live in? Why is Agnes so sullen?

This is a stereotype (the brooding lesbian) that needs to be changed- though, given the time of the film, I will give it a slight pass. Why not make Agnes a happy, cheerful girl who is gay? How will Elin’s sister deal with Elin’s sexuality or is it merely a phase for her?

All sorts of darker issues might have been explored, but Show Me Love (1998) is tender, sweet, and lighter fare, but still an adventurous offering.

Joy-2015

Joy-2015

Director David O. Russell

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Robert DeNiro

Scott’s Review #485

80064513

Reviewed September 24, 2016

Grade: B-

Joy is a safe, mainstream, female-centered 2015 film, a biopic written for current star Jennifer Lawrence. She was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award for her role and she carries the film.

Still, despite her performance, the film is nothing special and is written in a ho-hum manner.

It is simply not very compelling and the supporting characters are not utilized as they could have been. Despite being based on a true story, the writing is lazy and the plot far-fetched.

I expected more.

The film is another collaboration between director, David O. Russell, and big stars of the time- Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Robert DeNiro- all used in previous Russell films.

Lawrence plays Joy, a struggling Long Island mother of two, who is divorced from her husband (who still lives in the basement of her house), with multiple family members living with her, forming a support unit.

The sense is that Joy is the breadwinner of the family.

The story is narrated by Joy’s grandmother, who she calls Mimi (Diane Ladd). Mimi always knew Joy would be a success and we see a few scenes of Joy as a child, surviving her dysfunctional family and her parent’s disputes.

DeNiro plays her womanizing father, divorced from her mother (Virginia Madsen), who lies in bed all day watching soap operas. Cooper plays opportunist, QVC executive, Neil Walker, who takes a liking to Joy and helps her achieve her dream as a successful businesswoman after she patents an idea for a new, high-powered mop.

The authenticity of the time, 1989, and through the 1990s is apparent, as we see Joy working for Eastern Airlines, a company that would fold several years later. Also authentic were the automobiles of the time and the dresses and hairstyles.

These points the film does very well. And how cute was it to see famous daytime television stars such as Susan Lucci, portraying soap opera stars, as Joy’s mother lives her life vicariously through their tangled and bizarre soap lives?

Several scenes occur on the television set as we get glimpses of the soap stories.

The film as a whole, though, feels too neat.

Predictably, Joy faces obstacles on her way to success.  Already struggling financially, she takes out a second mortgage on her house. At first, she cannot give away mops, let alone sell them.

On the brink of giving up, she finishes a meeting with execs who laugh at her product, but Walker is there to give her a break because she has a pretty face.

Predictably, things do not go well and there is a rather dull subplot about a company in Texas trying to steal Joy’s idea. When she goes and threatens them they immediately back down and obediently give in to her every whim.

This is both unrealistic and uninteresting.

I would have liked to have seen a messy back-and-forth or some court scenes, but the Texas company is portrayed as nothing but the villain.

The writing has either plot holes or contains missed opportunities altogether and many questions abound. Despite many scenes of Joy’s past we end up knowing little.

Her entire family lives with her in a suburban Long Island house- why does Joy own the house and not her mother or grandmother? Why does Joy have a rivalry with her half-sister, Peggy? Why does Joy’s father own an auto garage and still need to stay with Joy? Why is Joy’s mother mostly in bed?

Madsen as the mother is rather cartoonish and unnecessary to the plot as is Ladd- a dynamic actress given little of substance.  I did not buy DeNiro as a cad nor in love with his wealthy new girlfriend Trudy (though seeing Isabella Rossellini in the part is a win), conveniently there to be Joy’s financer.

Despite an enormously talented cast, which is fantastic to see, most of the supporting parts could have been played by any actors, as the roles are not all that challenging, and the film itself is certainly a vehicle to showcase Jennifer Lawrence, David O. Russell’s current “it” girl.

This is not a slight towards Jennifer Lawrence since she is the best part.  She successfully portrays Joy as a sympathetic, strong-willed, fair, decent human being, with enormous struggles, and a blue-collar sensibility.

Great performance, but I wish the writing and the other talents involved in the film were given better material.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Jennifer Lawrence

The Witches-1990

The Witches-1990

Director Nicolas Roeg

Starring Angelica Huston

Scott’s Review #483

20282991

Reviewed September 20, 2016

Grade: B-

The Witches (1990) is a G-rated family film with a slightly dark tone that is done softly as the film is targeted at children. However, it is a film that adults may love too.

I found the film to be entertaining, with impressive special effects, and a dazzling comedic performance by Angelica Huston, but ultimately The Witches has a silly quality, though admittedly not trite, that does not completely make it a success in my book.

The film is based on a Roald Dahl children’s book – with predictably a child as the central character- similar to other Dahl novels that became films like James and the Giant Peach and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I cannot help but wonder if my mediocre rating of The Witches has to do with the fact that I have not read the novel, as I have the other aforementioned novels in his collection.

Our hero in the story is Luke- a  kindly, innocent young boy living in Norway with his parents and grandmother- Helga. When his folks are tragically killed, his grandmother takes him to London to begin a new life for themselves.

When Helga falls ill, they stay at a seaside resort where they stumble upon a convention of witches disguised as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Luke and his plump friend Bruno become victims of the witch’s plot to turn children into mice. The witch group is led by the Grand High Witch (Huston), whom the other witches fawn over with grandiose praise.

Huston is fantastic as she overacts the part she plays- this is not a bad thing but makes the role quite fun and energetic.

When she transforms from a glamorous woman to a shriveled monster, the transformation is interesting to watch and an impressive part of the film.

Furthermore, the way that Luke and Bruno interact when they are mice is also cute and a positive to the film.

I enjoyed the aspect that, if watched closely, can be seen involving the reveal that numerous witches are men with female wigs on. This successfully gives the witches a grotesque, obviously mannish quality and emits a chuckle of pleasure at the same time.

Still, there is something slightly childish or juvenile about the offering- while the film appears dark on the surface. The subject is rather played for laughs instead of going full steam ahead as a dark film.

Undoubtedly this is due to the target audience that the film is going for. For instance, the hotel manager and his affair with a hotel maid seem slightly unnecessary.

The Witches (1990) is a decent offering due to respect for the creative aspects that it elicits- I just felt the story might have been done a bit more seriously.

Additionally, the ending feels slightly forced and abrupt- a Hollywood-intended ending perhaps?

Vampire Academy-2014

Vampire Academy-2014

Director Mark Waters

Starring Zoey Deutch

Scott’s Review #482

70291088

Reviewed September 18, 2016

Grade: C

Vampire Academy (2014) is a teenage intended mixture of Harry Potter meets Heathers meets Twilight. It is escapist fare and is quite light, but rather fun in an amateurish way.

I am certain the target audience is of the teenage, female persuasion, but when traveling one can be limited in film options.

Hence, on a chilly night in Norway, this film kept us occupied.

The story features a half-human-half vampire named Rose, a teenage girl, who aspires to be a guardian, and who is called back to a boarding school to uncover a hierarchical web of secrets, lies, and plots.

She is accompanied by her best friend Lissa.

Predictably, there is a romantic angle to the story as Rose has feelings for Dimitri, a fellow guardian.

The film itself is fine- it knows the demographic it is going for and young adults are sure to enjoy the compelling drama, likable leads, and attractive cast.

From a film critique standpoint, there is nothing wrong with the film, but it is a bit generic and slightly predictable- from the romantic perspective, though impressively the ending is a bit of a surprise and a whodunit.

Impressive also is Sarah Hyland (Modern Family), as nerdy classmate Natalie, who seems to be the brains and the keeper of gossip throughout the academy.

The role is against type for the young actress and she does very well.

It is tough not to compare this film to the Harry Potter series of films since many aspects of Vampire Academy mirror Harry Potter- only with a female in the driver’s seat. The mysterious teachers and characters are also reminiscent of the fantastical Harry elements.

Unfortunately, a planned sequel was scrapped due to a lack of interest, which surprised me. I would anticipate a film like this to be a hit and perhaps introduce a franchise, but not to be.

An adequate young adult film that borrows from other films and also harkens back to the days of teen-minded genres of the past, specifically the 1980’s.

Date Night-2010

Date Night-2010

Director Shawn Levy

Starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg

Scott’s Review #481

70121501

Reviewed September 17, 2016

Grade: D+

Date Night is a perfect example of mediocrity in modern filmmaking.

We have two current comedic actors here- Steve Carrell and Tina Fey- circa 2010- at the top of their game.

The filmmaker’s idea is to pair these two and make an appealing romantic comedy appealing to the masses.

The main issue with this film is that the result is generic and quite an average offering.

And the entire film is incredibly plot-driven with no character development to speak of. If I am being too harsh, admittedly there is rather nice chemistry between the two leads, but it is wasted because of sloppy writing.

A couple from the New Jersey burbs, Carrell and Fey portray husband and wife, Phil and Claire Foster. Saddled with two kids and their romance reaching dullsville, Phil decides to take Claire to a ritzy Manhattan restaurant.

When they arrive, they cannot get a table but pretend to be another couple (the Tripplehorns) to obtain their table after the other couple’s no-shows. This leads to a tale of mistaken identity as the Tripplehorns possess a flash drive that a mobster (Ray Liotta) wants.

This then leads to a chase throughout Manhattan to outrun and outwit their pursuers. Wahlberg plays a hunky client of Claire’s, always shirtless, who is meant to threaten Phil and Claire’s marriage.

Several others of the current Hollywood elite- Kristen Wiig, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and Mark Ruffalo, make small and somewhat pointless appearances. Specifically, Franco and Kunis as a stoner-type bickering couple are silly and unnecessary to the story.

Carrell and Fey are quite funny as individuals and as a duo- Date Night, though, does not capitalize on nor showcase their respective talents. The film tries too hard to come up with scenario after scenario of the two on the run and encountering one problematic situation after another.

As the plot of Date Night wears on, I find myself noticing that each situation that occurs is a measure of convenience.

Conveniently, Claire has a client in town (Wahlberg), who is a security expert. They go to him for help and, predictably, his hunkiness bothers Phil and piques Claire’s interest- though of course, we know full well Phil and Claire will end up together- that is how these mainstream films go.

In another scene. Phil and Claire can break into an office building unnoticed, trigger the alarms, conveniently find a needed file, and escape, miraculously all before the police arrive minutes later.

Very plot-driven.

The lead actors in Date Night are appealing and even charming together, but the silly, inane plot makes it unappealing to watch and the slew of stars that somebody decided would be a great addition to a lukewarm film is odd.

The roles written have little bearing on the central plot so it was apparent why they were added.

Date Night (2010) is a film we have seen time and time again with other actors in similar roles.

Easy A-2010

Easy A-2010

Director Will Gluck

Starring Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #478

70123920

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: B-

Easy A (2010) is an example of a film where some parts are good, and other parts are dumb. However, at the end of the day it is forgettable and who will remember a film like this in ten years?

The film is a teen comedy about a girl who makes up a rumor about herself to gain attention from her peers.

Emma Stone is great in this movie and shows the enormous potential of her budding film career. She reminds me a bit of Lindsay Lohan. She is likable and great at comedy and presents a fun persona.

Also deserving of credit is Lisa Kudrow who appears in the movie.

At times, the dialogue is intelligent and witty, other times it turns into a typical dumb comedy and that is sad because based on the star power involved, Easy A (2010) might have been a better film than it was.

Babe-1995

Babe 1995

Director Chris Noonan

Starring James Cromwell

Scott’s Review #475

268776-1

Reviewed September 9, 2016

Grade: B

Babe (1995) is a cute, charming family film about a pig who becomes a hero while living on a farm with a family of other animals and a farmer and his wife.

It is not a risky film from a story perspective- any doubts about a happy ending?- though here are props for some visual creativity.

And let’s face it- the film is sweet and heartwarming with not a mean bone in its body.

The film is an inspirational one, nice for kids no doubt, and the visual effects, i.e. how they edited the animal movements with voices successfully are well done and not tacky.

The film is predictable and harmless and I’m not sure I agree with the Best Picture or Best Supporting Actor (for James Cromwell) nominations it garnered, but it was enjoyable all the same.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Chris Noonan, Best Supporting Actor-James Cromwell, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

This Is 40-2012

This Is 40-2012

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann

Scott’s Review #473

70244168

Reviewed September 6, 2016

Grade: B

I must admit, I was not looking forward to seeing this movie, and my initial thought was “typical dumb comedy” that has been seen a million times before.

While This is 40 (2012) does contain those elements and is marketed toward a certain target audience, this movie is, surprisingly, smartly written and intelligent…overall.

I have not viewed Knocked Up (2007), but I understand it’s a somewhat follow-up to that film, as the two central characters are now married and traversing through a different time in their lives-adulthood.

I enjoyed Paul Rudd’s, Melissa McCarthy’s, and whoever played the oldest daughter’s, performances the most, though Rudd has become the latest actor to play the same role over and over again.

I enjoyed the rock n roll elements and the confrontation scenes as these were very cleverly written and nicely acted.

Sadly, at times the film relies on the standard bathroom humor done thousands of times before- a clear attempt at a laugh, and Jason Segal’s and Megan Fox’s characters are unnecessary to the main plot.

This Is 40 (2012) is a film that, at its heart, shows the trials and tribulations of generations of families, humorously, and done rather well.

Bernie-2011

Bernie-2011

Director Richard Linklater

Starring Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, Matthew McConaughey

Scott’s Review #472

70189906

Reviewed August 30, 2016

Grade: C-

Bernie (2011) is a film that, surprisingly, received critical acclaim, as well as Golden Globe and Independent Spirit Award nominations, but I was left quite disappointed with it.

Categorized as a dark comedy, it contains a morbid premise, which is not the issue, I just did not find it very good overall.

Despite being a true story of Bernie (Jack Black) marrying and murdering millionaire Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) in Texas, the film is not compelling and is written too over the top.

Inexplicably, the townspeople refuse to believe Bernie’s obvious guilt.

To be fair, the film does contain a few funny and interesting moments and was based on factual events, but I didn’t feel connected to this movie as much as I expected and honestly found it a bit dull.

Jack Black is impressive as the title character but only because it is a departure from his usual slapstick film roles. I don’t get the accolades being heaped on him for his performance.

Shirley MacLaine and Matthew McConaughey are capable of the parts written for them, but one-note characters.

Meh.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Jack Black

Results-2015

Results-2015

Director Andrew Bujalski

Starring Guy Pearce, Kevin Corrigan

Scott’s Review #471

80038442

Reviewed August 29, 2016

Grade: C-

Other than one fantastic supporting performance by Kevin Corrigan, who should have been the star of this film, Results (2015) is an independent romantic comedy that lacks any real identity.

The film has trouble deciding which couple the audience is meant to root for leaving me to root for none of them, and frankly, a bit bored with the overall script.

Still, Corrigan and to some degree, Guy Pearce make it a tolerable watch.

Corrigan plays Danny, a newly wealthy average Joe type, who joins a gym presumably to achieve a supportive network of friends, as he is new in town- Austin, Texas.

He meets Trevor (Pearce), who owns a local gym and is trained by the moody Kat (Cobie Smulders).

The three individuals’ lives intersect as a triangle of sorts develops.

Kevin Corrigan, who has appeared in numerous independent films over his decades-long career, and blockbusters such as Goodfellas (1990), completely steals the show and is the main reason to tune in.

His acting is effortless as he plays a lonely, rich man looking for human connections. He is troubled but has a comic wit that shines and gives him needed vulnerability. We want him to find happiness despite being unlikable.

Speaking of unlikeable, Smulders as Kat is a frigid iceberg with attitude for miles. Why anyone, let alone two men, would be interested in her is beyond me.

Pearce is appealing as the good-natured, aspiring-to-be successful businessman named Trevor, who is buff beyond belief- to enormous credit since Pearce is no spring chicken. Otherwise, we know little about his character.

He is not in love with Kat, but suddenly seems to be.

Kat warms to Danny but then is in love with Trevor. The entire romantic entanglement is silly and no chemistry exists among them.

The casting of Giovanni Ribisi as a stoner lawyer and Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club from the 1980s) as a fitness guru are pointless.

The fitness/gym angle is cool if one, as I am, is a fan of physical fitness. It is a nice little lesson as Kat teaches Danny basic core exercises. But after too many scenes of Kat drinking kale shakes and jogging incessantly, or Trevor eating egg white omelets and body strengthening, the message is overkill.

They are fitness buffs- we get it.

The biggest fail is how the film focuses on Danny and Kat as a potential romantic couple, then suddenly shifts gears, making Kat and Trevor the main couple, with Danny on the outside looking in.

It really makes little sense, and by that point, I was rather bored anyway and the film just petered out for me.

Results (2015) has shreds of potential with better-structured story-telling, but misses good potential in many areas- underdeveloped characters and a meandering plot are a couple of major problem points.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Kevin Corrigan

Anomalisa-2015

Anomalisa-2015

Director Charlie Kaufman, Duke Johnson

Starring Tom Noonan, Jennifer Jason Leigh

Scott’s Review #469

80080269

Reviewed August 27, 2016

Grade: A-

Anomalisa (2015) is one of the most creative offerings I have seen recently.

Animation is not my forte- typically I find them much too nice, and the old “family-friendly” tags make me cringe, Anomalisa has received heaps of buzz so I decided to check it out.

I am glad I did.

The stop-motion film is quite adult-themed, though not the slightest bit raunchy. Rather it is an intelligent tale about loneliness and human beings connecting through this loneliness.

It is a bit of a melancholy film too, based on a 2005 play.

The central character is Michael Stone, a depressed customer service expert, who travels to Cincinnati to deliver a seminar on his expertise. Michael is riddled with anxiety and his life is rather mundane though he checks into a stylish hotel that is presumably hosting his convention.

He is a bit of a big name within his industry. Oddly, every person he encounters looks and sounds the same- that of a white man- even his wife and son. He is haunted by the memory of an old flame, Bella, who it is revealed he jilted years ago and now lives in Cincinnati.

The story gets interesting when Michael hears a woman’s voice singing, up until now all voices are male, remember, and he is desperate to find the voice.

He meets Lisa (voiced by Jennifer Jason Leigh), an insecure, rather dowdy woman, with whom he becomes infatuated. A customer service representative at the hotel to witness Michael’s seminar, Lisa is instantly smitten, though wary of Michael’s intentions.

They bond and the film tells of their romance and insecurities.

The film is highly creative and unique. It is also mysterious. My first wonder was to figure out why all the characters, regardless of gender, share the same voice.

Michael is lonely and sees everyone else as monotonous or meaningless until he meets Lisa. The film is not clear what Michael sees in Lisa- perhaps her realness in a world of phoniness. She is an ordinary girl, but what is the point? I am still not sure of this.

I did not find the character Michael likable and not one to root for. He is dismissive of some characters and a bit condescending, but despite this, not a hated character either. He and Lisa as a duo are to root for.

Anomalisa has some humor too, albeit dark humor. When Michael mistakes an adult toy store for a traditional toy store and purchases a Japanese sex doll for his son, Michael’s wife hilariously wonders about some foreign substance around the doll’s mouth.

A nervous male passenger on Michael’s flight clutches Michael’s hand, even after landing safely.

The explicit sex scene between Michael and Lisa is as shocking as it is tender. I think showing this graphic edge in animation threw me for a loop since this rarely happens in animated films- perhaps incorrectly- assuming that they are for children only with their parents to endure.

Anomalisa is not true animation- felt puppets are used, giving a great, human-looking feel and making the characters more life-like.

Anomalisa (2015) is not a perfect ten but damn close for its left-of-center approach alone. A journey into the art of creativity and thought. A bit far out there for most, and perhaps the sarcasm may be lost on some, but a unique experience, nonetheless.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Charlie Kaufman and Duke Johnson, Best Supporting Female-Jennifer Jason Leigh, Best Screenplay

Trainwreck-2015

Trainwreck-2015

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Amy Schumer, Bill Hader

Scott’s Review #463

80036402

Reviewed August 13, 2016

Grade: B

Trainwreck is a raunchy 2015 comedy/romantic comedy that lends its success largely to its star.

Amy Schumer makes this film as good as it can be (after all, she wrote it) and despite the raunchy girl power themes that are currently the popular trend in films of this genre, Trainwreck has some laughs and good times thrown in, thanks to Schumer.

Judd Apatow directs, who has successfully made a gazillion of these types of films in modern times.

The film does teeter off into predictability toward the conclusion. It has its moments of fun and is not boring.

Unapologetic, sexually promiscuous, and boozy, Schumer plays a successful magazine writer (Amy) given an assignment she despises- interview a sports medicine doctor, named  Aaron (played by SNL alum, Bill Hader).

Amy hates sports and knows nothing about them, she also goes from man to man, nothing serious, and is currently dating a sexy bodybuilder named Steven (John Cena), who she thinks may be gay.

Predictably, Amy and Aaron fall in love.

In typical fashion, Trainwreck contains stereotypical characters or characters who are merely there to bounce off the main action.

SNL alum Vanessa Bayer, and Tilda Swinton are the most obvious examples, as the loyal best friend and rigid, type-A boss, respectively.

Brie Larson and Colin Quinn co-star as Amy’s family members. Both give one-note performances that are fine, but unspectacular, and one surmises that Brie Larson agreed to this role before her Oscar-winning turn in Room (2015).

Despite the comedy clichés, I had some good fun with Trainwreck.

Schumer is likable as an ordinary girl, think of her as the new Melissa McCarthy, to whom many people can relate. I am not sure Schumer and Hader had the best chemistry, but the point was that she found love with a “regular” guy, a tad dull, to counter-balance her big, loud personality.

And they do make a charming pair.

Some scenes work. When Amy encourages a naked Steven to “talk dirty to her” in the bedroom and he attributes everything to bodybuilding, the scene is funny.

When Amy and Steven banter with an angry couple at the movie theater, fall flat.

Certainly not high art, for the raunchy comedy genre, Trainwreck is a treat and entertaining to watch, in large part due to the comedic talents of Amy Schumer.

More often than not, when the masses rave about a current comedy as being “great”, I am usually disappointed. While Trainwreck (2015) is not great, it is good, with some laughs.

Otherwise, it is a rather by-the-numbers film.

Café Society-2016

Café Society-2016

Director-Woody Allen

Starring-Jesse Eisenberg, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #462

80106775

Reviewed August 11, 2016

Grade: B+

Having received sub-par reviews, but wanting to see this film for me, as it is a Woody Allen film, and I have yet to see an Allen film I did not like, I traversed to my local theater to see this flick.

I was not disappointed, though others did not share my opinion.

To love Woody Allen films is to love quirky characters who are either neurotic, damaged, or more often than not, both.

Also notable to Café Society is the stellar cast of who’s who- many in small cameo roles, but which is another trademark of Woody Allen films.

Marisa Tomei, Daniel Radcliffe, and Anna Camp (True Blood) have very small roles as do stars such as Sheryl Lee (Twin Peaks), and Tony Sirico (The Sopranos).

Additionally, Woody Allen himself narrates the film- a highlight.

The main stars of Café Society, though, are Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, both perfectly cast.

The setting (which I adored) is 1930’s Hollywood and the action traverses between California and New York City- another common bond of Allen films.

Eisenberg plays Bobby Dorfman, a Jewish son of a working-class jeweler, who has many siblings. Tired of New York, he flies to Los Angeles to obtain work with his hot shot Uncle Phil, played by Steve Carrell, who knows every celebrity under the sun.

There, he meets Vonnie (Stewart) and they fall in love, Bobby unaware of her on and off love affair with Phil.

The set and costume designs are to die for and, being a fan of this glamorous time in history, is a wonderful treat from a visual perspective.

Café Society is a prime example of a film that feels authentic to its time rather than appearing staged with actors merely dressed up in appropriate attire. This is tougher to achieve than one might imagine.

Despite opinions of the contrary, I enjoyed how most of the characters were wishy-washy and unsure of their motivations or feelings toward other characters.

Vonnie loves Phil, then she warms to Bobby, who has been in love with her since their first meeting as she innocently showed him around the palatial mansions of Hollywood.

She is real to Bobby, but then makes a decision and becomes everything that she once despised about Hollywood- a shallow trophy wife.

Ironically, back in New York, Bobby then becomes involved with a stunning new woman with the same name as his ex. The importance of this coincidence is crucial to the film’s point. He transfers his feelings to another woman, but is he really happy?

It did not bother me, though perhaps it should have, that several characters were introduced for a scene or two and then mysteriously dropped.

For instance, the novice hooker, Candy, having tried to make it as an actress and failed, has a heart of gold. But after her awkward attempt at a tryst with Bobby, the character is never seen again.

Another characteristic of the film that I enjoyed is the natural, overlapping dialogue between the characters. It makes them that much more genuine and harkens back to my fondness for Robert Altman films, which used a similar technique with his actors.

The point of Café Society is that nobody ever gets what they want or, the film is making a point of, nobody ever really knows what they want.

Containing elements common to other Woody Allen films, Café Society is intended for fans of his lengthy body of work.

Sisters-2015

Sisters-2015

Director Jason Moore

Starring Tina Fey, Amy Poehler

Scott’s Review #458

80063604

Reviewed July 31, 2016

Grade: B-

Slapstick comedy is admittedly not my genre of choice, though I will watch some for light entertainment or to see just how bad (or good) current offerings are.

Nonetheless, I have tried to put myself in a mindset of low expectations for these films that are usually fluff and plot-driven.

In the case of Sisters (2015), the film is pretty much as one would expect: vulgar, crass and raunchy. Yet, due to the chemistry between the leads (Amy Poehler and Tina Fey) and a few heartfelt romantic moments, something does work. It is not as mean as one might think.

This is not to say that Sisters is a great film. Hardly. But not as bad as I feared.

Poehler and Fey play Maura and Kate Ellis, respectively, two late thirties sisters, living in other areas of the country, who return home to Orlando, Florida, when their parents (James Brolin and Dianne Wiest) sell their childhood home.

Maura and Kate have been tasked with cleaning their bedrooms in time for the sale.

The sisters have an idea to throw one final bash and invite their high school classmates, who all conveniently still live in the same town. Events go awry and the party gets way out of hand.

Mixed in with the main plot are sub-plots consisting of a romantic interest for Maura, and a rival for Kate, played by Maya Rudolph.

The best part is the chemistry between Poehler and Fey. They “have it” whether it is a Saturday Night Live sketch, hosting the Golden Globe awards, or starring in Sisters. The banter and the jokes work well because the two comics work well together and it shows on-screen.

They are believable as sisters despite looking nothing alike.

Otherwise, Sisters is a traditional vulgar comedy. One irksome recent trend (now more female-driven than in years past) is the leading ladies being classless. This must be an attempt at female empowerment or the assumption that since adult comedies were once a man’s world, female characters should be written like men.

Do we need Kate and Maura swearing like sailors, making poop jokes, and being so raunchy? Behaving like ladies would now be the exception, not the norm (Bridesmaids, 2011, set this precedent).

Not surprisingly, the supporting characters are all caricatures as is typically the case in films of this genre. The parents are a bit clueless and have kinky sex much to the girl’s chagrin.

Brinda, bitchy, judgmental, yet insecure, the Korean (big stereotype) nail technician who cannot properly pronounce English words, the new owners of the house are snobbish, uptight, and clueless, and finally, James, the guy next door, who are Mr. Fix-it and the straight man in the high-jinks. He is sugar-sweet and the male hero.

The romantic scenes between Maura and James are sweet and sentimental, nicely balancing the vulgarity and raunchiness that the rest of the film encompasses. They are a nice couple and have a rich rooting value.

Most of the action takes place at Kate and Maura’s childhood home where posters of such 1980s films as E.T. and Out of Africa, and a poster of heartthrob Tom Cruise, hang on the walls.

This, and many other references that Generation X will delight from in this film are pointed out, so that is a treat and a positive of the film.

As the party gets off to a slow start, the thirty and forty-somethings appear dull and either talk about their kids or their various maladies and suddenly, after being fed drugs, are back to their college party days, are both dumb and cute at the same time.

Sisters (2015) (hopefully) knows what it is. It is a late Saturday night, raunchy comedy affair, meant as fluff and escapist fun. It is not a masterpiece nor does it intend to be one.

Rather, a full-length SNL sketch including many alumni. It is harmless fun.

Frankenweenie-2012

Frankenweenie-2012

Director Tim Burton

Starring Catherine O’Hara, Martin Short

Scott’s Review #454

70219496

Reviewed July 23, 2016

Grade: B

Frankenweenie is a very creative Tim Burton-made, stop-motion film that received a nomination for Best Animated Feature at the 2012 Oscars.

On the dark side, it is a pleasure to watch for the thought-invoked and left-of-center approach as compared to many safe modern animated features.

The story revolves around a lonely young man who experiments on his recently deceased dog to bring him back to life.

It is a black and white film, has nice horror references (Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein) and interesting characters.

It is also heartwarming as the child’s love for the dog is evident.

The movie is easy to compare to 2012’s ParaNorman in multiple ways (lonely male teen, both dark films).

As much as I give major props to this film for the creativity involved, somehow it did not completely connect with me (I liked ParaNorman better) and I’m not sure why, but I have great respect for the creative achievements it encompasses.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

ParaNorman-2012

ParaNorman-2012

Director Chris Butler, Sam Fell

Starring Kodi Smit-McPhee, Anna Kendrick

Scott’s Review #453

70217914

Reviewed July 23, 2016

Grade: B+

ParaNorman (2012) is a highly imaginative and very enjoyable, animated film that I admired a great deal.

Creative colors and images are key and the film is stop-motion.

Despite being animated it is not a kid’s movie but rather geared toward the teenager or older demographic.

It is among the strongest, along with Frankenweenie, a similar type film, of the five nominated films for Best Animated feature, in the year 2012.

ParaNorman is so similar to Frankenweenie that they could almost be simultaneously reviewed or watched on the same day.  Both center around an isolated young male coping with his surroundings and both contain a light horror feel to them.

In ParaNorman, an army of zombies invades a small, suburban town, and our hero, Norman, a strange young man who can communicate with the dead, must save the day.

The film contains sympathetic peers, but the adults in the film present various obstacles.

I have gone on record as being not much of an animated film fan, but I do view the best of each year and this one impressed me immensely.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

Ruby Sparks-2012

Ruby Sparks-2012

Director Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Starring Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan

Scott’s Review #442

70213510

Reviewed July 4, 2016

Grade: B

Ruby Sparks is a smart, creative, indie film released in 2012.

The film’s theme is fantasy versus reality as the main character is a troubled writer who envisions a character he has created is real.

Is she real or isn’t she?

The film centers around a writer (Paul Dano) with writer’s block who creates an imaginary dream girl (Zoe Kazan), who magically comes to life, one day.

This is an interesting premise and the film has some big-named actors (Annette Bening, Eliot Gould, Antonio Banderas) in small roles which is a delight to see.

The chemistry is lacking between the two leads and the film delves too much into a typical romantic comedy.

Additionally, the film never explains if it is going for seriousness or purely the writer’s imagination, but I admire its creativity and thoughtful premise.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Screenplay

Gayby-2012

Gayby-2012

Director Jonathan Lisecki

Starring Jenn Harris, Mathew Wilkas

Scott’s Review #441

70234883

Reviewed July 3, 2016

Grade: C+

Gayby (2012) is a sketch-type comedy about two best friends (a gay man and a straight woman) who decide to have a child together.

Both have reached a certain age and are unhappy to have not found the perfect mate. The story is not novel and feels more like a Saturday Night Live sketch than a film.

The film is also playing on the success of television comedies like NBC’s Will and Grace, the obvious dynamic of the central characters.

The two leads are quite appealing in a comic way, have wit (Jenn Harris is deliciously neurotic), and have great timing.

The subject matter is interesting, though as years go by and more LGBTQ+ topics are covered,  it is becoming rather dated and not novel anymore.

The negative is the frenetic, quick pacing of the film, ultimately making it rather off-putting and annoying, to say nothing of the irritating stereotypical, supporting characters.

They are written so over-the-top that it is tough to take the film as seriously as it should be taken.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

Safety Not Guaranteed-2012

Safety Not Guaranteed-2012

Director Colin Trevorrow

Starring Mark Duplass, Aubrey Plaza

Scott’s Review #440

70227946

Reviewed July 3, 2016

Grade: B-

Safety Not Guaranteed is similar in style to another 2012 independent film, Ruby Sparks, in that they pose the question of “Is this fantasy or reality”?

The film deals with the subject matter of time travel.

The story centers around a magazine journalist, who, along with two interns, follows a man convinced that he is building a time travel machine.

The story then develops into a romantic comedy of sorts and the audience is unsure if the guy is crazy or purely a genius.

It’s an interesting concept, intelligently written, and Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass are both quite likable in the lead roles.

The one flaw for me was, at times, the movie dove into slapstick territory with a silly secondary story of a stereotypically written Indian character attempting to lose his virginity.

Besides that, Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) has intriguing intentions.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best First Screenplay (won), Best First Feature

Hope Springs-2012

Hope Springs-2012

Director David Frankel

Starring Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones

Scott’s Review #434

70230548

Reviewed June 30, 2016

Grade: B

Hope Springs (2012) is a cute, lighthearted romantic comedy-drama with enormous talent (it is tough to go wrong with heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones).

The story tells of a middle-aged, married couple who reach the point of boredom in their long marriage. They decide to go away on a retreat to repair their marriage and add some spark.

That’s the movie in a nutshell.

There are no surprises to speak of and I expected a bit more from this film given the talent involved. It has safely written all over it, and while nice, it could have been much more.

What’s the reason for the conflict? They suddenly reach a point of boredom for no reason.

Props to Steve Carell for an against-type performance.

Hope Springs (2012) has great acting all around, but too safe of a story.

Dirty Grandpa-2016

Dirty Grandpa-2016

Director-Dan Mazer

Starring-Robert De Niro, Zac Efron

Scott’s Review #432

80049285

Reviewed June 29, 2016

Grade: D-

It is a sad day when the only interesting aspect of a film is the gratuitous nudity of one of its stars, but that is precisely the case with Dirty Grandpa, as Zac Efron bravely bares all for the sake of art….or a big paycheck, whichever the case may be.

Otherwise, Dirty Grandpa is complete drivel.

It is crass, rude, mean-spirited, and blatant in its raunch. It also aspires (successfully) to be politically incorrect- quite surprising in these times of fairness and equality for all. If the film intends to be outrageous it succeeds in spades.

Unfortunately, there is not much comedy and the film is quite bad, even where dumb comedies are concerned.

Starring one of films greatest talents of all time- Robert DeNiro, one wonders why he would sign on to appear in this film- certainly not the money, perhaps it has to do with playing a role he has yet to do- we will probably never know.

DeNiro plays Dick Kelly, a retired Army veteran, recently widowed after forty years of marriage. Faithful for decades, he embarks on a road trip to Daytona Beach Florida, with his grandson, Jason, in tow. Dick’s goal is to conquer a slutty college girl he and Jason meet while they are eating at a roadside diner.

Lenore, the college girl, is with her friend Shadia, who knows Jason from school.  To complicate matters, Jason is engaged to self-absorbed Meredith. This sets off a chain of circumstances where each pair falls in love, all the while hurdling various trivial issues.

Thrown in are scenes of partying, acting silly, and outrageous crude remarks and behavior. The standard bathroom humor is not spared.

The subject matter of Dirty Grandpa is not unchartered territory as the “road trip/buddy movie” has been done oodles of times in film history.

My gripe is not so much with the film’s raunchiness, but to be blunt it is just not funny. Over the top in raunch comedy has worked many times before- think Pink Flamingos and other John Waters films.

But those films had characters to root for and who was interesting.

DeNiro’s character is the pits- Efron’s not so bad. The motivation of Dick Kelly is to have sex- almost like the guys in American Pie, but with them it was cute- but DeNiro plays a man in his 70’s.

That is fine, but he is so blunt about his need for sex and whines of not having sex for fifteen years because of his wife’s cancer. So, the audience is to think of him as a nice guy because he waits for his wife to die to score on spring break?

Lame.

Efron is my favorite character and as mentioned above- he bears a lot of skin, making it the most appealing aspect of this sorry film.

The chemistry between Efron and DeNiro is not terrible, and I bought them as grandfather and grandson.

Efron is not afraid to poke fun at his beefcake image and kudos to him for this. He has a fantastic, chiseled body, and good for him for showing it off.

Efron has the talent- does anyone recall The Paperboy? He was superlative in that underrated independent gem. His character is the straight man in Dirty Grandpa and the only “normal” character. He is the voice of reason if you will.

The supporting characters are as stereotypical as possible.

It is almost as if the film intends to offend, but with no good reason why. Dirty Grandpa has the dumb jocks, the horny teen girl, the weak, effeminate gay character, the Hispanic drug dealer, and so forth.

Danny Glover’s brief cameo appearance as a horny wheelchair-bound nursing home resident (and old buddy of Dick) is as much laughable (not in a good way) as forgettable. Most characters are thinly written.

Dirty Grandpa appeals to unsophisticated moviegoers who find crude, mean-spirited characters funny, and deem stock characters acceptable. Every other sensible person will dislike this film.

Ted-2012

Ted-2012

Director Seth MacFarlane

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis

Scott’s Review #428

70218756

Reviewed June 21, 2016

Grade: D-

So many times I will watch a comedy deemed “the funniest movie of the year”, or some other touting, and be disappointed in it.

This is the case with Ted (2012).

To be fair to the creators, I did enjoy the 1980s references, and the teddy bear has a charming, gruff, witty, crude personality that was funny at times, but that’s it for the positives.

The main storyline (a loyal male slacker with a successful girlfriend) has been done to death and this was one of the most predictable, sappy movie endings I’ve ever seen so I don’t get why people think it is so great.

Think happily ever after, as if the result was ever in question.

Ted was filled with stereotypical characters, specifically Asian stereotypes, and a myriad of dumb situations.

The actors could handle stronger material.

Raunchy comedies need not have a surprise ending, but the sappy love story was too lame to take at times. At least the film should have taken some risks and given an edge to it.

And the lord helps us if there is an inevitable sequel to Ted (2012).

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Everybody Needs a Best Friend”