Tag Archives: Comedy

The Disaster Artist-2017

The Disaster Artist-2017

Director James Franco

Starring James Franco, Dave Franco

Scott’s Review #781

Reviewed July 2, 2018

Grade: B

The Disaster Artist (2017) is a biography-comedy that I found to be middle of the road to primarily good if I’m judging in overall terms- most I liked with a bit of criticism.

Due to the many accolades, I confess to having anticipated a bit more from the finished product and hardly finding it a masterpiece.

Still, I was both impressed and unimpressed by James Franco’s performance in the lead role. I was awed at the actor’s emergence as a director, and the Los Angeles setting is great.

At times the film teeters almost into bad slapstick or shtick, and a bit silly, and as much as I respect his performance, this criticism is directed at Franco. Nobody can deny his acting talent if he chooses the right films.

His attempt to make his character peculiar is noticeable within seconds, so it seems Franco also makes him a bit of a goof, and I was not able to take the character seriously all of the time.

And the weird accent threw me.

This film is based on the nonfiction book The Disaster Artist. The book chronicles the making of 2003’s The Room, not to be confused with the 2015 film Room. The Room was considered amateurish and one of the worst movies ever made.

Told repeatedly that his acting stinks, oddball Tommie Wiseau (James Franco), a European-American aspiring actor, decided to screw Hollywood and produce, direct, and star in his film.

Wiseau has an endless amount of bank funds, which he uses towards the film. Roommate and friend Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) stars in the movie and thus gets his big break. The duo and various others pitch in to create the project, which suffers from ineptness on the part of Wiseau.

The Los Angeles setting resonates with me, as does the recurring theme of struggle in the Hollywood scene. These are significant pluses of the film as a whole.

Los Angeles can appear to be a sunny and glamorous town, but beneath its shiny exterior, it always has a gloomy, dark underbelly.

The film realistically depicts struggle and success, from the central characters to the supporting players, making it resemble an ensemble.

Thousands struggle daily for a break, and no respect or appreciation is given. The Disaster Artist scores a win by focusing on this.

When Tommie brazenly approaches an influential producer in a restaurant, he is unceremoniously dismissed for having no talent and told he will never get anywhere. In addition to Tommie, several actors associated with the film struggle.

In a fantastic scene, an older actress states that being on a bad movie set beats any other job by miles. The message here is that people in Hollywood are there because they genuinely love it.

The sweet, empowering theme of friendship and empowerment is also to be celebrated, especially given the cutthroat backdrop. Tommie and Greg are best friends and have each other’s backs through thick and thin.

Neither gives up on the other, even during the initial audience reaction to The Room premiere.

Could the film have been slightly darker? Yes, indeed, as very few scenes of drug destruction or the porn that many hopeful talents turn to are mentioned. But the film is not about that. It’s an enchanting tale of hope and fun.

It is interesting to note, and not evident to me while watching the film, that brothers James and Dave Franco play opposite one another. While there is somewhat of a physical resemblance, the chemistry works between the two actors as best friends.

James delivers a worthy portrayal of an unusual character with a strange dialect, long, stringy brown hair, and seemingly cross-eyed. The role is comedic and ideally suited for an unusual actor like Franco- he must have had a ball with the part.

Movies about movie-making always fascinate me. What goes on behind the scenes?

The Disaster Artist (2017) provides enough good film meat to make it an overall good experience. It stays true to some fine Hollywood history—the famous James Dean is referenced, and the spot where he died is even visited—nice touch! Franco is both good and disappointing in the main role.

All in all, this one is worth watching for those who enjoy filmmaking, Hollywood, or L.A.-set films.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-James Franco

Girls Trip-2017

Girls Trip-2017

Director Malcolm D. Lee

Starring Regina Hall, Queen Latifah, Jada Pinkett Smith

Scott’s Review #760

Reviewed May 18, 2018

Grade: D-

I am genuinely baffled by some of the positive reviews of the film Girls Trip (2017) by viewers and respected critics.

Attempts to make females as raunchy as the guys in R-rated comedies never work, in my opinion (good writing does!), and the result is a largely unfunny, crude piece of drivel.

The fact that the film, which goes for a “female empowerment” theme, is directed by a man is as disappointing as disrespectful, especially given the fact that the writers are female- they couldn’t find a black female director?

At the risk of giving a testimonial, I fully know the importance of creating good female roles in cinema-perfect female black roles.

Unfortunately, the roles in Girls Trip do nothing to further the cause as tried and true, standardized parts commence with no well-written character to be found.

Modern films look to Black Panther (2018) or Hidden Figures (2016) as examples of positive black female role models- they exist!

The weak plot involves four forty-something lifelong friends who regroup for a reunion after years apart. Famous lifestyle guru Ryan Pierce (Regina Hall) decides to take her “Flossy Posse” to a music festival in New Orleans, where they will spend the weekend partying like it’s the 1990s once again.

Ryan is married to a man who cheats on her, Sasha (Queen Latifah) runs a failing gossip site, Lisa (Jada Pinkett Smith) is a divorced, overbearing nurse, and slutty, aggressive Dina (Tiffany Haddish), who has just been fired from her job.

In predictable form- think 2009’s The Hangover or a multitude of other raunchy comedies since then, the girls get into trouble, drink too much, have sex, and partake in other hi-jinks throughout the weekend.

The central plot is Ryan’s potential investment deal with rigid and uptight Bethany (Lara Grice) and a wisecracking agent. As events unfold, Ryan’s female nemesis shows up to cause trouble and stir up drama, testing the group’s patience.

Girls Trip is a typical American comedy film (not a compliment!) that offers weak writing and instead promotes stereotypical stock characters.

Many similar comedies have come before it, and many more will come after it. Since I disliked the film so much, I decided to ask myself a few rhetorical questions as I observed the mess.

In films with a group of women, why is there always a slutty one (Dina)? Why is there always a mousy one (Lisa)? Why is there always a fat one (Sasha)? Why is it deemed funny to watch women pee or suffer bathroom issues?

The only positives to Girls Trip come in one humorous scene when Dina mixes absinthe into the girls’ drinks before a meeting, causing them to hallucinate. As the girls begin to imagine themselves talking in deep baritone voices and Ryan imagines a waitress is her arch-enemy, the hilarity briefly ensues.

A quick wrap-up speech by Ryan after the film does send a nice message about being yourself and staying true to your loved ones, but why we have to suffer through two-plus hours of crap to get to the inspiration and point of the film is beyond me.

The success of Girls Trip (2017), which will inevitably produce a sequel, leads me to believe that the masses prefer their films idiotic, redundant, and fraught with cheap, crude laughs.

The film seems to be intended to push the envelope—not to create great art, but just to make the film as crass as possible. This is presumably to prove that girls can be as nasty as boys, which the film succeeds at portraying.

The Brady Bunch Movie-1995

The Brady Bunch Movie-1995

Director Betty Thomas

Starring Gary Cole, Shelley Long

Scott’s Review #750

Reviewed April 30, 2018

Grade: B

Capitalizing on nostalgia created from the popular 1960s-1970s television comedy “The Brady Bunch”, 1995’s The Brady Bunch Movie offers a nice treat for fans of the series, fondly reminiscing back to their youth or hours spent enjoying subsequent reruns after the show had ended.

The case with this reviewer, the film version is cute and silly, but exactly as would be expected, and the attention to detail using facets from the original series makes the film wonderful enjoyment and a job well done by director Betty Thomas.

The Brady Bunch Movie is not highbrow nor complex,  nor should it be. The work is just peppered with great jokes and a solid ode to the fun past.

Film fans looking for a good comedy and not having seen the series might miss out on some of the fun as a multitude of references only fans will appreciate abound throughout the length of the film.

The plot is not the strongest quality, but liberties must be taken since the intention is of a throwback and not much more- the story might have existed during the series but lengthened for film purposes.

Larry Dittmeyer, played by Michael McKean, schemes to coax all of his southern Californian neighborhood to sell their houses at a good price, to develop a lucrative shopping mall, presumably so they will all get rich.

When earnest Mike and Carol Brady (Gary Cole and Shelley Long) refuse the business deal, Larry embarks on a plot to use a foreclosing notice issued to the Brady’s as leverage in his deal. The Brady’s, owing $20,000 in back taxes due within a week’s time scramble to raise the money.

Predictably, the Brady kids rush to the rescue with a plan to secure the funds via a singing contest.

The film immediately gets off to a familiar start as we view the comfortable Brady house and all of the cozy qualities nestled inside- unchanged from the late 1960s- the groovy orange colors, the tie-dye, and the plaid outfits are all in tow.

Lovable Alice, in her blue and white housekeeper outfit, Mike, Carol, and all six Brady kids are back at the helm, having never missed a beat.

In short, they still live as if it were 1969 instead of 1995 and are oblivious to the outside world.

A tremendous treat for fans is the cameo appearances of a few of the original cast: Florence Henderson (Carol) and Ann B. Davis (Alice) have the more interesting parts, that of the Brady grandmother and truck driver, respectively.

Oddly, Maureen McCormick’s (Marcia), Susan Olsen’s (Cindy), and Mike Lookinland’s (Bobby’s) scenes were shot, but all cut- a major fail of the film whose fans undoubtedly would have liked to have seen all cast members.

Wouldn’t a group scene versus individual scenes have been a wonderful touch?

Missing is Robert Reed (Mike) who was deceased and Eve Plumb (Jan) who refused to appear.

The plot is silly, trivial, and completely predictable, but yet, so is the television series. As each episode was wrapped up in a nice bow with a defined conclusion and perhaps a lesson or two learned along the way, the film plays similarly.

McKean’s Larry and man-hungry wife Dina (Jean Smart) are perfect foils and play their roles with a relish only adding to the zany fun. A wonderful and timely point is how a Japanese businessman saves the day for the Bradys as a nice cultural inclusiveness touch is added- still relevant today.

An observation made while watching the film in the present time (2018), is the intended point of the film. In 1995, the point was to show how out of touch the Bradys were with “modern times”.

But in 2018 the tide has turned and 1995 now seems dated concerning the Brady years- sadly this gives the film itself more of a dated quality. This is always a risk taken when a film uses its current time as part of the plot.

The cool and hip cellular phone used by one character seems garish and uncool by today’s advanced standards.

Still, from Marcia’s flattened nose, The Monkees’ Davy Jones resurfacing, Cindy’s tattling, Jan’s insecurities, Greg’s cool suave manner, Peter’s breaking voice, and Bobby’s hall monitor job, the familiar stories and antics all resurface in a fun-filled hour and a half of comic nostalgia.

The Brady Bunch Movie (1995) is a light achievement and a nice trip down memory lane for many folks.

Working Girl-1988

Working Girl-1988

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Melanie Griffith, Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #748

Reviewed April 26, 2018

Grade: B+

Released during a decade known for excess, fun, and light comedy films, especially in its latter half, 1988’s Working Girl was a blockbuster hit at the time and, in modern times, is perfectly positioned as an identifier of the decade itself.

This can be both good and bad, with both a dated feel and a whimsical, basic good girl versus a bad approach that is appealing.

The film is romantic comedy fluff, but it is entertaining and features lovely views of New York City- one of my very favorite locales.

The film is directed by Mike Nichols, better known for heavier subject matter (1966’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and 1967’s The Graduate).

His leading of the picture, as well as all-star casting, surely made this film better than it ought to have been.

Tess McGill (Melanie Griffith) commutes via the Staten Island Ferry each morning into vast Manhattan, where she holds a secretarial job at a Wall Street investment bank.

When she has a bad experience with one of the brokers, she is reassigned to a female boss, the assertive Katharine Parker (Sigourney Weaver).

After Katharine steals Tess’s business idea and passes it off as her own to get in good with handsome Jack Trainer (Harrison Ford), Tess is determined to reveal the truth as a triangle develops among the three.

In tow are Tess’s best friend, Cynthia (Joan Cusack), and her cheating boyfriend, Mick (Alec Baldwin), in supporting roles.

Working Girl feels overwhelmingly like a “1980s film,” and while relevant at the time and kindly nostalgic, it does not hold up well in modern times, seeming better suited to a time capsule, unlocked from time to time for kicks.

The most garish example is the hideous hairdos that Nichols has Tess and Cynthia don- frizzed out and caked with Aqua Net hairspray is over-the-top even for the 1980s.

Then there are the inevitable tacky outfits, complete with bright colors and shoulder pads, as the girls hustle to their dull jobs. With these costume tidbits and the filming style, the tone screams the 1980’s.

The casting of the three leads is very good- Griffith, Ford, and Weaver all share nice chemistry, and the clear rooting value is for Tess and Jack to live happily ever after, with Katharine as the obvious foil.

The conclusion of the film is unsurprising, but as a romantic comedy, it is standard fare. The point is that the relationships are dynamic and the ride is fun.

Griffith is quite breathy and seductive in her role- a clear homage to the talents of Marilyn Monroe in her 1950s-era films.

Never known for great acting, Tess is the role of a lifetime for Griffith. Weaver sinks her teeth into an against-type villainous role, and Ford is dashing and charismatic as the leading man.

My favorite parts of Working Girl, and the strongest aspects of the film, leaving an indelible impression even after all of these years, are the sweeping camera sequences of New York City featured throughout the film.

Lots of scenes were shot in neighboring Staten Island, but the best shots of all are the luminous skylines of Manhattan that encompass the opening sequence and, later, viewpoints from the corporate offices.

There we see Tess on the Ferry heading across the Hudson River, all with the wonderful soundtrack song by Carly Simon, Let the River Run, playing in the background. The soothing tune and the approaching mammoth city set a nice tone.

The story itself is a sort of rags-to-riches, Cinderella-style experience from the point of view of Tess.

Taking night classes to better herself and clearly, a blue-collar type battling the giants of the corporate world, and the more sophisticated Katherine (she speaks fluent French!), is an enormous draw of the film to sustain mainstream audiences.

Corporate greed versus the little guy is an apt comparison here. Almost borderline fairy-tale, the fact that Tess gets the dashing Jack (in real life, he would undoubtedly be with Katharine) makes the film good escapist fare.

The working-class Staten Island versus the sophisticated Manhattan is another theme worth mentioning.

Thirty years beyond its original release. 1988’s Working Girl now seems dated, dusty, and of its time, like many similar-style films, but it still retains some of the enjoyment that undoubtedly made it a hit at the time of release.

A film that is fine to take out of the vault, dust off, and enjoy for some good escapist cinema and a predictable story of good overcoming bad.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Mike Nichols, Best Actress-Melanie Griffith, Best Supporting Actress-Joan Cusack, Sigourney Weaver, Best Original Song-“Let the River Run” (won)

Coco-2017

Coco-2017

Director Lee Unkrich

Voices Anthony Gonzalez, Benjamin Bratt

Scott’s Review #737

Reviewed April 4, 2018

Grade: B+

Winner of the 2017 Best Animated Feature Academy Award, Coco is an exuberant and colorful affair, filled with marvelous lighting and a Mexican cultural infusion that serves the film well, making it feel robust in its diversity and inclusion.

The overall theme of family, traditions, and musical celebration is apparent, making for good razzle-dazzle with lots of upbeat songs and dance.

Mixed in is a lovely inter-generational theme, where older folks are respected, something lacking in today’s real world.

Miguel Rivera is a twelve-year-old boy living in Mexico with his extended family, including his elderly great-grandmother, Coco, who is sadly suffering from intermittent dementia.

Through flashbacks, we learn that Coco’s father (Miguel’s great-great-grandfather) was an aspiring musician who abandoned the family for greener pastures.

Subsequently, the Rivera clan banned all music in favor of a modest shoe-making business.

As Miguel realizes his passion for music, he comes into conflict with his family, who have other aspirations for him. Miguel embarks on a fantastic journey to the magical and somewhat frightening land of his deceased ancestors, coinciding with the festive Day of the Dead celebration, a Mexican cultural tradition.

There, he realizes the true nature of his great-great-grandfather’s sudden departure.

Coco is a film that all family members can enjoy, and it is structured just that way. The blatant use of multiple generations greatly appeals to the idea of blending the family unit.

Pixar successfully sets all the correct elements in place for a successful film, and the well-written story only adds layers. The film is quite mainstream, yet appealing to the masses.

Perhaps very young viewers may become frightened by some of the skeleton-laced faces of Miguel’s ancestors in the other world where he visits. Still, these images are somewhat tame and mixed with vibrant colors and extraordinary production numbers.

These images are undoubtedly meant to entertain rather than frighten, and the creatures have a friendly vibe.

Having viewed the film on an airplane traveling cross-country (admittedly not the best way to watch a film), the lovely and touching musical number “Remember Me (Lullaby)” entranced me, so much so that I was moved to tears right on the plane.

How’s that for effectiveness?

The emotional impact of this song impressed me immensely about Coco, even when the story is occasionally secondary to the visual or musical elements.

In fact, the story began to lag slightly until the aforementioned big musical number came into play. The song really kicked the emotional action into high gear, and I became more enamored with the characters and their connections to one another.

Miguel and his relatives’ love became more apparent, and the conclusion is pleasing and satisfactory.

A slight miss in the film, corrected midway through, is Miguel’s bratty and entitled nature. He heaves sighs when he does not get his way, which seems more apparent early on and was quite the turn-off.

At first, I did not care for the character, yet I knew I was supposed to.

Thankfully, the character becomes the film’s hero and ultimately proves to be a sweet, likable person. I pondered, “Is that what kids like these days?”

Pixar does it again, creating a family-friendly experience with a positive yet non-cliched message of belonging, forgiveness, and the importance of family connections that feels fresh.

In current times of divisiveness, especially with immigration and other cultures being attacked, how appropriate is it to experience Coco (2017), a feel-good yet not contrived project?

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Original Song-“Remember Me” (won), Best Animated Feature Film (won)

The Big Sick-2017

The Big Sick-2017

Director Michael Showalter

Starring Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan

Scott’s Review #720

Reviewed January 29, 2018

Grade: B+

The Big Sick, a 2017 independent “dramedy” film, takes what could be a standard premise and turns it upside down, offering a fresh perspective on a familiar tale about a prospering relationship.

The screenplay is the standout as the writing is intelligent and crisp. Thanks to exceptional acting by all four principal characters, The Big Sick is a success and worth watching.

The story follows an interracial couple, Emily and Kumail, played by Zoe Kazan and Kumail Nanjiani, who have recently started casually dating. Kumail is a standup comic living in Chicago who meets the flirtatious Emily after a club performance one night.

They share a one-night stand and agree never to see one another again.

As the smitten pair break their promise and form a romance, a tragedy occurs, landing Emily in a coma.

Kumail must handle Emily’s parents, Beth (Holly Hunter) and Terry (Ray Romano), who are angry with Kumail for misleading Emily and not telling her about his strict Muslim parent’s intentions of marrying him off by arranged marriage.

The screenplay (nominated for a 2017 Oscar nomination) is loosely based on the relationship between actor/writer Nanjiani (who stars), and Emily Gordon (who co-wrote the screenplay).

Especially since Nanjiani stars, the film is sincere and authentic, as if Nanjiani is living the role.

The chemistry between Nanjiani and Kazan during their many scenes at the start is a significant plus to the film. Before the drama takes off, the audience will become fully invested in the pair as a couple.

Whether the couple flirts as Kumail drives Emily home or fights when Emily learns about his Muslim culture’s belief in arranged marriage, the couple has a tremendous connection, and it shows.

The story fabric takes an interesting turn about midway through when Emily is stricken with a debilitating illness.

A medically induced coma is needed, as Kumail is forced to pretend to be her husband, this opens up many moral and legal ramifications that the film chooses essentially to ignore, instead of dealing with the relationships between Kumail and Emily’s distraught parents.

Hunter and Romano are excellent in the parent roles. Hunter is the more showy of the two and has more meat, while Romano holds his own and powers a vital comedy club scene in which he defends his wife from a callous heckler.

Admittedly, the film decides to go the “happily ever after” route, this is hardly a surprise given that Judd Apatow is the producer.

Remember, this is the same guy who produced safe films such as Superbad (2007) and Anchorman 2 (2013). Still, the story within The Big Sick is an enjoyable, character-driven ride, if not unpredictable.

A darker-tinged affair might have set this film over the top as it contains many other credible film qualities.

The addition of comic talent in the supporting roles of Kumail’s comedy club buddies adds a good balance and nicely counterbalances the drama so that it does not become too dour.

Much of the film involves Emily in a coma, so comic talent such as SNL’s Aidy Bryant and Comedy Central’s Kurt Braunohler are suitable ads.

I enjoyed the inclusion of the traditional Pakistani custom of arranged marriages, but at times this seems played for laughs rather than being a significant obstacle to the couple.

Kumail’s controlling mother parades one young Pakistani girl after another in front of her son as a way of encouraging him to select one of them. Kumail’s traditional family is played as stereotypes and the lighthearted foils of the film.

The Big Sick (2017) succeeds with crisp, witty dialogue and a solid story that nicely complements the intended comedy.

A few too many stereotypes and goofiness keep the action light even when compared to the more serious parts—great acting all around.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Female-Holly Hunter, Best First Screenplay (won)

I, Tonya-2017

I, Tonya-2017

Director Craig Gillespie

Starring Margot Robbie, Allison Janney

Scott’s Review #712

Reviewed January 10, 2018

Grade: A-

I, Tonya is a 2017 biopic telling of the life and times of the infamous American Olympic figure skater, Tonya Harding, notorious, of course, for her alleged involvement, along with her husband and his friend, in the attack of fellow skater, Nancy Kerrigan during the 1994 Winter Olympics.

The event drew monumental media coverage after the attack, with the uncertainty of Harding’s knowledge or involvement, and her subsequent guilt or innocence continues to be debated.

The film itself is a dark and violent comedy, never taking itself too seriously. It immediately presents the disclaimer that the stated “facts” in the film are open to interpretation and depend on who you ask.

I, Tonya isn’t preachy or directive to the viewer but instead offers up the skater’s life and times in story form.

The film features tremendous performances by Margot Robbie and Allison Janney, as well as Tonya and her despicable mother, LaVona.

I, Tonya, is told chronologically, culminating with “the incident” in 1994.

However, the story begins in the mid-1970s, as Tonya, just a tot at the tender age of four, is as cute as a button and shrouded in innocence. One cannot help wonder if director Craig Gillespie, known for independent films, purposely made this wise casting choice.

We see Tonya, once an innocent child, journey into a life of violence, abuse, and tumultuous living. Harding grew up cold and hard and endured an abusive, complex relationship with her mother, the pressures to be the best skater never ended.

Even upon achieving success, Tonya never felt good enough or loved by her mother.

We then experience Tonya as a fifteen-year-old girl, fittingly first meeting her boyfriend and later, husband Jeff, Gillooly played well by actor Sebastian Stan. The early scenes between the two are sweet, tender, and fraught with the emotions of first love.

As explained by the actors, this was a short-lived time of bliss, and the relationship soon disintegrated into abuse, rage, and chaos.

The main point is to debate Harding’s guilt or innocence, which Gillespie peppers throughout, so it is unclear what to believe or how the audience should think.

“Interpretation” is the key here. Some may see Harding as a victim of life’s circumstances and the hardships she had to endure and may place sympathy upon her. Others may view Harding as off-putting, potty-mouthed, and even icy and violent herself, with a big chip on her shoulder.

In one scene, she publicly belittles the hoity-toity judges who never give her a break and give her less-than-perfect scores.

A clever technique that the film delivers is to have the actors frequently speak to the camera, thus the audience. This is achieved by either interview style or for the action in the film to cease and either Robbie, Janney, Stan, or whomever, turn to the camera and express their version of the events.

I, Tonya possesses a creative, edgy, indie feel.

How brilliant are the performances of both Robbie and Janney?

Robbie, a gorgeous woman, portrays a “red-neck” to the hilt. Through her bright blue eyes, her face is quite expressive—relaying pain, anger, and a seldom triumph. The film often slants the scales in a sympathetic way towards Harding, but it is Robbie’s talents that make us feel this sympathy.

Janney hits the jackpot with a delicious role she sinks her teeth into. A cold-hearted, vicious character, through facial expressions, we occasionally glimpse LaVona, perhaps softening, but as we do, the character does something even more despicable.

A good surprise for fans who remember the real-life events and the real-life players will be treated to a sequence of the honest Tonya, LaVona, Jeff, and Shawn Eckhardt, which play over the film ending credits.

How similar in looks are Robbie to Harding, with her feathered, frizzy, 1980s-style hairdo, and Janney, a dead-ringer for the boozy, chain-smoking LaVona, with her mousy brown bob haircut, complete with scruffy bangs?

Viewers will leave theaters confused, unsure, or perhaps perplexed by what they have just seen, but they will most certainly feel thoroughly entertained and may even depart chanting some upbeat 1980s rock tunes that the film uses throughout.

Thanks to fantastic acting and a strong story, I, Tonya is a success.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Margot Robbie, Best Supporting Actress-Allison Janney (won), Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Actress-Margot Robbie, Best Supporting Female-Allison Janney (won), Best Editing (won)

Bad Moms-2016

Bad Moms-2016

Director Jon Lucas, Scott Moore

Starring Mila Kunis, Kristen Bell, Kathryn Hahn

Scott’s Review #706

Reviewed December 20, 2017

Grade: D+

Bad Moms (2016) tries to do for women what The Hangover (2009) did for men and create a raunchy, R-rated party romp that haggard mothers everywhere can relate to and appreciate.

The film’s billboard displays the three main characters boozing it up under the caption “Party Like a Mother.” Perhaps since I am not a mother, I did not entirely gravitate toward this film, but Bad Moms fell flat for me despite a smidgen of mild laughs.

Primarily because of tired characters, gimmicky situations, and an over-the-top tone.

The film, written by the same individuals who wrote The Hangover, is a direct ripoff with a different gender in the driver’s seat.

The central character is Amy Mitchell (Mila Kunis), a thirty-two-year-old mother of two who is living a busy life in the Chicago suburbs.

Considered “old” by her hipster boss and with a porn-obsessed husband, she runs around frazzled and behind schedule most of the time.

After a particularly hairy day, Amy abruptly quits the school PTA run by militant Gwendolyn (Christina Applegate). She befriends fellow moms, sex-crazed Carla (Kathryn Hahn) and timid Kiki (Kristen Bell).

After she incites Gwendolyn’s wrath, Amy decides enough is enough and embarks on a plot to win the PTA presidency while dumping her husband and dating a hunky widower, Jessie (Jay Hernandez).

Admittedly, Kunis is very likable as Amy. She’s an incredible, energetic chick who most would love to befriend, and we empathize with her predicaments and schedule.

But this can only go so far in a comedic film. The setup pieces and the supporting characters are too plot-driven and lack authenticity. The result is little more than one root-able character.

As an actress, Applegate is quite capable, but Gwendolyn, the transparent foil, is primarily written as a cartoon character. Her bitchy comments to her underlings, who inexplicably are afraid to cross her, seem too staged.

Jada Pinkett Smith, in need of a paycheck, is disposable as “second in command” crony Stacy. Furthermore, Amy’s husband, Mike (David Walton), is portrayed mainly as a buffoon and childlike.

The point of these character examples is to stress that the film contains too many caricatures rather than characters

An irritating quality of Bad Moms that I cannot shake is that the film is written and directed by a duo of men! Jon Lucas and Scott Moore are the individuals in question, and the fact that the film, painted as a female empowerment story, is not written by females is almost unforgivable.

A case in point involves a bathroom scene where the ladies discuss uncircumcised penises, a dumb scene if you ask me, that is lousy taste considering men wrote and directed it.

In this day and age of Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment suits bubbling to the surface, the scene seems icky. It should not be this hard to find women to write for other women.

Of the additional trio of females, Kathryn Hahn’s Carla has a few funny scenes but is written as so sex-obsessed that it is impossible to take the character seriously, and the same goes for Bell’s Kiki.

When mousy Kiki finally lays down the law and tells her boorish husband to deal with their kids, it is meant to be a rah-rah moment, but instead becomes eye-rolling. Not the best actress in the world, Bell continues to get roles like this in sub-par films.

An attempt by filmmakers to make a girl film on par with male-driven raunchy comedies thrust on moviegoers over the years, Bad Moms (2016) comes across as too unoriginal and too desperate for laughs.

Undoubtedly hoping to win over the same audiences who flocked to the last funny female-driven comedy hit, 2011 Bridesmaids, the film falls flat and lacks genuine fun.

Kunis’s lead role and the sweet romance her character shares with Hernandez’s Jessie slightly bolster this.

Why Him?-2016

Why Him? -2016

Director John Hamburg

Starring John Franco, Bryan Cranston

Scott’s Review #704

Reviewed December 6, 2017

Grade: D

Why Him? (2016) is epic film drivel starring quite capable actors in a mish-mash of dull, predictable stories, obnoxious characters, and a need to attempt to go raunchier and raunchier for a cheap laugh.

Why there is a market for films like this is beyond me as no thinking is required (maybe the film will please those fans!), but the film scores slightly higher than a solid “F” based solely on a few chuckles uttered thanks to the only dim bright spots in this mess, Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally.

A story told dozens of times before in “slapstick comedy” fare, the premise is tired beyond belief. A good girl meets a bad boy, they fall head over heels in love and must deal with the aftermath of her parent’s meeting, and hating the bad boy.

The main gimmick is the rivalry between boyfriend and girlfriend’s father, like an unfunny Meet the Parents (2000).  A silly and uninteresting plot point about each character’s business success or lack thereof is mixed in as if anyone cares.

As with all films of this ilk, the story is wrapped up in a neat, tidy little bow by the time the credits roll, and all characters live happily ever after in perfect harmony.

In one of his most disappointing roles, James Franco plays Laird Mayhew, the wealthy, eccentric, thirty-something CEO of an upstart video game company.

He is foul-mouthed and comically speaks his mind or absentmindedly shows his ass on a Skype chat with his girlfriend Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) while her parents are linked to the chat at a birthday party.

Stephanie, a college student and girlfriend of Laird, invites her parents, Ned and Barb (Cranston and Mullally), along with their fifteen-year-old Scotty, for the Christmas holidays.

Predictably, Stephanie’s parents are appalled by Laird and want her to have nothing to do with him. When Stephanie arranges for Ned, Barb, and Scotty to stay at Laird’s spacious home, the antics take off as feuds and misunderstandings erupt.

The main problem with Why Him? is that director John Hamburg (famous for mainstream comedies such as Along Came Polly, 2004, and I Love You, Man, 2009) seems determined to push the raunchy comedy elements further with this idiotic film.

He makes Laird as obnoxious and crass as possible yet tries to make the character more “likable” by giving him a clueless quality; therefore, he is not mean-spirited and should be beloved by the audience.

The character does not work. Franco has played terrific roles- specifically in 127 Hours (2010) and  Howl (2010). As a fan of the talented actor, I expected more from him, but alas, some performances are only as good as the written material.

If there is a bright spot worth mentioning, it is with the casting of Cranston and Mullally.

Two actors are undeniably good at physical comedy. They do as much as they can with poorly written, stock-type roles. Cranston’s Ned, a middle-class small business owner from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is both envious and resentful of Laird, perhaps admiring the young man’s business savvy and regretting not being as successful.

Barb is a one-note, ditzy yet lovable wife, a role made slightly better by Mullally’s goofy portrayal. In one of the best scenes, Barb smokes pot and becomes a mess in her bedroom.

The following day, Ned is trapped on the toilet and has an embarrassing experience with Laird’s best friend, Gustav. While these scenes are juvenile, they are made better by the funny actors.

Suffering greatly from a tired and overused storyline that falls flat, unlikable, and dull characters, the film offers nothing of substance or worth.

Why Him? (2016) is entirely plot-driven with no character development or well-written characters.

The film is a complete waste of time. It results from a studio hoping to achieve box office success by churning out a poor comedy with wasted talent that will please only those audiences not expecting much from their films.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri-2017

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri-2017

Director Martin McDonagh

Starring Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell

Scott’s Review #703

Reviewed December 4, 2017

Grade: A

Frances McDormand takes control of Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and never lets go. In the Martin McDonagh-directed 2017 vehicle, she rivetingly portrays an angry Midwestern woman seeking justice.

The up-and-coming director has also created such films as  2008’s In Bruges and 2012’s Seven Psychopaths.

Similar to these films, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, is peppered with dark comedic moments and vile, bitter characters. The film is a measured success because it is not your standard Hollywood production and is quite left-of-center.

The action begins as we meet McDormand’s Mildred Hayes, sitting alone in her beat-up station wagon, brooding by the side of the road, gazing at three tattered billboards.

She is both pissed off and thoughtful as she formulates a plan to purchase a year’s worth of billboards, questioning the local police’s ineptitude in finding her daughter’s rapist and killer.

Woody Harrelson portrays the Ebbing police chief, Sheriff Bill Willoughby, and Sam Rockwell plays the racist and dim-whited officer Jason Dixon, both displeased with Mildred’s activities.

Other casting decisions in small yet essential roles are Lucas Hedges as Mildred’s adolescent and depressed son, Robbie, and John Hawke as her ex-husband, Charlie, who is dating an eighteen-year-old ditz.

Peter Dinklage is well-cast as James, a local car salesman who is an earnest dwarf with a crush on Mildred.

Supporting roles are prevalent throughout the film, and small-town locales like Jason’s mother and Red, the owner of the advertising agency who rents the billboards to Mildred, shape the experience.

The casting in Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri, is a strong point of the film.

The town of Ebbing is portrayed as dreary, blue-collar, and racist, which is just perfect for setting the tone of the film.

I suspect residents of the Midwest or the southern United States of America may have some issues with character representations. Jason is written as both racist and not too smart, and he encompasses numerous characters in the film.

Enough cannot be said for Rockwell’s performance, transforming from a hated character during the film’s first two-thirds to suddenly almost becoming the hero towards the end.

Props are also deserved by Harrelson’s Chief Willoughby- bordering on hick and racist, he also has a heart and cares about Mildred’s predicament- when a shocking event occurs, he becomes an even richer character.

It is worth pointing out and impressive to me as a viewer that the three prominent black characters—Willoughby’s replacement, Abercrombie, Mildred’s best friend and co-worker, Denise, and a kindly billboard painter—are each written as intelligent and sensitive, a fact I found to perfectly balance the other less sympathetic characters.

In this way, a nasty film becomes more satisfying.

Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri, though, belongs to McDormand. She is successful at portraying a myriad of different emotions. From her sly eye-winking as she crafts a good verbal assault on whoever crosses her path, to an emotional breakdown scene towards the end of the film, McDormand embodies the character with depth.

In a gorgeous scene, she has a sweet conversation with a peaceful deer grazing nearby, and for a second, she imagines it could be her dead daughter reincarnated. The scene richly counterbalances other violent and brutal scenes.

McDormand manages to look downright homely in some scenes and beautiful in others.

A film will indeed divide viewers. Some will champion the film’s crisp writing and witty dialogue. Still, others will undoubtedly be turned off by some of the character’s foul language and nasty nature.

I found Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017), sarcastic, gritty, and well-told. It is a versatile affair rich with layers and brimming with enjoyment.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Actress-Frances McDormand (won), Best Supporting Actor-Sam Rockwell (won), Woody Harrelson, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Film Editing

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Female Lead-Frances McDormand (won), Best Supporting Make-Sam Rockwell (won), Best Screenplay

Lady Bird-2017

Lady Bird-2017

Director Greta Gerwig

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf

Scott’s Review #700

Reviewed November 28, 2017

Grade: A

Lady Bird is a 2017 independent film released by actor-turned-writer/director Greta Gerwig. It is a tremendous effort in her solo directorial debut.

No stranger to the indie syndicate herself, Gerwig puts her unique stamp on the film with a rich, female-centered perspective that works quite well and seeps with charm and wit.

It is worth noting that the story is semi-autobiographical, based on Gerwig’s life and her stormy dealings with her mother. The story is well-written, well-paced, and empathetic as the audience views a slice of life through the eyes of a restless yet kindly teenager on the cusp of womanhood.

Saoirse Ronan gives a bravura performance in the title role. Her given birth name is Christine, but she defiantly changes it to Lady Bird in a show of adolescent independence, and much to her parents, Marion and Larry’s (Laurie Metcalf and Tracy Letts ) chagrin.

Christine lives in suburban Sacramento, California, and yearns for a more exciting life in New York City, far from what she considers Dullsville, USA. Now, in her senior year, she is attending a Catholic high school.

Christine applies to college after college, hoping to escape her daily dilemmas. Christine’s best friend Julie and somewhat boyfriend Danny (Lucas Hedges) are along for the ride.

The period is 2002- shortly after 9/11.

The brightest moments in Lady Bird are the plentiful scenes between Christine and her mother. The chemistry between Ronan and Metcalf is terrific, and I genuinely buy them as a real mother/daughter duo, warts and all. They fight makeup, get on each other’s nerves, fight, cry, do makeup, etc.

I especially love their knock-down drag-outs, as each actress stands her ground while allowing the other room to shine—feeding off of each other.

My favorite Metcalf scene occurs while she is alone. Having gotten into a tiff with Christine and giving her the silent treatment while Christine flies to New York, Marion reconsiders as she melts into tears. At the same time, she drives away, regretting her decision and missing her daughter already.

Metcalf fills the scene with emotional layers as she does not speak- we watch in awe as her facial expressions tell everything.

Comparably, Ronan—likely to receive her third Oscar nomination at the ripe old age of twenty-three (Atonement, 1997, and Brooklyn, 2015, are the other nods)—successfully gives a layered performance as a teenage girl struggling with her identity and restless to see different worlds and get out of what she sees as a bland city.

Of Irish descent, Ronan is remarkable in her portrayal of a California girl- sometimes selfish, sometimes sarcastic, but always likable and empathetic.

The casting from top to bottom is terrific, as the supporting players lend added meat to the story. Christine’s best friend, Julie, played by young upstart Beanie Feldstein (Jonah Hill’s sister), is compelling as the lovable, chubby, and nerdy theater geek.

Letts is perfect as Christine’s father, depressed at losing his job in the tough economy and having to compete with young talent as he sees his career slip away.

Legendary actress Lois Smith adds heart to Sister Sarah Joan’s role- a by-the-book nun who is an incredible old chick.

Finally, Hedges, seemingly in every film from 2016 to 2017, is emotionally resounding as Danny, Christine’s troubled boyfriend, struggles with his sexuality.

Gerwig does it all with this film—she directs and writes, scripting laugh-out-loud moments and eliciting heartfelt emotion from her enchanted audience.

A hilarious scene occurs as Christine attends a dreary class assembly- an anti-abortion-themed one- by a woman who almost did not exist but for her mother’s decision not to have an abortion.

When a bored Christine icily points out that had the woman’s mother had the abortion, she would not be forced to sit through the assembly, it is a laugh-out-loud moment.

Lady Bird (2017), thanks to a fantastic writer and director and superlative casting, is a film that has its all heart, emotion, humor, and great acting.

The film is intelligently written and forces the audience to embrace its characters quite willingly. Gerwig carves a story, perhaps done many times before in film, but with a fresh and energetic feel.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Greta Gerwig, Best Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Actress-Laurie Metcalf, Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Female Lead-Saoirse Ronan, Best Supporting Female-Laurie Metcalf, Best Screenplay (won)

Little Miss Sunshine-2006

Little Miss Sunshine-2006

Director Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Starring Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #697

Reviewed November 23, 2017

Grade: A

A film that became a sleeper hit at the time of release in 2006 and went on the achieve recognition with year-end award honors galore, Little Miss Sunshine holds up quite well after over ten years since its debut.

Combining family humor with heart, audiences will fall in love with the antics of the dysfunctional Hoover family, warts and all, as they strive to persevere endless obstacles to enable precociously, seven-year-old daughter, Olive, a chance at competing in a beauty pageant hundreds of miles away.

The film is a comedic treat with charm and contains uproarious fun.

Directors  (and husband and wife team) Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris start right to work kicking off the humor in style as the one hour and forty-one-minute film introduces depressed Uncle Frank (Steve Carell) to the rest of the Hoovers as he comes to live with the family after a failed suicide attempt.

Frank, who is gay and has recently been dumped, is Sheryl Hoover’s (Toni Collette) brother and has a dry sense of humor.

He fits in well with the other peculiar members of the clan- Dad Richard (Greg Kinnear), a struggling motivational speaker, Grandpa Edwin, a vulgar, irritable man, brother Dwayne, angry and refusing to speak, and finally, pudgy-faced, Olive.

The brightest spots in Little Miss Sunshine are the exceptional writing and the nuanced, non-one-dimensional characters. Each character is both good yet troubled in their way and the overall message of the film is an important one.

The plot of the film encompasses a beauty queen pageant and the lifestyle this involves- hypocrisy and plastic nature is the main theme.

When the family stops at a roadside cafe for breakfast, Olive hungrily orders ice cream and is shamed by a member of the family- she must watch her figure, she is told.

Other members instead encouraged Olive to be herself.

Little Miss Sunshine poses an interesting dissection of the pressures very young people face to be perfect, especially in the beauty pageant business, and the message society sends.

Shocking is a scene where many of the contestants, all under the age of ten, appear in sexy, glamorous makeup, and bikinis.

Little Miss Sunshine is a very funny film and this undoubtedly is due to the chemistry that exists among the cast of talented actors. Quite the ensemble, all five of the principal characters have an interesting relationship with each other.

Too many film comedies suffer immensely from forced jokes or typical “set-up” style humor, plot devices created to elicit a response from the audience- which I call “dumbing down”.

Little Miss Sunshine, however, feels authentic and fresh- a situation becomes funny because there is an honest reaction by the characters.

The film is a slice of the life experience of an average blue-collar family.

A standout scene to mention is the hysterical one in which the Hoovers are pulled over by a highway police officer. To say nothing of the fact that the Hoovers are “escorting” a corpse to their destination, along with pornographic magazines, their classic, beat-up, yellow Volkswagen bus barely runs and contains a malfunctioning horn that beeps at inopportune times.

These hilarious scenes work on all levels as the comic timing is palpable and leads to a laugh-out-loud response.

Furthermore, the climactic “beauty pageant” scene is fraught with physical humor.

Olive, the oddball in a group of hypersexualized, young starlets, takes inspiration from her grandfather to simply “be herself”. She does so in a hilarious version of “Super Freak” that is R-rated, both shocking the audience and celebrated by others- specifically her entire family.

Olive successfully proves that she can be herself and happily does so.

How wonderful and refreshing to find a comedy with honest, ample humor and real integrity that can shine many years after its first release and retain the richness and zest that originally captured legions of viewers.

As proven over time with many independent films, wonderful writing and directors sharing a vision, go a long way in achieving a quality piece of filmmaking.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Alan Arkin (won), Best Supporting Actress-Abigail Breslin, Best Original Screenplay (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 4 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (won), Best Supporting Male-Alan Arkin (won), Paul Dano, Best First Screenplay (won)

Roman Holiday-1953

Roman Holiday-1953

Director William Wyler

Starring Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn

Scott’s Review #694

Reviewed October 26, 2017

Grade: B+

Roman Holiday, released in 1953, was a box office hit, pleasing legions of fans at the time, and a critical darling.

The film reaped Academy Award nominations, including the coveted Best Actress statuette for a young Audrey Hepburn.

A happy, uplifting story, the film is not diminished by Cinderella in the reverse storyline but rather is a charming, romantic experience immersing itself in pleasing locales of the cultural city of Rome.

Admittedly, Roman Holiday is an example of a film in which I preferred the latter half to the former, but it set the bar high in the romantic comedy genre.

Our heroine, Princess Ann (Hepburn), has it all glamorous life, gorgeous clothes, and assistants tending to her every need and want. However, she is unhappy and trapped in a rigid life that lacks freedoms or decisions, to say nothing of the fun. She catches glimpses of party-goers reveling in each night from her expansive palace window.

Simply put, she is lonely and unfulfilled.

When she sees an opportunity to escape her life for a night, she snatches it and stumbles upon an American reporter, Joe Bradley (Peck). Despite their differing backgrounds, they fall madly in love.

At first, I found something missing in the film, and the chemistry between Peck and Hepburn did not immediately embrace me. As the duo meets Ann, who is drunk from sleeping pills, and Joe is the ultimate nice guy who allows her to sleep in his apartment, the story seems lagging and lacks a good punch.

The pair drives around Rome on a scooter and acts childish and silly. Ann acts girlish because fun is an entirely new concept to her. At this point, the film is reasonable but little more than a farce.

As Roman Holiday progresses, primarily through the final act, the film sheds some of its light skin and becomes much more poignant and meaningful.

Ann and Joe, while in love, realize they will not and cannot embark on a fairy tale ending, which truthfully, would have made Roman Holiday little more than a standard romantic comedy we have all seen before- you know the type- boy meets girl, roadblocks persist, boy whisks girl away and rides off into the sunset together.

While not a dark film, it goes deeper than a transparent, predictable ending.

Related to this point is that Roman Holiday contains a realness that sets it apart from many films undoubtedly drawn from it. Still, unlike this film, it leans into contrived or predictable situations.

As Joe and Ann fall in love, the audience falls in love with them. The main plot hurdle—Joe’s temptation to profit from Ann once he realizes her true identity after a sought-after interview—is earnestly handled without pretension.

Other similar films ought to take note of this.

Indeed, the historic and culturally relevant locales of Rome are a significant selling point of the film, and if these scenes had been shot on a movie set, a lack of authenticity would undoubtedly have emerged.

Instead, we are treated to such fabulous location sequences as the Colosseum, the Tiber River, the Trevi Fountain, and Piazza Venezia. Such a delight is the long sequence of Roman escapades as Joe and Ann traverse the city in giddy bliss.

It is enjoyable to see how Roman Holiday contains no real villain.

There are no physical hurdles to the duo’s relationship—no outside forces plotting to keep Joe and Ann apart, other than their lifestyles. Ann lives in a world of royalty and pampering, but Joe is an everyman, so the chances of living happily ever after are slim.

Film lovers intent on discovering one of the early romantic comedies—one could argue that It Happened One Night (1934) was the first—should watch a feel-good Hollywood classic from 1953. It is rich in honesty, good humor, and raw emotion without being too heavy a melodrama.

After a mediocre start, the film finishes with gusto.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-William Wyler, Best Actress-Audrey Hepburn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Eddie Albert, Best Screenplay, Best Story (won), Best Art Direction, Black and White, Best Cinematography, Black and White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

Grindhouse: Planet Terror-2007

Grindhouse: Planet Terror-2007

Director Robert Rodriguez

Starring Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodriguez

Scott’s Review #692

Reviewed October 15, 2017

Grade: B-

The umbrella title of “Grindhouse” is part of a 2007 double-feature, one film directed by Quentin Tarantino (Death Proof), and the other directed by Robert Rodriguez (Planet Terror).

The gimmick was part of an attempt at something novel and also book-ending fictional trailers within the films. The term “grindhouse” refers to a cinematic specialty of either B movies or exploitation films- largely during the 1970s.

While Planet Terror gets credit for being unique and fun, it is oftentimes too cartoon-like and rather over the top throughout.

The premise of Planet Terror is not one to be taken seriously- as our heroine, Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), quits her stripper job vowing to move on to bigger and better things, she runs into her ex-boyfriend, El Wray (Freddie Rodriguez), and the two teams up to lead a group of rebels, who are fleeing for their lives after a vicious zombie outbreak.

The attack was caused by a group of military officials, led by the vicious Lieutenant Muldoon (Bruce Willis).

The film contains an undeniable retro feel- the sets and the props traverse back to the 1970s in style and look, however, characters do use cellular phones.

Rodriguez attempts to make the film an homage or a throwback to a different time in cinema- this feat is quite impressive and the film is a marvel from a stylized perspective.

Another positive is that the film is reminiscent, by the camera styles and angles, of an actual 1970s film, with grainy elements and a comforting old-style texture, which works.

The plot, though, is the source of frustration, and many aspects of the film are just plain silly. The actors play way over the top as they were probably directed by Rodriguez to do, but the result is too much like watching a cartoon rather than a piece of art.

Rodriguez appears to be copying many aspects of Quentin Tarantino films- specifically, the mixture of violence with camp, although these attempts do not always work.

The acting and casting are fine. Bruce Willis shines in the lead villain role and plays demented to the hilt. Unquestionably “borrowed” by Rodriguez through Tarantino, Willis, who was dynamic in Pulp Fiction, knows how to do his thing well in films such as this.

Muldoon is quite a different character than boxer Butch Coolidge in 1994’s masterpiece, Pulp Fiction, but the acting style is the same.

Stars such as Josh Brolin, Kurt Russell, and Rosario Dawson also make appearances so the film is assuredly a star-studded affair.

The casting of McGowan and Freddy Rodriguez as the leads is acceptable and the pair make a decent screen coupling. Still, her artificial leg which doubles as a deadly machine gun, and his maniacal persona seem somewhat forced and, again, way over the top.

Planet Terror was a moderate box office success upon release in 2007, but watching the film in 2017, ten years later, unfortunately, some of the clusters have been tarnished and the gimmick is not as catchy as at the time of release.

Still, a decent offering in the horror, cartoon, and campy genres, but much better films exist, like anything by Tarantino.

Battle of the Sexes-2017

Battle of the Sexes-2017

Director Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Starring Emma Stone, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #691

Reviewed October 11, 2017

Grade: A

Battle of the Sexes (2017) is a film worth watching on many levels. Equal parts sports film, drama, and biography, it excels across all genres with exceptional acting and crowd-pleasing storytelling.

To boot, the film is a true story based not only on the very famous pro tennis match of 1973, termed the “Battle of the Sexes,” but also a story of the sexual identity conflict of one of the opponents in a time where being ones true self was not easy, especially for a public figure.

Emma Stone might have given her best portrayal of her young career as Billie Jean King, the talented tennis pro featured in the film.

She was kind and fair but a fierce proponent of women’s rights in the United States when feminism began taking shape and women and their male supporters demanded equal treatment.

Although initially uncertain whether Stone could pull the role off (not because of a lack of talent, but because the women seem so different), she truly shines as the tomboy athlete with shaggy, feathered locks and a toothy grin.

Equally worthy of praise is Steve Carell, who bolsters his film credo by tackling the role of King’s opponent and foe in the big match, Bobby Riggs.

Portrayed as a certifiable “jerk” and a sexist pig, Carell somehow pours the perfect amount of sympathy and likability into the part.

We witness scenes of Riggs’ playfulness with his young son and tender yet troubled relationship with his wife, Priscilla (Elisabeth Shue in a well-cast role), that never seem trite or contrived but rather quite genuine.

The acting in Battle of the Sexes is, across the board, good.

Sarah Silverman drips with confidence and humor as Gladys Heldman, founder of World Tennis magazine and leader of the troupe of female tennis players who parade around southern California seeking the same respect and pay as their male counterparts.

Bill Pullman makes the most of his one-dimensional role as Jack Kramer, a wealthy and male chauvinistic promoter, while the talented Andrea Riseborough is brilliant as Marilyn, Billie Jean’s bisexual, closeted lover—giving her role a blend of vulnerability and toughness.

The romantic scenes between Stone and Riseborough smolder with tenderness and heart as they forge ahead with their forbidden romance.

The film makes clear that a same-sex romance in those days, while accepted by those around them, would be met with shame and rejection by a large part of King’s legions of fans- this is a heartbreaking reality.

One of the most tear-jerking scenes comes at the end of the film when a victorious King is unable to acknowledge Marilyn. Her openly gay male dresser earnestly whispers to her that one day, she will be free to love who she truly loves.

The scene is poignant.

Directors Dayton and Faris carve a finale that is careful not to fall into the cliched territory. Given that Battle of the Sexes is a sports film, this is a real risk, as typically, these genre films teeter into the “good guys beat bad guys” fairy tale land.

While the film does champion King in the end, the moment is laced with good humor, drama, and sentimentality that does not seem forced but rather honest and real—I enjoyed the final act immensely.

As the film progressed, I found myself drawing parallels to the ever-dramatic and historic 2016 Presidential election—sure to have films made in years ahead- and King, in many ways, mirrors Hillary Clinton, while Riggs resembles Donald Trump in the sexist department.

The political and sports “Battles of the Sexes” warrants much analysis.

My point is a sad one. As much as I love the film, I was left with a cold feeling that forty-five years after the famous Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs match, male superiority, and chauvinism are alive and well in the United States—we still have so much progress to make.

Battle of the Sexes (2017) is a film with fantastic acting, stellar casting, passion, excitement, and a telling of a historical, true story.

The film contains all the elements of a compelling cinematic experience.

Bride of Chucky-1998

Bride of Chucky-1998

Director Ronny Yu

Starring Jennifer Tilly, Brad Dourif

Scott’s Review #680

Reviewed September 11, 2017

Grade: D+

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

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

A treat is the inclusion of a fantastic hard rock soundtrack led by the Rob Zombie classic, Living Dead Girl, adding some points to the film’s final grade, otherwise have been more dismal.

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

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

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

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

Left for evidence in a police compound, Chucky is stolen by Tiffany Valentine, played by Jennifer Tilly. The girlfriend of a deceased serial killer, Tiffany is convinced that the spirit of her boyfriend exists within Chucky and she is determined to bring him back to life using a voodoo ritual.

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

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

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

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

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

Along the trek, the foursome is faced with ludicrous obstacles, such as the brief introduction of a con artist couple who meet their doom by flying shards of glass after stealing Jesse’s money.

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

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

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

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

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

Other People-2016

Other People-2016

Director Chris Kelly

Starring Jesse Plemons, Molly Shannon

Scott’s Review #676

Reviewed August 24, 2017

Grade: B+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This part of the story is unclear.

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

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

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

White Chicks-2004

White Chicks-2004

Director Keenen Ivory Wayans

Starring Shawn Wayans, Marlon Wayans

Scott’s Review #647

Reviewed May 29, 2017

Grade: D

Anything but high art, though at the time of release (2004), seeming like a clever, yet silly, slapstick farce, White Chicks was a film that I found rather enjoyable.

Watching the film in 2017, some thirteen years later, however, the film feels dated beyond belief and as dumb as can be.

The film also contains Paris Hilton’s gimmick characters and racial overtones that were lost on me when I first saw the film.

Influenced by the drag comedy (and classic) from 1959, Some Like It Hot, the premise sounds interesting and comical.

Kevin and Marcus Copeland (played by the comical Wayans brothers) are a pair of black,  masculine, F.B.I. agents who bungle an undercover investigation and are given one last chance to redeem themselves before being booted from the bureau for good.

They are assigned the task of protecting the mega-rich cruise-line heiresses Brittany and Tiffany Wilson, who are in town (at the Hamptons) from a planned kidnapping plot over Labor Day weekend.

Kevin and Marcus don blonde wigs, and freakish makeup, and awkwardly pose as the Wilson sisters to save their jobs.

As the story goes on, Kevin and Marcus (as Brittany and Tiffany) develop relationships with various characters including millionaire Latrell Spencer (Terry Crews), who takes an interest in Marcus (thinking he is Tiffany, and white).

Other antics occur as the “girls” try their best to form friendships with the heiress’s snotty friends as they attempt to foil the kidnapping plot.

Similarities to the classic Wilder hit, Some Like It Hot, are tough not to notice, and director, Keenen Ivory Wayans, is smart to borrow from a film considered one of the greatest comedies of all time.

Just as Joe and Jerry (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon) go on the lam to escape mafia figures out of desperation, Kevin and Marcus are desperate to keep their jobs, causing both sets of “impersonators”, to suffer from dire circumstances.

Also worth mentioning are similar conclusions in both films as love interest Osgood Fielding III, also a millionaire, as is Spencer in White Chicks, each is not phased by the “big reveal” as the men are de-masked as actually being males.

Clever in 2004, the incorporation of celebrity Paris Hilton, in 2017 now all but faded, seems dated and of the past. In real life being a hotel heiress, characters Brittany and Tiffany (cruise line heiresses) mirror Hilton as spoiled, self-centered, and oblivious to everyone around her.

The aspect was a good idea at the time of the release of the film, but now is irrelevant, not even as a nostalgia gag- perhaps in the year 2037 White Chicks might be appreciated more, but I would not hold my breath.

The overall tone of White Chicks is also fraught with silliness and with one gag after another. Rather than being believable as females, the Wayans brothers look downright frightening and robotic as Brittany and Tiffany.

In comedies, suspension of disbelief is required, but the producers should have done a bit more to feminize the characters instead of playing them as goofs.

The ending of the film is no-frills and formulaic with no real twist or surprise ending to speak of. The ridiculous misunderstandings with Kevin and Marcus’s real significant others, foolishly believing the men are having affairs with other women seem forced and amateurish.

Predictably, when the men profess their love for the girls earnestly, they fall for it hook, line, and sinker and the film wraps in disappointing, standard fashion.

Cute and fresh feeling at the time, White Chicks (2004) now feels stale and tired with racial overtones, deemed amusing back in the day, but now seems mean-spirited and unnecessary.

The film is an attempt at recreating a classic comedy for a younger audience, but I would recommend seeing the original Some Like It Hot (1959) instead- it is much more enjoyable.

The Lobster-2016

The Lobster-2016

Director Yorgos Lanthimos

Starring Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz

Scott’s Review #635

Reviewed April 20, 2017

Grade: A-

One thing is sure about the puzzling 2016 film The Lobster: It is a film worthy of discussion long after the end credits roll and will leave the viewer pondering its many facets—a great movie to dissect.

This in itself is worth recognition and praise for the power of the film- so many questions abound.

I was immediately struck by how heavily The Lobster contains primary subject matter influences from “message novels” (and films) such as Brave New World, 1984, and A Clockwork Orange, as well as creative, stylistic recent film influences from The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) and the Moonrise Kingdom (2012).

The story begins outside of Dublin, where David (Colin Farrell) has recently been dumped by his wife in favor of another man.

Now single, he is whisked away by authorities to a luxurious hotel in the woods, where he (and the other guests) are given forty-five days to find a suitable romantic partner, or else they will be turned into an animal of their choice.

David is accompanied by his brother, now a dog, and has decided that he should be turned and that he will become a lobster because he loves the sea, and they tend to live to be over one hundred years old.

The hotel management adheres to strict rules- no masturbation, mandatory temptations by hotel employees, and a strange outdoor hunting game where the guests hunt other guests to win extra days extended to their stays.

As David befriends fellow hotel guests, he is conflicted and desperate to find a mate. Events take a surprising turn when circumstances allow the rules to change for him, and he becomes involved with a short-sighted woman (Weisz).

The film’s plot is strange beyond belief yet incredibly creative and thought-provoking. The subject matter is pure dystopian- a facility, presumably controlled by the government, with a rebel group intent on ruining the “status quo.”

Suddenly, an odd little secret romance between David and Shortsighted Woman appears, beginning only during the film’s final act.

One aspect of the film that I found interesting was the odd monotone dialogue the characters used. They were almost matter-of-fact in whatever they said, even while expressing anger.

This peculiarity perplexed me, but the more I think about it, the more this decision makes the film dark-humored and dry with wry wit.

Another interesting nuance to the film is the multitude of quirky characters, many of whom are mainly referred to by their nicknames. Lisping Man, Limping Man, and Nosebleed Woman, to name a few.

And what viewer would not spend the film’s duration imagining which animal he or she would desire to be turned into and why?

My favorite aspect of the film is the offbeat performance by Colin Farrell- typically a rugged sex symbol, he goes against the grain and plays a pudgy, socially awkward, insecure man, but all the while instilling the character with enough warmth and likability to make the character work- and his chemistry with Rachel Weisz is fantastic.

This turns the strange dark comedy into a peculiar romantic drama.

A beautiful forest becomes the backdrop for a large part of the film, as does the city of Dublin itself, contrasting the film in nuanced ways. Combined with the lavish hotel, the film achieves several different settings for the action, each meaningful in its own right.

Without giving anything away, the conclusion of the film- the final scene in particular- is gruesome in what goes through the viewer’s mind, and the resolution is unclear.

Does David do it, or doesn’t he? Much of the film is open to one’s interpretation and imagination.

Black humor and cynicism are significant components of The Lobster, a thinking man’s movie. I continue to think of this film as I write this review.

The film is filled with originality and thought, which is a tremendous positive. Confusing and mind-blowing? For sure. A run-of-the-mill film? Not.

The Lobster (2016) is a film that gives no answers and is not an easy watch but an achievement in film creativity- something sorely needed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Sleeper-1973

Sleeper-1973

Director Woody Allen

Starring Woody Allen, Diane Keaton

Scott’s Review #631

Reviewed April 5, 2017

Grade: B

One of the earliest of Woody Allen’s enormous list of films that he both directed and starred in, 1973’s Sleeper is a comedic, science-fiction film, and a blueprint for future Allen masterpieces, such as Manhattan (1979) and Annie Hall (1977).

While this film has moments of intelligence and clever dialogue, it too often teeters into straight-up slapstick and silliness, making it hard to hold in the same esteem as the aforementioned richer films.

Rather, it is a juvenile effort compared to the masterpieces that follow, but admittedly, it has some laughs and creative moments. Sleeper is the first of several to pair Allen with longtime co-star Diane Keaton.

Allen portrays Miles Monroe, a nerdy jazz musician and owner of the “Happy Carrot” health-food store in Greenwich Village, New York City, sometime in the then-present 1970s.

In the hospital for routine surgery, he is cryogenically frozen for two hundred years, waking up in an otherworldly police state and frazzled beyond belief.

The scientists who revive him are part of a rebellion and beg Miles to assist them as they are taken into police custody, pleading with him to search for a secret plan known only as the “Aries Project”.

Miles then poses as a robotic butler and goes to work for Luna (Keaton), a spoiled, bitchy, socialite. The duo ultimately bonded together and spent the rest of the film outrunning and outsmarting their pursuers.

Sleeper succeeds as a novel story, one filled with unique and interesting gadgets from a futuristic world, with clever, witty, crisp dialogue and odes to the past world, now deemed irrelevant.

Amusing are the scenes when scientists explain that natural foods and products, once thought to be healthy and natural, are not so much.

This makes the world Miles is used to seem silly and superfluous to them.

I also enjoyed the physical humor in the film, such as when Miles (as his robotic persona) serves dinner to a sophisticated group of Luna’s friends, accidentally destroying their expensive outerwear in a garbage incinerator and botching dinner.

As all of the attendees are high on hallucinogenic drugs (including Miles), they fail to realize that he is a human being- they dance with glee and stumble around in a haze, largely unaware of their surroundings.

This is one of the best scenes in the film.

The plot itself is fairly predictable, though, and almost forced. Miles and Luna are the couples we root for in the film, the introduction of a handsome rebel leader, Erno Windt (John Beck) doesn’t stand a chance and is somewhat of a foil for them.

Much of the time, the pair is on the run and sparring. The actors involved have wonderful chemistry with each other, but the central story is not the film’s strongest suit; rather, the weird and unique gadgets and intricacies are.

Albeit an introduction for anyone intrigued by the comic genius that is Woody Allen, other polished Allen gems are a better start than this early offering, but that is not to say Sleeper (1973) is not a good, entertaining film, with imagination, merely that it lacks all of the elements to rank it among other Woody Allen greats.

BearCity-2010

BearCity-2010

Director Douglas Langway

Starring Joe Conti, Stephen Guarino

Scott’s Review #626

Reviewed March 19, 2017

Grade: B

BearCity is a small, independent, LGBT, coming-of-age film that tells of a young man living in New York City, and his exploration of a sub-culture within the LGBT community and the subsequent romance that follows.

The film is a comedy and has a “Sex in the City” or “Queer as Folk” approach to its storytelling- a group of close-knit friends and raunchy and gratuitous to be sure.

The budget is very small and some aspects are rather amateurish, but the film is enjoyable, especially for those exposed to the LGBT lifestyle.

The film is not heavy nor are any of the characters dealing with “coming out” issues, but rather it is a fun sex comedy romp.

Our central character, Tyler (Joe Conti), is a young man in his twenties, an aspiring actor, who moves to New York City to pursue his career, with a mind for casual dating.

His roommates encourage him to date Abercrombie and Fitch types, but Tyler comes to realize he prefers “bear” types- mature, hairy men.

On the sly, he begins to pursue this subculture and makes many friends. The apple of his eye, handsome Roger (Gerald McCullough) is a popular mature man, distinguished in the bear circle, and risks his reputation with “the bears” by falling in love with Tyler.

The two men spend the greater part of the film conquering their respective fears and finding their way into each other’s arms in a predictable ending.

BearCity is a fun farce and nothing very heavy and the feature of a strong circle of friends is a nice, positive portrayal- all of the friends connect well and stick by each other through thick and thin.

Comical sub-plots abound such as one couple (Brent and Fred) awkward parlay into the world of threesomes with unsuccessful results.

Another bear who is unemployed, and grossly obese, decides to undergo weight loss surgery much to the chagrin of his hunky boyfriend.

The main story though belongs to Tyler and Roger and their inevitable reunion can be seen miles away. The film throws various hurdles in their ways, such as a third-person briefly dating Roger, or Roger’s commitment issues, but the climax of the film will be no surprise to anyone.

Tyler and Roger make a nice couple as a whole, but perplexing is how the film makes Roger the undisputed leader of the bear group when he is a lean, muscular man- not a “bear” at all!

This is odd to me, but BearCity is so light-hearted that I suppose I can let this detail slide in favor of a good romance.

Critically, the film is nice but quite amateurish, and super low-budget. The acting, especially by some of the supporting characters (the pre-surgery guy’s boyfriend is the most glaring example), is not great.

I half-expected him to accidentally look at the camera.

Additionally, the film has a low-budget look and feel, which on one level is fine, but combined with the not-so-stellar acting, enhances the inexperience of the cast and crew. The film is tough to take too seriously- if this is even the intention of the filmmakers.

The film is a logistical treat for anyone privy to popular gay hangouts in New York City- specifically The Eagle and The Ramrod, both locales are featured prominently, and the use of many real-life people who hang out at those establishments are used throughout the production.

BearCity (2010) is not a bad experience and a film that is light and comical within the LGBT community seems rather fresh compared to the myriad of dramatic and heavy films that exist.

At the same time, the film teeters towards goofy too much with more than one silly, sex-crazed, stereotypical gay man, that it almost gives a bad impression, so the film has mixed results for me.

Captain Fantastic-2016

Captain Fantastic-2016

Director Matt Ross

Starring Viggo Mortensen

Scott’s Review #616

Reviewed February 10, 2017

Grade: B+

A thought-provoking story that raises a question of home-schooled, non-traditional book intelligence versus the lack of social norms and interactions and debates about which upbringings are more relevant, Captain Fantastic (2016) is a terrific film with a moral center.

The film, which stars Viggo Mortensen, is a family drama with a unique spin and edgy subject matter. Mortensen is not afraid to tackle complex and thoughtful roles.

Although it is perhaps not as gritty as it could have been and feels a bit safe, it still entertains and elicits thought, a critical aspect of film often lacking in modern cinema.

Director Matt Ross immediately treats us to aerial views of the green and mountainous Pacific Northwest, where a family of seven- one father and six children aged five to seventeen, silently prey on and kill a deer grazing in the forest. This is their dinner.

The family is unorthodox, to say the least.

Led by Ben Cash (Mortensen), he teaches the children how to fight, how to survive, and how to be ready for any situation. They are brilliant kids who can recite the Bill of Rights and the most complex literature.

Soon, it is revealed that their mother, Leslie, has committed suicide, and a battle ensues between her parents (Frank Langella and Ann Dowd), who is determined to bury her “properly” with a Christian funeral, and Ben and his children, who are determined to honor her last wishes for cremation.

Ben and the gang travel via their run-down school bus to New Mexico, meeting local townspeople as a battle of cultures occurs.

I commend Ross for creating a story that challenges the viewer to think, depending on the viewer’s religious or political views. There is a risk of people either loving or hating the film.

The film is skewed toward the left, as in the dinner and sleepover scenes with Ben’s sister. Her “Americanized” family is awkward, and the families have entirely different styles.

Ross makes it clear that Ben and his family are the intelligent ones, and his sister’s kids are pretty dumb, not even knowing what the Bill of Rights is and mindlessly playing violent video games.

The fact that they are a “typical American family” is sad and quite telling of wRoss’s perspective

Captain Fantastic wisely shows that either side is not perfect. His oldest son, Bodevan, blooming sexually, has an awkward encounter with a pretty girl, proposing marriage to her with her mother present because he knows no social norms.

A younger son is attracted to a “normal” life with his grandparents, who are a wealthy couple. The grandparents are not presented as bad people; instead, they want the best for their grandchildren and fear how their lives will turn out without better structure or what they perceive as a better upbringing.

Some of the kids blame Ben for their lack of social skills and being what they perceive as “freaks.”

The film does end safely as a happy medium is ultimately reached, but I never felt cheapened by this result. I found Captain Fantastic rich in intelligent writing and a challenging tale.

Many moments of “what would you do?” were brought to the forefront. Mortensen portrays Ben Cash flawlessly, mixing just the right vulnerability with the stubbornness of the character, and it is an excellent film for anyone fearing being intelligent is not cool because it is.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Viggo Mortensen

The Diary of a Teenage Girl-2015

The Diary of a Teenage Girl-2015

Director Marielle Heller

Starring Bel Powley, Alexander Skarsgard, Kristen Wiig

Scott’s Review #614

Reviewed February 2, 2017

Grade: A-

I was not sure what I expected from the Independent Spirit award-winning film, Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015).

I surmised that I would be treated to a light-hearted, yet well-written coming-of-age story, but the film is much darker than I would have thought, and this is a plus.

The film is edgy.

There is so much depth to the central characters and an incredibly complex performance by newcomer, Bel Powley in the title role.

Stars Kristen Wiig and Alexander Skarsgard also give tremendous performances.

The film is based on the graphic novel The Diary of a Teenage Girl: An Account in Words and Pictures by Phoebe Gloeckner.

Set in 1976 in San Francisco, a time filled with hippies, drugs, music, and life, fifteen-year-old Minnie, an aspiring comic book writer, is as insecure as any typical fifteen-year-old is.

With wide eyes and stringy hair, she is cute, but rather quirky looking, not the prettiest girl in her class, and records her deepest thoughts into a cassette recorder. Minnie is intelligent and worldly, accepting of alternative lifestyles and drugs.

She is wise well beyond her years.

Minnie’s mother Charlotte (Wiig), lives a bohemian lifestyle, constantly partying and losing jobs, and is divorced from Minnie’s and sister Gretel’s affluent, but mostly absent father, Pascal (Christopher Meloni).

The girls refer to him as “Pascal” instead of “Dad”, which he hates. Determined to lose her virginity, Minnie is man crazy and develops a sweet relationship with her mother’s boyfriend, Monroe (Skarsgard).

Things begin slowly but develop into a full-blown sexual relationship. A controversial piece to the story is that Monroe is thirty-five years old- Minnie is only fifteen. Both Monroe’s and Minnie’s feelings are challenged due to circumstances and Minnie’s emotions spiral out of control.

The subject matter of The Diary of a Teenage Girl will undoubtedly be off-putting for many folks as the actions are technically statutory rape.

The film never goes in that direction.

Rather, director Marielle Heller crafts a tender story of young love, and when there is too much drama comic relief is added.

Monroe is never the aggressor and Minnie is. She is a young girl who knows what she wants.

Since the director is female there is no hint of Minnie being taken advantage of or regretting her affair- the film is not about this.

Rather, it is about a young girl with blooming sexuality and emotions finding herself in the world. I admire this left-of-center approach to the story immensely.

Other aspects of the film may be too much for some. Minnie and her best friend pretend to be prostitutes and orally service two young men in the men’s room on a lark.

Later, Charlotte uses filthy language to describe Monroe’s and Minnie’s relationship.

The film is not safe, but daring and honest. I admire its courage.

Enough cannot be said for the three principal actors in Diary of a Teenage Girl. Bel Powley is a find!

Nominated for an Independent Spirit award, this amazing young actress should have been recognized by the Academy Awards, but she no doubt has many years and films ahead of her.

She is a “regular girl” type and reminds me of actress Lena Dunham in her looks and her rich delivery.

Kristen Wiig is fantastic and is evolving into a great dramatic actress. As Charlotte, Wiig is wonderfully insecure and an offbeat mother. She does not discipline, but rather befriends her daughters, showering them with hugs and kisses and giving vulnerable neediness to the character.

Wiig, dynamite in the comedy/drama The Skeleton Twins (2014), has embraced small, but important indie films, and kudos to her for this.

Lastly, Skarsgard, mainly known as HBO’s villainous Eric on True Blood, is as inspiring as Monroe.

Providing his character with sympathy and humanity (tough when having an affair with a teenage girl who also happens to be your girlfriend’s daughter), Skarsgard evokes so much emotion into the role that you almost root for Monroe and Minnie before remembering that she is too emotionally fragile.

Skarsgard is brilliant in Monroe’s breakdown scene. I hope audiences see him in more of these complex roles as he is far more than a hunky actor.

Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015) intersperses graphic novel/animated elements into the story told from the perspective of Minnie and the character narrates parts of the film.

This authentic story is not only for teenagers but for smart thinkers and anyone who has ever been over their heads in the emotions of love.

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

20th Century Women-2016

20th Century Women-2016

Director Mike Mills

Starring Annette Benning, Greta Gerwig, Elle Fanning

Scott’s Review #611

Reviewed January 22, 2017

Grade: A-

Annette Benning shines in her leading role in 20th Century Women (2016), a film directed by Mike Mills, a formidable independent filmmaker whose credits include 2010’s Beginners and 2005’s Thumbsucker.

In 20th Century Women, Mills serves as director and writer, so the film is his vision.

All five principal characters are quirky and well-written, though Benning’s is the most nuanced and fascinating.

The time is 1979, Santa Barbara. Despite the image of Santa Barbara as a wealthy, grand town dripping with the rich and powerful (perhaps due to the sweeping 1980s daytime soap opera of the same name), Mills does not present this film as such.

He presents Santa Barbara as a more artsy town, at least where his characters are concerned.

Benning plays Dorothea Fields, a fifty-five-year-old divorced mother of a fifteen-year-old boy, Jaimie. She is a free spirit who allows two runaways to live with her: Abbie (Greta Gerwig), a twenty-five-year-old aspiring photographer with fuchsia-colored hair recovering from cervical cancer, and William (Billy Crudup), a handyman.

They are joined by Jaimie’s good friend, Julie (Elle Fanning), a depressed neighbor.

The film nicely explores each character’s trials and tribulations and their interactions with each other in a highly quirky manner, and we fall in love with each of them.

Dorothea enlists Abbie and Julie’s help to have a positive influence after he nearly dies after a foolish teenage prank.

Mills successfully gives the period a slice-of-life feel, heavily referencing punk rock and the political climate in the film. Bands such as Talking Heads and Black Flag focus on Dorothea’s striving to learn what young people like, to remain youthful, and to stay in touch with her charges.

Dorothea is a chain smoker, and many scenes feature her pondering a situation while taking long drags. I love this aspect of the film as it showcases Benning’s cerebral performance. She is a thoughtful woman who wants her son to grow up sane and productive since his father is absent.

Sex and feminism are significant themes in the film. Abbie loans Jaimie two books by female feminist authors to help him better understand women.

When he begins to discuss orgasms and a strange conversation about sex and virginity ensues during a dinner party Dorothea is hosting, the graphic detail is a bit too much for Dorothea.

She is a conflicted character- open-minded and caring; when it comes to her son, she has a more conservative edge while trying to remain open to his new experiences as a teen.

20th Century Women is strictly a character-driven film with enormous strength. Each character is in a different place in their lives, and I adore how the film gives a conclusion to each of the characters’ lives in the years to come.

Indeed, the film follows the “happily ever after” formula, but this does not bother me. Instead, the film is so well composed that the characters’ lives enrapture me.

Admittedly, the film is slow-moving at times, but this is due to the richness of the dialogue—nothing is rushed.

Kudos to the cast. Gerwig and Fanning are incredibly excellent. Fanning’s Julie is a unique character- her mother is a psychiatrist who forces her to attend group sessions that she holds. Julie has a step-sister with cerebral palsy, so Julie frequently sleeps at Dorothea’s house as a way to escape her life.

Sexual active, Julie has a pregnancy scare during the story.

A coming of age type film set in an enjoyable time, 20th Century Women (2016) showcases the talents of a stellar cast led by Benning, takes its audience into a wonderful, character-themed world, and discusses the lives of its intriguing characters with a clear portrayal of life in the late 1970s.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Female Lead-Annette Bening, Best Screenplay

Broadcast News-1987

Broadcast News-1987

Director James L. Brooks

Starring William Hurt, Albert Brooks, Holly Hunter

Scott’s Review #602

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B

Broadcast News is a 1987 feature film that is admittedly an intelligently written romantic comedy.

It was rewarded with several Academy Award nominations, in what has been a bleak year for the film industry.

That said, I found the film’s overall result to be a decent experience, but certainly nothing fantastic. I was left with the feeling that it was “okay”.

I do not think it was good enough to warrant Oscar nominations, but it was enjoyable all the same.

The principal characters are interesting enough, albeit safe.

The film centers around three television news people- a neurotic news producer (Holly Hunter), a reporter (Albert Brooks), and his rival (William Hurt).

All of them are ambitious and determined to climb the ladder of success in their Washington, D.C., base.

The film explores the relationships between the characters.

As stated, there is nothing wrong with the film. I would have expected a bit more- perhaps a deeper or darker story- instead, despite some witty dialogue, the film is largely a safe, predictable journey.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-William Hurt, Best Actress-Holly Hunter, Best Supporting Actor-Albert Brooks, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing