Tag Archives: Drama

Belfast-2021

Belfast-2021

Director Kenneth Branagh

Starring Jamie Dornan, Caitríona Balfe, Jude Hill

Scott’s Review #1,202

Reviewed November 28, 2021

Grade: A-

Belfast (2021) is a film I wanted to see based solely on the year-end awards buzz it is receiving as of this writing. The trailer would lead you to believe that the film is a sentimental and heartwarming journey through the lives of a group of people living in Belfast, Ireland.

This is nothing but strategic marketing.

The film is significantly better than the trailer suggests, offering a dark and raw exploration of a family torn between their current lives in Belfast and the opportunity to leave the troubled city for new prospects in England.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom, and in fact, Belfast offers enough humor, entertainment, and drama to please a broad audience. There also exists a lesson in kindness, decency, and respect that is so needed in the world today.

Belfast is a movie rich in real-life experiences from director Kenneth Branagh’s own life, which successfully lends realism and honesty to the picture.

The film is told through the eyes of a nine-year-old boy named Buddy, wonderfully played by Jude Hill. He struggles to forge a path from childhood to manhood in a world that has been turned upside down.

It is 1969, and battles over religion have overtaken his neighborhood with radical Protestants wanting the Catholics out.

Buddy experiences the joys and sorrows of young love, loss, joy, laughter, music, and the magic of the cinema.

His family surrounds him- Ma (Caitríona Balfe), Pa (Jamie Dornan), Granny (Judi Dench), Pop (Ciarán Hinds), and a brother. They each fill Buddy’s life with kindness and fun.

The film starts slowly for me, despite an immediate, wonderfully compelling slow-motion sequence in which Buddy is surrounded by violence and terror as he walks home from school on a pleasant afternoon.

As I ponder Belfast, I realize that much of the film is slow, yet rich in texture and goodness. Every so often, an emotional scene erupts, but then a great deal of it is Buddy’s everyday experiences.

The black and white cinematography is crucial in portraying the bleakness of Belfast and how its residents strive to add some life. Most are born and die where they live.

Branagh adds an occasional glimpse of color, which is effective to show a burst of delight in the characters’ lives. This is most powerful when the family goes to the cinema and enjoys an afternoon watching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

The lighting and extreme close-ups of some characters’ faces reveal their emotions, while the landscape shots are appropriately smoky and bright. This fits the mood perfectly.

The film features music by Belfast native Van Morrison, including eight classic songs and a new song Morrison wrote for the film.

The acting is superb by all the principal cast, and Dornan and Balfe provide the emotional core. Both actors are beautiful, and their performance of ‘Everlasting Love’ is simply delightful.

Providing proper role models for their children, Dornan’s Pa nearly had me in tears when he told Buddy that a person’s religious beliefs are unimportant, but their kindness is what truly matters.

He is a progressive man trapped in a traditional world.

In the end, the family chooses to reach for the stars, and the moment is fulfilling for both the characters and the viewers.

Belfast (2021) did not completely win me over until it ended, when I realized that I had witnessed a superior film. Branagh fuses heart and decency into a tale of a family’s struggles and trials.

It’s a message film that doesn’t scream or preach that message, but instead gives a quiet lesson in humanity.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Kenneth Branagh, Best Supporting Actor-Ciarán Hinds, Best Supporting Actress-Judi Dench, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Score-“Down to Joy”, Best Sound

Gandhi-1982

Gandhi-1982

Director Richard Attenborough

Starring Ben Kingsley

Scott’s Review #1,189

Reviewed October 30, 2021

Grade: A

Ben Kingsley delivers an astonishing performance as Mahatma Gandhi,  the steady-handed lawyer who stood up against British rule in India and became an international symbol of nonviolence and peaceful understanding until his tragic assassination in 1948.

Entitled simply Gandhi (1982) the film is directed by Richard Attenborough who has created masculine offerings such as The Great Escape (1963) and The Sand Pebbles (1966) before.

Calmly, the director creates a grandiose epic but one that is thought-provoking and introspective in its humility.

I was incredibly affected by this picture.

As beautiful as the cinematography and other such trimmings are the message is what stands out to me most. One man’s spirit and thirst for fairness and human equality are beyond inspiring decades after the film was made.

Thanks to Kingsley, the biography infuses an infectious channeling of what being a human being is all about and how human decency is the desired goal.

The film belongs to Kingsley. Despite hosting a cast of literally thousands he is the only name worth mentioning. He is that superior.

Attenborough, who teams with screenwriter John Briley presents major events in the life of Mohandas Gandhi (Kingsley). The film starts suddenly in January 1948, when an elderly Gandhi is on his way to an evening prayer service and is shot point-blank in the chest in front of a large number of dumbfounded greeters and admirers.

His state funeral is shown, the procession attended by millions of people from all walks of life, with a radio reporter speaking beautifully about Gandhi’s world-changing life and projects.

The film then returns to decades earlier when Gandhi, a young man, has a violent and racist experience. He vows to dedicate himself to the concept of nonviolent resistance. Initially dismissed, Gandhi was eventually internationally renowned, and his gatherings of passive protest moved India towards independence.

Gandhi has been criticized for its extraordinary length with a running time of three hours and ten minutes. A suggestion is to watch the film in multiple sittings though the best recommended approach would be to see it on the big screen.

Unfortunately, I didn’t but fantasize about the massive sequences and how gorgeous they would appear at the cinema.

The story, acting, production, and pretty much everything else about Gandhi is a ravishing spectacle.

It’s worth its weight to sit back and watch Kingsley completely immerse himself in the role. The actor deservedly won the Best Actor Academy Award and despite his oodles of other film roles is best remembered for this one.

I’m half surprised that it didn’t typecast him since he is so identifiable in the role.

I’d like to mention two aspects that some might not notice as much as others but that is simply astounding. The cinematography of the deserts, towns, and cities of India is plush with detail and accuracy. If one cannot go on a trip to India the next best thing is to watch this film instead. You’ll get a good dose of realism.

South Africa is also featured.

The costumes brilliantly showcase Indian flair and culture so well that I felt that I had been to an interesting country at the time that the film portrayed the events and felt nestled amid the luxurious colors and good taste.

Post-1982, the film genre of the epic exists rarely if ever anymore.

Long gone are the days of brilliance like Gone With the Wind (1939) or Lawrence of Arabia (1962) which are truly a delight to simply lay one’s eyes on.

Gandhi deserves to be appreciated as much as those other films despite being released in less than an artistic decade in cinema.

Gandhi (1982) is a wonderfully tragic film and leaves the viewer feeling sad but also inspired to carry the torch picked up by one brave man.

A history lesson it’s also as much a lesson in humanity and the courageous fight that one man fought. Military power is not the way to achieve change in the world.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Richard Attenborough (won), Best Actor-Ben Kingsley (won), Best Screenplay-Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Costume Design (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Makeup, Best Original Score, Best Sound

Half Nelson-2006

Half Nelson-2006

Director Ryan Fleck

Starring Ryan Gosling, Shareeka Epps

Scott’s Review #1,184

Reviewed October 8, 2021

Grade: B+

Half Nelson (2006) is an independent drama that showcases Ryan Gosling’s acting talent and forays into meatier, more mature roles. He was only twenty-five years old when he made the film but was growing into a mature actor which is part of the fun of watching it.

The New York City locale presents a gritty and seedy essence appropriate for the subject matter. Speaking of, the seriousness and potential creep factor may turn some viewers off, but true cinema fans and admirers of good stories will appreciate the film.

The taboo dynamic of a thirteen-year-old student and her drug-addicted teacher is not for everyone and many will not even dare to go there. But, the payoff is worth the initial squirming.

Especially forewarned are those seeking a romantic or action film from Gosling as they will surely be disappointed. This is a more cerebral and artful effort.

The film garnered Gosling his first Academy Award nomination. A very deserved one.

Dan Dunne (Gosling) is a young history teacher at a Brooklyn, New York school. Though he is highly regarded and well-liked by his students and colleagues, he secretly spends his evenings hopping bars and getting high.

He lives a double life.

One night a shy female student named Drey (Shareeka Epps) catches him in a drug-induced haze after a basketball game and the two strike up an unlikely friendship. As Dan struggles with his addiction, he tries to act as a mentor to the girl, whose brother is serving time for dealing drugs.

It’s easy to dismiss a film like Half Nelson because of the uneasy premise. But below that resides a sweet and kind story about two human beings bonding over their lives in crisis.

Too much negativity exists these days among teachers so it is reassuring to see a film where the student and teacher bond amid the most unlikely circumstances.

Gosling and Epps are both spectacular. They give their all as an unlikely pair, he an idealistic, and she a girl trapped in ghetto life. The connection between the characters is palpable, especially given the role reversal that occurs.

They slowly become forever bonded and the reaction is fresh, layered with genuine emotion. And who’s the teacher and who’s the student?

As terrific as they are together, they each have their own story. I loved learning more about Dan’s wrecked love life but I still wanted to know why he escaped to drugs in the first place.

Drey has enormous challenges of her own and is pressured to go down the same rabbit hole as many in similar circumstances have done. She is savvy enough to know if she does it will lead to an unhappy life but will she go there anyway?

Even if a viewer never sets foot into an undesirable area, they will nonetheless be able to put themselves there for the duration of the film.

I love the ending of the film.

Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, a filmmaking duo mostly known for independent features churn out terrific and subdued work.

Half Nelson feels authentic with grainy and shakey filmmaking that makes the viewer feel as if he or she is an observer in the lives of Dan and Drey and part of their world.

A serene but not simple film, Half Nelson (2006) teaches many valuable lessons. With perseverance and unlikely friendships, mixed with two separate character studies, the film has a lot going on but never overcomplicates itself.

I longed for more about Dan’s descent into drug use but the rest of the experience is fantastic.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Ryan Gosling

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature, Best Director-Ryan Fleck, Best Male Lead-Ryan Gosling (won), Best Female Lead-Shareeka Epps (won), Best First Screenplay

Minari-2020

Minari-2020

Director Lee Isaac Chung

Starring Steven Yeun, Han Ye-ri, Youn-Yuh Jung

Scott’s Review #1,181

Reviewed September 24, 2021

Grade: A-

I proudly champion films like Minari (2020) for further bringing Asian actors and directors into the Hollywood mainstream with truthful stories.

They have slowly (and it’s about time!) begun to reap the riches from the Academy Awards and other such honors. Parasite (2019) and, to a lesser degree, Crazy Rich Asians (2018) helped propel respectability to the Asian film community.

With that said, I expected Minari to be a masterpiece, and instead, it is simply a terrific film. That’s a tough statement for me to make. Undoubtedly, it was heavily helped by the progress I mentioned above.

This is to take nothing away from its cast and wonderful director, Lee Isaac Chung.

I found the film sentimental and heartwarming, but it only felt dangerous or edgy in one scene.

Of strong interest to me is the fact that the film is a semi-autobiographical take on Chung’s upbringing, but is it a fantasized version?

The plot follows a family of South Korean immigrants as they attempt to make a life for themselves in rural America during the 1980s. Specifically, the year is 1983 in the southern state of Arkansas, where the family sticks out like a sore thumb amid the suffocating summer heat.

Chung, who writes and directs the piece, offers a tender look at the ties that bind —family. The Yis are a Korean-American family that moves from California to invest in a crummy plot of land and their own American Dream. Jacob and Monica (Yeun and Han) are reduced to taking even crummier jobs sexing chicks at a local factory.

The family home changes completely with the arrival of their scheming, foul-mouthed, but incredibly loving grandmother Soon-Ja, played by Yuh-Jung.

Amidst the instability and challenges of this new life in the rugged Ozarks, Minari shows the undeniable resilience of family and what makes a home. The Yis are resilient through the constant bickering of Jacob and Monica, Soon-JA’s stroke, bad water, and the burning of their shed, which stores their goods.

The story is all well and good, and it is good, but I desired more. I blame this on the heaps of praise heaped on Minari and the numerous Top 10 lists it appeared on.

For example, hearing the premise I couldn’t help but wonder what discrimination the Yi’s would inevitably face down in the deep south. But they faced none.

In one soft scene, the young Yi boy, David, played exceptionally by Alan Kim is asked by a local kid why his face is flat. They quickly become best friends.

Will Patton plays another ally and Jacob’s farming partner. He is a Korean War veteran and a bit nutty, yet he adores Jacob and the rest of the Yis and harbors no ill will towards them.

I expected him to despise them because of the war. This would have been more realistic.

The southern characters are portrayed as kind and always ready to lend a helping hand. This is all fine and good, but is it realistic?

The casting is outstanding and brings the dialogue to reality. Yeun and Han bring their A-games in more than one vicious fight scene where their words crackle with intensity leaving them teetering on the verge of divorce. Yeun was recognized during awards season, but Han was sadly overlooked.

Soon-Ja mixes humor with drama and will leave many viewers bawling with her facial expressions and terrific acting during the final sequence. Her performance deservedly led her to a Supporting Actress Oscar win.

The finale felt so incredibly raw and honest to me, whereas the rest felt sentimental, which, based on this alone, caused me to raise its grade from a B+ to an A-.

Beautiful landscape and brilliant acting make Minari (2020) a fine experience. It teeters too close to formula at times, but offers freshness and representation for a group only starting to receive its recognition.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Lee Isaac Chung, Best Actor-Steven Yeung, Best Supporting Actress-Youn Yuh-Jung (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-Lee Isaac Chung, Best Male Lead-Steven Yeung, Best Supporting Female-Youn Yuh-Jung (won), Han Ye-ri, Best Screenplay

First Cow-2020

First Cow-2020

Director Kelly Reichardt

Starring John Magaro, Orion Lee

Scott’s Review # 1,180

Reviewed September 22, 2021

Grade: A

Despite its slow-moving pace, First Cow (2020) is a tremendous effort by director Kelly Reichardt, who also co-writes the film with her usual writing partner, Jonathan Raymond.

To merely say the film is slow-moving is a gross understatement. I mean, it is slow-moving, so much so that I confess to guiltily sneaking a few peeks at my phone, and I try never to do that. However, the time invested yields a moving and engaging experience, one that requires patience.

Brimming with geographical authenticity (most of Reichardt’s films and Raymond’s novels are set in the Pacific Northwest, USA) the outdoors and forest scenes are aplenty.

First Cow is also a feast for the foodie in all of us as rich and creamy aspects of cooking, baking, and tasting, are all featured in a delicious form. More about that later.

However, the real victory lies in the chemistry between the two male leads, John Magaro and Orion Lee. The unlikely friends and subsequent business partners provide a rich exterior brimming with sub texture and questions about their sexuality.

Sadly, the film doesn’t go there at all, and I’m not sure why, but my mind certainly did. I kept waiting for an answer to whether their union was strictly platonic or otherwise, but alas, my curiosity was never even remotely satisfied.

Despite this misstep (in my opinion, anyway), First Cow is an excellent film rich in human emotion, offering a tale of kindness and connection that lasts until the end. As is the trend in cinema these days, the beginning reveals the ending.

The year is 1820. Otis “Cookie” Figowitz (Magaro) is a lonely cook who has traveled west and joined a group of fur trappers in the Oregon Territory. He aspires to find his fortune in San Francisco, California. The trappers do not treat him particularly well.

One night he meets and saves the life of a Chinese immigrant named King-Lu (Lee) also seeking his fortune in California. They become fast friends and soon begin to collaborate on a successful business, although its longevity is dependent upon the participation of a wealthy British landowner’s prized milking cow unbeknownst to the landowner.

As the duo forge a successful and tasty local business their biscuits nearly have the local townspeople eating from Cookie’s and Lu’s hands.

A blueberry French clafoutis takes center stage during one scene and deserves description. It is a baked French dessert of fruit, traditionally black cherries, arranged in a buttered dish and covered with a thick flan-like batter.

The clafoutis is dusted with powdered sugar and served lukewarm, often accompanied by cream.

Yum! I could almost taste it from the screen.

I hate to shatter the otherwise innocent texture of the film and the sweet image of two adult men having an inseparable connection, but I cannot help myself! As the men lie in a tent together and glance over at each other, they nearly have a Brokeback Mountain (2005) moment.

I half-expected Lu to flip Cookie over and ravage his body, but this was not to be. Instead, the touching, tender, original, entrancing, and quiet relationship is never defined as anything other than that of two buddies, sincere and mysterious.

But, maybe that’s the point?

I adore that Reinhardt and Raymond do not pepper their characters with any false machismo or fake guy behavior to ensure the audience knows they are straight right away. Instead, both men are sensitive, thoughtful, and intellectual. How refreshing with masculine male characters.

Questions about the extent of their relationship continued to gnaw at me especially during the final scene when they lie down next to each other in the grass. And never was a mention of a woman ever muttered.

Otherwise, the gorgeous (4×3) cinematography is evident throughout the film as the men spend much of their time by the campfire or plowing their way through forest brush. Tremendous, peaceful scenes are non-stop. I was shocked that the film didn’t achieve an Oscar nomination in this category.

First Cow (2020) was met with tremendous support and accolades, which will hopefully encourage those who are fans of thinking man’s films to see it. It sure made me see it.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Kelly Reinhardt, Best Supporting Male-Orion Lee

On the Beach-1959

On the Beach-1959

Director Stanley Kramer

Starring Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner

Scott’s Review #1,179

Reviewed September 19, 2021

Grade: A-

On the Beach (1959) is a film that showcases a grim subject matter but remains relevant considering the period in which it was made. The Cold War era kept most people on edge with the threat of nuclear war as they rolled into the 1960s.

The lavishness of the 1950s turned into a more distrustful time as countries gained modern technological advances, making nuclear weapons a real possibility.

The film was not met with much praise or popularity at the time.

Indeed, people were content in the cinematic bubbles of nice, comforting films that largely emerged during the 1950s, but On the Beach was a fantastic discovery decades later.

I suppose people expected a sweeping epic romantic adventure, but they received a harsher tale. It’s not nearly as dark as it could have been.

The black and white cinematography is highly effective at relaying a cold and stark world that is left for the film’s characters. Another success is that the film is set in the future, 1964 to be exact, while the film was made in 1959.

The film is hardly a downer. While the subject matter of nuclear disaster and devastation sounds heavy, there is as much romance as social storytelling. The romance between Peck and Gardner is compelling and the best part of the film experience.

As the story begins, we learn that World War III has already occurred, leaving Australia the only remaining safe place for survivors. However, wind currents carrying lingering radiation are headed their way, condemning those on the continent to certain death.

When the survivors receive a strange signal from San Diego, California, Commander Dwight Towers (Peck) must embark on a mission with Lieutenant Peter Holmes (Anthony Perkins) to see if humanity still has hope. They leave behind Moira (Gardner) and Mary (Donna Anderson), the women they love.

Director Stanley Kramer knows his way around a message movie. In 1967, he directed the racially significant Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn.

The romance between Dwight, Moira, Peter, and Mary is my favorite aspect of the film. Dwight has lost his wife and two children, so out of loneliness, he falls for Moira, who has never married and has no one. Their soon-to-be doomed romance is fraught with complications as they tenderly cling to each other, knowing their time is limited.

Peter and Mary, on the other hand, are married with an infant young daughter. A significant conflict the couple deals with is whether to take suicide pills rather than get sick and die a slow and painful death.

There is enough chemistry between Peck and Gardner to keep the viewer engaged, but it’s tough to watch Perkins, a known gay man, play a macho father figure with a newborn. For some reason, it’s also hard not to see Norman Bates from Psycho (1960). I half-expected Peter to attack Mary in the shower with a butcher knife.

Still, the acting is good.

On the Beach states a powerful message in its conclusion. Ultimately, within just a few days of the shifting winds bringing the toxins to Australia, the last pockets of humanity are dead.

Melbourne’s empty, windblown streets are filled with dramatic music over a single powerful image of a previously seen Salvation Army street banner that reads, “There is still time .. Brother”.

Indeed, there is.

This leaves the viewer pondering their fate and the terrible dangers of nuclear war. Decades later, On the Beach (1959) still frightens and teaches about the ravages of world conflict and the plea for a peaceful society.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Film Editing

If…-1968

If…-1968

Director Lindsay Anderson

Starring Malcolm McDowell

Scott’s Review #1,178

Reviewed September 18, 2021

Grade: A

Malcolm McDowell fascinates me. The mere construction of his facial features astounds me. With his crystal blue eyes and sullen smirk, it’s tough to tell what he is thinking.

He stars in If… (1968), a satire of the student experience amid a strict upper-class English public school.

It’s McDowell’s film debut, which is worth noting.

McDowell, best known for A Clockwork Orange (1971), made several great films in just a few years.

The film follows a group of fed-up pupils, led by Mick Travis (McDowell), who ultimately stage a bloody insurrection at a boys’ boarding school. But is it real or imagined by Mick?

Mick is conflicted when he is caught between the sadistic older boys known as the Whips and the lowly first-year students, affectionately known as Scum, who are forced to do their bidding.

He and his two henchmen, Johnny (David Wood) and Wallace (Richard Warwick), rebel by exhibiting theft and defiant behavior, causing the ire of both the Whips and the school’s out-of-touch administration.

This conflict leads to an unexpected and bloody showdown.

If… was the subject of controversy in 1968 at the time of its release, receiving an X rating for its depictions of violence against school administration and grown-ups.

The specific year was a juicy one in cinema as the more edgy and creative fare was being produced in anticipation of the 1970s.

I champion the film and its director, Lindsay Anderson, for having the guts to make a film of this nature, sure to piss off and shock the education system and those who don’t get what the film is expressing.

One wonders whether the English rock band Pink Floyd drew inspiration from If… when creating their legendary 1979 song ‘Another Brick in the Wall.

The Whips are the villains, and the school administrators are portrayed as complacent or incompetent; as a result, the finale is quite satisfying for viewers.

One will never forget the image of Mick fiendishly standing on a rooftop, brandishing a gun and firing determinedly. His other cohorts join him in celebrating graduation ceremonies. For them, it’s a delightful moment since all the parents and family members are in attendance.

It’s only a film, but I can’t help but wonder how differently the film is perceived by an audience in the post-Columbine era, a vicious school shooting that occurred in the United States, an incident that led to a rash of similar events.

To clarify, since Anderson made a follow-up film to If… with O Lucky Man! in 1973, starring McDowell as the same character, we can rest easier in the knowledge that the events in If… are purely the imagination of Mick.

It’s a satire.

And what schoolboy or schoolgirl hasn’t fantasized about how delicious it would be to give bullies or other bastards their just deserts for making their lives miserable?

Another takeaway I got from If… is that it doesn’t have to be about a prep school at all. Mick and his friends question conformity and rules. Why can’t the viewer do the same in the workplace or in life itself?

I’ve seen the film twice and can never account for the inexplicable shifts from color to black-and-white in various scenes. Anderson claims this was done for budget reasons, but others have done a deeper dive and hypothesized that the color versus black-and-white choice has more to do with fantasy.

Whatever the reason, it successfully offers a surrealistic measure.

If… (1968) is a fantastic film that invites open dialogue after viewing. Isn’t that what cinema is all about? A discussion of the merits and conclusions of a particular movie?

Show Boat-1951

Show Boat-1951

Director George Sidney

Starring Ava Gardner, Howard Keel, Kathryn Grayson

Scott’s Review #1,177

Reviewed September 14, 2021

Grade: A-

Show Boat (1951) is a liberal-slanted musical centering around racism. It mixes comedy and drama well while remembering it is meant to entertain audiences. But it never loses sight of the important message it’s portraying.

Ava Gardner, who stars, never looked more beautiful.

The picture is based on the 1927 stage musical of the same name by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II, and the 1926 novel by Edna Ferber.

The vibrant colors, sentimental songs, and Southern flair make it a winner.

Kern and Hammerstein provide the score for this adaptation of their Broadway hit, which adds authenticity.

My favorite song is the devastatingly poignant and haunting “Old Man River,” reprised at the end of Show Boat.

Julie LaVerne (Gardner) and Steve Baker (Sterling) are successful married entertainers forced to leave the showboat Cotton Blossom when it becomes known that Julie is of mixed race.

Meanwhile, the captain’s daughter, Magnolia (Kathryn Grayson), and gambler Gaylord Ravenal (Howard Keel) take over the act, fall in love, marry, and leave the boat for Chicago. There, they live off his gambling earnings, which dry up fast.

The film’s ending is not happy.

I love the film’s tone. It is a very big-budget production, and it shows. Each number is belted out with gusto, at the risk of feeling too uptight or stagey, but regardless, I fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

The grandness of the numbers was what got me, and never more than with Julie’s significant number, “Bill,” a very emotional song.

Her other famous number, “Can’t Help Lovin’ Dat Man,” isn’t so bad either.

In a perfect world, they would have cast a black actress for authenticity’s sake—someone like Dorothy Dandridge comes to mind. As wonderful as Gardner is, this point gnawed at me throughout. The actress is Caucasian, though it could be the belief that she is of mixed race.

Nonetheless, Gardner also doesn’t sing her songs. Instead, they are sung by Annette Warren. I’m betting this is why she didn’t receive an Oscar nomination.

But Show Boat isn’t all about Gardner. Showcasing a spectacular cast of black and white actors, leads like Grayson and Keel are fabulous. I cared about their characters’ trials and tribulations and wondered how much Grayson resembled the legendary Judy Garland.

Supporting players like William Warfield, such as Joe, must be mentioned. His rendition of “Old Man River” moved me. A bass-baritone singer and actor, he makes the number, quite simply, and it’s by far the best moment, musically and pictorially, in the film.

I could watch this scene on replay.

And Agnes Moorehead as Parthy Hawks, or the resident bitch provides delicious comedy, intended or unintended.

Some criticize the 1936 film version as superior and providing a grittier feel; I know that. Although I’ve never seen it, the 1951 version has that Technicolor grandness.

Maybe I’ll check it out for a one-day comparison.

For a slice of southern-flavored showboatin’, check out Show Boat (1951). With a summery flavor, dancing, and superior photography, it is a good old time.

Oscar Nominations: Best Cinematography, Color, Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture

Judas and the Black Messiah-2021

Judas and the Black Messiah-2021

Director Shaka King

Starring Daniel Kaluuya, Lakeith Stanfield, Jesse Plemons

Scott’s Review #1,176

Reviewed September 9, 2021

Grade: B+

I wanted to love Judas and the Black Messiah (2021).

I still champion the importance of the story, however, and the timeliness of its release. The film has some moments of glory where a bombastic scene occurs that immediately reins the viewer back into the fold.

However, other parts drag and feel fragmented or otherwise confusing, to the point where the film sometimes bored me, and I hate admitting that.

I teetered back and forth between a B+ grade and a B grade, and, perhaps channeling my political side, I finally settled on a very generous B+ determination. Before I watched the film, I would have bet on an A or an A-. Alas, it was not to be.

That the film was made and exposed a mass audience to the trials and tribulations of the late 1960s Chicago racial tensions that helped create the Black Panthers organization is, of course, a huge win.

But I wanted more. Much more.

A major gripe is that the song from the film, winner of the Best Original Song Oscar, only appears over the end credits and has nothing to do with the film. Having a tacked-on feel, the song, performed by H.E.R. and others, is not particularly memorable either.

The title is “Fight for You”, possessing images of battle and courage, which fit the theme of the film, but the song itself is pretty lackluster.

The plotline is a challenge to follow, but goes something like this. The FBI recruits small-time Chicago thief Bill O’Neal (LaKeith Stanfield) to infiltrate the Illinois Black Panther Party and is tasked with keeping tabs on their charismatic leader, Chairman Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya).

At first, O’Neal enjoys the danger of manipulating both his comrades and his FBI primary contact, Special Agent Roy Mitchell (Plemons). Hampton’s political power grows as he falls in love with fellow revolutionary Deborah Johnson (Dominique Fishback).

To complicate matters, she becomes pregnant.

Meanwhile, O’Neal becomes conflicted. Does he align with The Panthers and where his heart lies, or thwart Hampton’s efforts by any means necessary, as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (Martin Sheen) commands?

The acting is fantastic, and along with the message, it is the film’s best part. Justified controversy ensued over the placement of Kaluuya and Stanfield in the Supporting Actor category at the Oscars; both received nominations, and Kaluuya was the victor.

It’s evident to me that Stanfield is the lead character, so it’s a shame he wasn’t nominated for a Best Actor award.

With Chadwick Boseman positioned to be the clear winner for Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (2020) and shockingly losing to Anthony Hopkins for The Father (2020), was the thought that another black actor in the category might ruin Boseman’s chances?

We’ll probably never know.

Kaluuya and Stanfield are both mesmerizing, and I look forward to their subsequent projects, especially Kaluuya, whom I fell in love with after his turn in Get Out (2017).

A heavily made-up Martin Sheen is a treat to see in a woefully too-small role as J. Edgar Hoover.

The rest of the film is pretty good. The climax is thrilling and almost bumped the movie up a grade for me. Without giving too much away, it involves a bloody shoot-out, a real-life interview, and highlight footage. I love the reality the latter provides.

But then I remembered the snail’s pace it took to get to this point and how the other good scenes paled in comparison with a plodding pace.

I adored the characters and fell in love with the sweet, though doomed, romance between Hampton and Deborah. I yearned for them to live happily ever after, even after my hunch told me this was not in the cards for them.

My hunch was correct.

The intent was to evoke outrage in the audience at the unfairness that people of color endured in the late 1960s.  I was angrier still at the realization that they are still being maltreated in the time of George Floyd and others.

Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) receives hands-down significant praise for its intent and acting, but disappoints in terms of delivery and final product. It is not equal to the sum of all its parts.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Daniel Kaluuya (won), Lakeith Stanfield, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Original Song-“Fight for You” (won)

Soul-2020

Soul-2020

Director Pete Docter

Voices: Jamie Foxx, Tina Fey

Scott’s Review #1,172

Reviewed August 18, 2021

Grade: B+

It’s pretty reassuring when a magical animated feature comes down the pike. Too often, the mainstream multiplex summer offerings are trite or too ‘kiddish’ for my tastes.

Soul (2020) is creative, colorful, and sentimental, with a terrific musical score composed by Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails).

The writing is fresh and inventive, with gorgeous animation that feels magical. I did not see the film on the big screen and bet it would have made the experience even more delightful.

Soul is not too dark, nor is it too trivial. It strikes a perfect balance between humanism, darkness, and hope. The title can be construed with a double meaning.

Based on the musical angle, the lead character is a piano player, the soul could mean rhythm, but I’m only half right. An out-of-body or celestial experience and the essence of a living being are also part of his soul.

While watching the film, I kept ruminating over how lovely and inspirational a film like Soul is during a crushing pandemic. It has heart and magic.

Unfulfilled music teacher Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) finally lands the gig of a lifetime at the best jazz club in town, supporting legendary Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett). But his excitement gets the best of him, and he stumbles into a maintenance hole on a New York City street.

Lying in a coma, Joe enters a fantastical place: The Great Before. There, he teams up with Soul 22 (Tina Fey), and together they find the answers to some of life’s biggest questions while embarking on a journey in the switched bodies of Joe and a therapy cat.

Set in the massive Big Apple itself, the film offers a wealth of hustle, bustle, and life. I adored the setting. The smoky jazz club, with its sultry set design and creative music, made me feel immersed in the wonderful surroundings.

The story itself slightly confused me when Joe arrived in the “Great Beyond” as a soul. Assuming this meant death, I was relieved when he backtracked to the “Great Before” and met with counselors all named Jerry. The counselors, I realized, prepare unborn souls for life with the help of mentor souls.

This didn’t resonate with me as much as other aspects of the film.

Foxx and Fey are fine doing the voices for Joe and 22, respectively, but they are not the highlight either. I never really thought of either of them throughout the duration. There were better aspects to focus on.

Disney/Pixar’s feature film, which features a black central character, is worthy of mention, and it is about time. Joe’s family is black, adding an incredible mother figure and supporting characters of ethnicity to the fold.

The music, the music, the music! This makes Soul as good a film as it is.

Trent Reznor’s collaboration alone made me eager to see it. His creative use of keyboards and partnership with fellow Nine Inch Nails bandmate Atticus Ross provide proper ambiance to the metaphysical sequences.

A hallucinogenic, trance-like musical beat is unique and trippy.

Younger children may be perplexed or bewildered by much of the activity, so I’m not sure I’d recommend it for that demographic. However, music fans and admirers of rich stories with a subtext of life will likely enjoy the experience and the subsequent message that Soul (2020) provides.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Score (won), Best Sound

In the Name of-2013

In the Name of-2013

Director Malgorzata Szumowska, Mateusz Kościukiewicz

Starring Andrzej Chyra

Scott’s Review #1,159

Reviewed July 8, 2021

Grade: B+

In the Name of (2013), not to be confused with In the Name of the Father, a 1993 film starring Daniel Day-Lewis, is a Polish independent LGBTQ+ genre film directed by a female, Malgorzata Szumowska.

I point out the gender only because the subject matter skews heavily towards male homosexuality which is an interesting one for a female to tackle.

Szumowska does so with gusto providing wonderful cinematography and quiet dialogue.

She casts her husband, Mateusz Kościukiewicz, in the central role of an outsider who stirs up the sexual feelings of a priest struggling with his long-repressed sexuality.

If one looks carefully, each character struggles with conflict and self-acceptance in some way, restless and hungry for peace of mind and satisfaction.

We wonder if any of the characters will ever find this.

The priest in question is played by Andrzej Chyra. It’s revealed that Adam joined the House of God at age twenty-one to escape issues he wrestled with concerning his sexuality. He has spent his life running away from his true self.

Now in his forties, he currently leads a rural parish having been transferred from the lively city of Warsaw, and is still tormented by desire. To make matters even more difficult he mentors troubled young men with lots of testosterone.

When Adam attempts to help troubled teen Lukasz (Kościukiewicz), long-suppressed feelings begin to surface as the men grow closer. A townsperson catches wind of possible shenanigans and Adam is transferred yet again to another location. This has happened before. But, will Adam and Lukasz have a chance at happiness if they play their cards right?

The obvious comparison of In the Name of is to Brokeback Mountain (2005) which set the standard and paved the way for many LGBTQ+ films to be made.

All of Adam’s and Lukasz’s dalliances, and there are romantic suggestions, but nothing animalistic is secretive. Both men are repressed but are at different stages of life.

I can’t say In the Name of hits the mark in this regard because the film is less about a male romance than about the characters being unhappy. It’s not until the end of the film that any blossoming develops between Adam and Lukasz.

I wanted more meat between the characters, pun intended but was left knowing almost nothing about Lukasz specifically.

I also yearned for more backstories from three supporting characters. Ewa (Maja Ostaszewska), an attractive local woman, flirts with Adam and the coach on occasion and drinks too much, later regretting her actions.

How does she happen to be in the town and why is she without a man already? Is the coach gay or straight? It is suggested he is gay but this remains unclear.

Finally, Blondi is a bleached blonde troubled boy played by Tomasz Schuchardt. He beds another boy and senses Adam’s sexuality filling Blondi with venom.

I wanted to know more about Blondi.

Despite these slight yearnings for more the film is very good.

Chyra does a terrific acting job in the main role of Adam and easily wins over the audience who will root for his happiness. During a great scene, the typically reserved Adam explodes with self-deprecating rage while on a video call with his sympathetic sister.

He struggles for self-acceptance that many of the LGBTQ+ community can relate to.

I sense that having seen In the Name of when it was originally released in 2013 would have made the experience even more powerful.

By 2021 the cinema world has been saturated with films containing similar story points and religious conflict issues so that appears a commonality rather than originality.

But I’ll never complain about too many LGBTQ+ films being made.

Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and recommend it to anyone seeking a quality character-driven experience.

Rachel Getting Married-2008

Rachel Getting Married-2008

Director Jonathan Demme

Starring Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt

Scott’s Review #1,153

Reviewed June 17, 2021

Grade: A-

Rachel Getting Married (2008) is the film that put Anne Hathaway on the map as a powerful and respected actress. Deserving the heaps of praise put upon her she was congratulated with an Oscar nomination for the role and would win a few years later for Les Miserables (2012).

Hathaway proves that good nuts-and-bolts acting never goes out of style.

Director Jonathan Demme goes for simplicity with his project. The film is a quiet family drama with members gathered for a specific event. As the film progresses we witness deep-seated emotions and history bubble to the surface through terrific scenes exposing quality acting chops by the entire cast.

Pain, truth, and wry humor are explored as a naturalistic approach is possessed. Not all the characters are likable and debatable is if any of them are.

Thankfully, humorous moments are added to lighten the mood.

The screenplay was written by Jenny Lumet, the daughter of famed director Sidney Lumet and granddaughter of Lena Horne.

Filming took place in Stamford, Connecticut, a small city outside of New York City.

The Buchmans, an affluent New England family, prepare for the wedding of their daughter, Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt). Their other daughter, Kym (Anne Hathaway), is permitted to attend the wedding despite being in the middle of a stint at rehab- she’s been there before.

As Kym causes upheaval and drama, Rachel resents her sister, causing family tensions to resurface.

Parents Paul and Abby, played by Bill Irwin and Debra Winger do their best to calm the flames created by the bickering siblings. Unfortunately, tensions begin to erupt between Rachel and Abby and away from Rachel.

Events come to a head on Rachel’s wedding day, hence the title.

Under different circumstances, Rachel Getting Married could have been a standard lifetime television film. A girl with a drug addiction returning to the fold to stir up family drama is hardly a novel idea and has been told many times before in almost every medium.

I even cringed at first when I read the premise.

But, the film feels as fresh and energetic as a new idea. The pacing is the first notice as it moves at a brisk pace and the running time is under two hours. Kym is frenetic acting which also helps the allusion of a faster pace.

A dark secret is quickly revealed. Due to drunkenness, Kym caused the car she was driving to careen off a bridge, killing her younger brother. She has harbored guilt ever since and endured the wrath of her family.

It has made her struggle with addiction even worse.

I don’t think enough praise can be given to Hathaway for quite simply kicking the film’s ass. Nearly destined for wimpy romantic comedies, Kym gives the actress a role she can not only sink her teeth into but infuse with emotion and empathy.

At times the audience will hate Kym and other times will sob along with her.

DeWitt and especially Winger, returning to the cinematic spotlight after a long absence, have plenty to infuse their characters with. Anger, jealousy, and unbridled sympathy are just a few of the emotions their characters experience.

Demme creates an independent film that feels raw and is filled with naturalistic settings and emotions. He takes a basic story and ravages it completely with great acting, handheld cameras that provide a real-life approach, and a story that will leave audiences thinking about the events and perhaps their own lives after the credits roll.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Anne Hathaway

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Film, Best Director-Jonathan Demme, Best Female Lead-Anne Hathaway, Best First Screenplay, Best Supporting Female-Rosemarie DeWitt, Debra Winger

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Director Lasse Hallstrom

Starring Ewing McGregor, Emily Blunt

Scott’s Review #1,152

Reviewed June 15, 2021

Grade: B-

Despite exceptional chemistry between leads Ewing McGregor and Emily Blunt, who were also bankable stars in 2011, the romantic comedy Salmon Fishing in The Yemen (2011) is predictable, dull, and lacks a good identity.

It is the feel-good film of the year and that is not meant as a compliment.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s above par as compared to the usual drivel emerging from one of my least favorite genres, the rom-com, but it should offer more than the by-the-numbers plot it churns out.

Someone either felt lazy or was instructed to create a banal film.

With good actors and fabulous locales, I expected more edge from Swedish director, Lass Hallstrom. But, alas, we get something merely adequate.

Doctor Alfred Jones (McGregor) is a fisheries scientist who one day receives an unusual request from a strong businesswoman named Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt). She wants his help in fulfilling a request from a wealthy sheik played by Amr Waked who wants to bring sport fishing to Yemen.

Jones declines at first, but when the British prime minister’s spokeswoman (Kristin Scott Thomas) latches on to the project as a way to improve Middle East relations, he joins in.

Romance blooms as Jones and Harriet work to make the sheik’s dream come true.

If this brief synopsis sounds like it’s taken from a novel that’s because it is and it is as straightforward as you can imagine. The film is based on a 2007 novel which must have been better than the film.

Let’s be fair and clear. McGregor and Blunt are as good as they can be with the material they are given and they succeed in bringing some life to the big screen. The trouble is there isn’t very far to go with their characters. Harriet is a businesswoman with a task at hand. Alfred is a handsome doctor with something she needs. Did I mention he’s a doctor?

Harriet’s romantic interest is hardly a surprise and Hallstrom puts nary any real obstacles in their path towards getting together.

The fact that early in the film Harriet is dating British Special Forces Captain Robert Meyers played by Tom Mison and Alfred is married to a woman named Mary (Rachael Stirling) is laughable after Robert is quickly killed off and Mary is sent away to Geneva for a conference.

Predictably, Alfred and Mary realize their marriage is over.

But wait, there’s more! Robert resurfaces from the dead alive and well. Harriet struggles with her emotions and quickly realizes that her feelings for him have changed leaving her to be with Alfred.

The setup for Harriet and Alfred is as predictable as what peanut butter and jelly sandwiches will taste like.

Poor Kristin Scott Thomas, a fantastic actor is reduced to playing the cliched role of Public Relations Patricia Maxwell. She straightforwardly plays her as aggressive, impatient, and bitchy. The performance doesn’t work well.

Second, to the sweetness of McGregor and Blunt, the locales are thankfully plentiful. Visits to London, Scotland, and Morocco are blessed treats.

A silly subplot of the salmon being removed from British rivers and something about farming goes nowhere and is not worth the effort to go into. Suffice it to say it does little for the film or as a companion to the main plot. The only thing viewers should focus on is Harriet and Alfred’s romantic involvement.

I only recommend Salmon Fishing in The Yemen (2011) for those fans of either McGregor or Blunt or who yearn to escape to a fantasy world with a happily ever after ending.

If one enjoys fishing or fly-fishing (is there a difference?) that may be enough cause to give the film a twirl too.

Otherwise, the film offers nothing that hasn’t been seen countless times before. By the conclusion of the film, I felt weary and bored for so much unchartered potential left on the cutting room floor….or somewhere else.

Take Shelter-2011

Take Shelter-2011

Director Jeff Nichols

Starring Michael Shannon, Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #1,150

Reviewed June 9, 2021

Grade: B+

Michael Shannon is a great actor. Appearing mostly in supporting roles and breaking out big time in 2008’s Revolutionary Road he gets the lead in Take Shelter (2011) and is more than up to the task of creating a great character.

The ambivalence and uncertainty his character feels are monumental to the enjoyment of the film.

It’s a slow burn and an unsatisfying payoff but I mean that with positive praise.

The plot is set in a small rural town in Ohio.

Curtis LaForche (Shannon) is a working-class husband, father, and provider to his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and young daughter Hannah. Curtis begins to have scary apocalyptic dreams which he keeps from his family.

He decides to build a storm shelter in his backyard which raises concerns for Samantha. His strange behavior creates a strain on his family. As he builds the shelter, Curtis is afraid of his dreams, or rather, afraid that they are a premonition and will come true.

Is he going crazy, or will his dreams become a devastating reality?

Curtis, Samantha, and the entire audience will ponder this note throughout the film.

An interesting add-on is that Hannah is deaf so the way her parents embrace and accept her disability is a nice nod to the inclusiveness of people with disabilities.

Take Shelter is delightful to revisit and discuss ten years following its release. In 2011, both Shannon and Chastain were up-and-coming stars and only barely on the cusp of A-list status so it’s fun to see them in an independent film that showcases their acting chops.

They would grow to be big stars and flourish their talents in many other roles so it’s fun to see them in early-career performances.

Shannon is careful not to outshine Chastain, but Curtis’s focal point is what is going on internally. His conflict is palpable and written all over his face in quiet scene after quiet scene after quiet scene of his gazing at the luminous skies.

He wonders what is coming next.

His dreams, hallucinations, and auditory experiences involving swarms of blackbirds are creepy and well-made on a small budget. A clue is when it is revealed that Curtis’s mother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia at roughly the same age that Curtis is.

A drained Curtis seeks counseling but still cannot shake his feelings of impending doom. I felt completely empathetic to his plight and never saw Curtis as crazy or out of control. He possesses controlled restrain.

Director Jeff Nichols does an exceptional job of making the film largely quiet and peaceful with a gnawing and foreboding dread just as the expected apocalypse might come upon the lonely town.

Take Shelter is the debut by Nichols who followed up this gem with two other low-key but critically acclaimed films Mud (2012) and Loving (2016). He knows how to get to the core of his character’s deepest thoughts and feelings.

He wrote each of these works and received praise for fine writing.

The film is about the relationship between the characters and the possibility that Curtis is going insane. I’m not sure Take Shelter provides a neatly wrapped conclusion but boy is it an edge-of-your-seat thrill. And why does it need to?

Shannon’s best scene occurs at a Lions Club community event. With most of the town gathered in the hall for a delicious dinner of pot luck dishes things go bad when Curtis loses his temper and verbally berates the townspeople. He warns them that they are unprepared for the doom.

They look at him as if he belongs in a padded cell and Shannon’s explosion is frightening and frighteningly good.

As good as Shannon is, Chastain must not be dismissed. She barely holds it together as a woman with a special needs child and an unbalanced husband. When they lose their health insurance she nearly comes apart at the seams.

I love the ending because Nichols leaves the truth of reality a mystery to the audience. This may dissatisfy some but I thought it’s how Take Shelter should be. Unclear, just like the thoughts of its main character.

Take Shelter (2011) succeeds with a powerhouse performance by its star Michael Shannon, wonderful direction, and a refined imbalance.

The quiet and thoughtful cinema fan will endear the most to this film.

Ugetsu-1953

Ugetsu-1953

Director Kenji Mizoguchi

Starring Masayuki Mori, Machiko Kyo

Scott’s Review #1,147

Reviewed May 31, 2021

Grade: A

Kenji Mizoguchi, who directed the brave Japanese masterpiece Ugetsu (1953), successfully brought Eastern cinema to Western audiences when the film was discovered. The result is a groundbreaking ghost story that gorgeously fuses reality with the supernatural.

It’s not always clear what is going on, but in only the best of ways. It’s like being inside a dream.

The notice is long overdue, as Mizoguchi has been making films since the 1920s! But his forever stamp on cinema is worth the wait, and Ugetsu is a timeless treasure.

Ugetsu is not the most straightforward plot to follow, but that is fine because its brilliance lies in other areas. Like every area, to be precise.

The cinematography, the mix of reality and the supernatural, the tone, the questioning messages, and the character conflict all add muscle.

It’s cinema to be experienced and mesmerized by. Haunting, sad, and stoic, it explores themes such as war, family, and forbidden relationships.

Its cultural exploration is essential, and it teaches Japanese customs. This film taught me what great cinema is—not necessarily linear or explained, but drenched with brilliance, thoughtfulness, and art. I was able to escape the confines of traditionally constructed films, and it was an awakening in pleasure and creativity.

The lesson learned is that cinema knows no boundaries, and the film helped open my eyes to types and styles of films that may be deemed onerous.

Drawing its plot, particularly from Ueda’s tales “The House in the Thicket” and “The Lust of the White Serpent,” the film is set in Azuchi–Momoyama period Japan (1573–1600). Mizoguchi was fascinated and inspired by these fables and the supernatural style from the long-ago, powerful, and classic stories.

A peasant farmer and potter, Genjūrō (Masayuki Mori) leaves his wife and young son behind during the civil war and is seduced by a spirit that threatens his life. He finds himself at a Kutsuki mansion to sell his pottery.

The mansion is run by fabulous Lady Wakasa (Machiko Kyo), who seduces him and requests that he marry her.

But is Lady Wakasa real or a ghost from the past? She harbors a horrific secret.

A subplot involves Genjūrō’s friend, Tōbei (Eitaro Ozawa), who dreams of becoming a great samurai and chases this goal at the unintended expense of his wife. He steals the head of a well-known general and is rewarded with shiny armor. Eager to tell his wife, he finds her working at a local brothel.

The costumes specifically deserve a shout-out. Drenched in Japanese drawings and colors, they are exquisite to the eye despite Ugetsu being a black-and-white film. The apparent art looks better without color adding mystique.

My favorite visual is when two couples drift along in a boat on a tremendous lake. Amid fog and haze, the scene is gloomy yet magnificent, offering lush Japanese geography. It’s a breathtaking visual with a fabulous texture and tone that, once again, is aided by black-and-white filmmaking.

The ghost story also is aided by the black and white cinematography. Isn’t everything? The scenes seem to scroll by in a fusion of live-action and gorgeous landscapes.

It is up for debate what is reality and what is not, which adds to the confusion and overall beauty.

The humanity and moral conflict the two main characters face are hearty and worthy of discussion. They strive for great success and riches but live in a cruel world.

I found the men to be heroes. Ugetsu is as much a character study as it is an art film.

Ugetsu (1953) is a must-see for film lovers and those intrigued by other cultures. If it is not already, it should appear on lists of superior films shown at film schools.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design, Black and White

Yentl-1983

Yentl-1983

Director Barbra Streisand

Starring Barbra Streisand, Mandy Patinkin

Scott’s Review #1,144

Reviewed May 20, 2021

Grade: B+

Feeling slightly dated nowadays, perhaps for the year it was made, Yentl (1983) is nonetheless a very good watch if only for Barbra’s performance, in multiple ways, alone.

Who else could I be talking about other than superstar Barbra Streisand?

Astounding is that she also directed the film, rare for a female to direct in those days. Even circa 2021, there have only been two women to win the coveted Best Director Oscar prize.

Mind-blowing. Streisand was snubbed in this category and was understandably miffed.

But I’ll get down from my soapbox.

Streisand plays the title role. Yentl is a bookish girl and daughter of a respected Talmud teacher who instructs her although she is female and not male. This is forbidden in their culture.

Her father dies leaving Yentl to her own devices and determinations.

She disguises herself as a boy to gain entry to a yeshiva and meets Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin), who she becomes fascinated by. But he only has eyes for Hadass (Amy Irving) whom he is supposed to marry.

This results in a triangle of sorts but not in the traditional sense. Hadass develops feelings for Anshel (really Streisand as Yentl in drag). After they marry (unconsummated) Anshel falls in love with Avigdor.

This may sound like a comedy rather than drama and it does contain a bit of each but the romantic interludes, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations are not the best parts of the film.

The main themes of faith and romance are center stage. Streisand may have had feminism on her mind with the film but I didn’t find this a major point except for Yentl refusing to marry a man.

She pretends to be a boy because females are repressed in the religion. A real win would have been Yentl embracing faith as she is, but for 1983 the message isn’t a bad one.

Still, we are supposed to want Yentl and Avigdor to live happily ever after but I never felt very much of a connection to the couple.

The best parts of Yentl are the musical score and the songs the audience is treated to. The highlight is the emotionally charged “Papa, Can You Hear Me?” which is a gorgeous moment for Yentl.

Yentl leaves Europe on a boat bound for the United States, where she hopes to lead a life with more freedom. With a smile on her face, she rises above and into a new day.

It’s a dynamic singing performance and rises the film above where it would have been without the number. It’s like the perfect culminating Streisand moment.

The romantic moments are unfulfilling and predictable, but the film is about Streisand and Streisand alone. As good as Patinkin and Irving are they take a backseat to the illustrious star. We never even get to see Patinkin sing.

I’m okay with this. I watched Yentl (1983) for the enormous talents of its star. Her singing, acting, and directing all make the film a worthwhile and engaging experience.

It’s not a great film and other Streisand films are better- I’m thinking of Funny Girl (1968) and Hello, Dolly (1969), but it’s way above average.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Amy Irving, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“Papa, Can You Hear Me?”, “The Way He Makes Me Feel”

Fame-1980

Fame-1980

Director Alan Parker

Starring Irene Cara, Paul McCrane, Maureen Teefy

Scott’s Review #1,143

Reviewed May 18, 2021

Grade: A-

Fame (1980) is a teen high school musical drama centering around the trials and tribulations of gifted New York City kids. Anyone with musical, theatrical, or dance talent can relate to the film.

The rest of us can merely live vicariously through these kids and the potential careers that lie ahead of them wishing we had half of their talent and drive.

This is not your standard musical from the 1950s or 1960s and the pace is quite frenetic. Fasten your seatbelts because there is a lot packed in.

The film oozes with an upbeat musical score and the flavor of New York City, quite gritty and dangerous circa 1980. The now-legendary musical numbers where the cast dances together with faculty and strangers alike atop Manhattan taxi cabs are silly beyond belief but the title song by star Irene Cara is a danceable and hummable classic.

These scenes offset the muscular dramatic scenes with lightness and comedy, but in another way, they diminish the credibility of the serious moments.

Events get off to a chaotic start as we witness a mass of teenagers frenetically scrambling to remember audition lyrics and dance numbers as they vie for entry into the High School of Performing Arts, with free admission for only the cream of the crop.

The film chronicles the lucky lives from their auditions to their freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years.

The main group features Montgomery MacNeil (Paul McCrane), a closeted gay male; Doris Finsecker (Maureen Teefy), a shy Jewish girl; Ralph Garci (Barry Miller), and Bruno Martelli (Lee Curreri) an aspiring keyboardist whose electronic equipment horrifies the conservative music teachers.

They align with Lisa Monroe (Laura Dean), Coco Hernandez (Irene Cara), and Leroy Johnson (Gene Anthony Ray) a gifted dancer who cannot read.

All have interesting backstories or problems to work through during their four years in school and this is the main appeal of the film. The dance numbers, of course, are fabulous too.

I immediately became enamored with sensitive Doris, whose mother’s (Tresa Hughes) emotions elicit viewer emotion simply with her own emotions. Her passion for her daughter and her talent is infectious.

Alan Parker, who directs Fame, offers extremely heavy topics that the students must face. It’s not all fun and dance. The youngsters grapple with issues such as homosexuality, abortion, interracial dating, class systems, attempted suicide, and illiteracy.

Their pain is readily offered to audiences who become entangled in their worlds.

A negative is that as much as the issues are brought to the forefront, the sheer number of them results in few resolutions.

On top of their unique struggles, the students must deal with the mundane pressures of adolescence like homework, heartbreak, and rejection. Their talent doesn’t make them any more special than anyone else in the growing-up department.

My favorite moments in Fame are the quiet ones. When Doris and Montgomery share a chat on the stairs that skirts around the talk of his absent mother I thought what a delightful couple they would make. Montgomery’s repressed sexuality slowly surfaces while Doris develops a crush on an older popular boy.

As if the heavy topics eventually subside, they don’t. As the student’s age and start to plan careers, Coco is lured by a man claiming to be a director only to realize he is a porn film “director”. He coaxes her into taking off her shirt and photographs her sobbing.

The scene is heartbreaking in its power.

The atmosphere of Fame also works well. There is a strong and suffocating feeling of heat and humidity. Anyone who has spent time in New York City during the summer months knows the stench and thickness of the stuffy weather.

I got the impression the school had no air conditioning as the running perspiration of the music teacher is evidence of.

A coming-of-age film that delivers hard-hitting messages only offset by the climactic dance-celebration numbers, Fame (1980) is a winner and gives teen angst its due.

This film ages well and stands the test of time.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“Fame” (won), Out Here on My Own”, Best Film Editing, Best Sound

Never Rarely Sometimes Always-2020

Never Rarely Sometimes Always-2020

Director Eliza Hittman

Starring Sidney Flanigan, Talia Ryder

Scott’s Review #1,142

Reviewed May 14, 2021

Grade: A

I’ll confess that a teen drama centered on abortion involving conflicted female characters wouldn’t be the first film I’d sit down and watch. Done before and not my demographic I assumed little in common with the characters.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020) blew me away and taught me a valuable lesson- never judge a film by its synopsis.

The film only entered my radar because of positive buzz and a handful of independent film awards. Hopefully, this recognition catapults the director and actresses to other excellent projects.

It’s not that director Eliza Hittman does anything notably different with the vehicle on the surface. I joke slightly because she takes a standard story and hits it out of the ballpark so that even us middle-aged folks with no kids can remain engaged.

Anyone can watch the film as it compels completely, and I was enamored from scene one.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, Never Rarely Sometimes Always doesn’t get on a soapbox about whether abortion is right or wrong. It’s not about that, though I can guess Hittman’s likely position on the topic.

Instead, it gives a fresh, raw, and realistic depiction of what it’s like for a seventeen-year-old girl to be scared and pregnant and, in some parts of the United States, unable to get proper guidance or treatment.

This could shape her whole life.

The kicker is that one doesn’t necessarily need to live in the middle of nowhere for this to occur. This note shocked me and, quite frankly, frightened me.

Faced with an unintended pregnancy and a lack of local support, Autumn (Sidney Flanigan) and her cousin, Skylar (Talia Ryder), travel from suburban Pennsylvania across state lines to New York City on a challenging journey of friendship, compassion, and a bit of adventure.

Autumn is brooding and upset, yet holds it mostly together. She performs beautifully at a high school pep rally despite being snickered at by a rude boy in the audience. Afterward, her family goes for pizza and soda to celebrate, whereas her stepfather is unable to praise Autumn.

The tension between Autumn and her stepfather is very ambiguous. Could he be the father of the boy she presumably dated and now wants nothing to do with?

We realize that the males in Autumn’s life pretty much suck after her boss disgustingly kisses her hand as a daily ritual.

She goes to a discreet mom-and-pop clinic where she learns she is pregnant. The woman in charge callously shows Autumn horrific abortion videos when she suspects Autumn might be flirting with the idea of getting one.

Autumn and Skylar realize they must flee their one-horse town for the hustle and bustle and better medical care provided by New York City. They steal cash from their job and take a bus.

This is the point where the film takes off. As the girls arrived at the chaotic Port of Authority bus terminal, I felt like I was on the journey with them. They arrive at a clinic and meet a kind receptionist and technician who tell her she is sixteen weeks pregnant instead of the ten weeks she thought she was.

Her procedure will take two days.

Where will they stay? What will they eat? The procedure is costly, so how will they pay for the bus fare home? A boy they meet on the bus reappears and maybe their savior, but at what price?

These are some of the questions I, as the viewer, was thinking throughout the experience, just as Autumn and Skylar were.

The most powerful scene occurs when Autumn receives question after question from the technician, which is the crux of the title of the film. We sadly realize that Autumn has faced some sexual abuse before.

The film does not reveal precisely what happened, which is clever and makes the scene more powerful.

Never Rarely Sometimes Never is a slow-moving vehicle, but because of the outstanding acting talents of Flanigan and Ryder, I was wholly engaged, hooked, and suckered. I fell in love with these characters, and the entirety of the film feels incredibly authentic.

A film that grapples with despair, hope, fear, journey, friendship, and much more than its main storyline offers, Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020) is a brave film that hits a home run.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Director-Eliza Hittman, Best Female Lead-Sidney Flanigan, Best Supporting Female-Talia Ryder, Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing

Bernice Bobs Her Hair-1976

Bernice Bobs Her Hair-1976

Director Joan Micklin Silver

Starring Shelley DuVall, Veronica Cartwright 

Scott’s Review #1,141

Reviewed May 12, 2021

Grade: B+

Much transpires within Bernice Bobs Her Hair (1976), a short film based on a short story by famed author F. Scott Fitzgerald.

For the non-literary crowd, Fitzgerald penned the worldly The Great Gatsby, a treasured story from the 1920s Long Island, New York setting.

The story was made into television production in 1976 for PBS for The American Short Story.

Bernice Bobs Her Hair is a quieter story than Gatsby, and more peculiar, resulting in a fabulous tale of revenge with a similar time of 1920, the cusp of the American Jazz Age.

The setting is presumed to be Long Island or Westchester County, New York though that’s never confirmed.

Regardless, our main character, Bernice (Shelley DuVall) hails from Wisconsin and comes to visit family.

The visit isn’t exactly peaches and cream as you can imagine.

The bitchy and sophisticated Marjorie (Veronica Cartwright), Bernice’s cousin, pities her for being awkward and unlikable, far inferior to the elitist company that Marjorie keeps. She rolls up her sleeves and becomes determined to shape Bernice into a sophisticated vixen, molding her into a girl who gets what she wants.

The idea ends up biting her in the ass.

Bernice, mocked for being quiet and dull, blossoms into a brave young woman, titillated by the attention of the society boys. She delights in having her pick of the litter and daringly proclaims to have her hair bobbed in a few days, to the shock and chagrin of the rich group of friends.

Would a young woman ever dare to do something so drastic for attention? Hell, she’ll have to go to a barber and be sheared!

Marjorie’s jealousy increases as Bernice’s confidence soars leading to a dramatic and satisfying conclusion.

DuVall is delightful in the role. The actress, very unconventional looking, appears the prettiest I’ve ever seen her, even when she plays dowdy. Telling so much with her wide-eyed and expression-filled eyes, she seduced me into her world of mystique and wonderment. DuVall has a charisma all her own and fascinates in any film she appears in.

Not to be overlooked, Veronica Cartwright, possesses Marjorie with fury and pizazz, also doing so much with her trademark blue eyes. The actresses work so well together as they eventually play a seductive game of will and wit.

For the boys, there are a few love interests to note. I loved seeing Bud Cort, struggling for work after his groundbreaking role in 1971’s Harold & Maude, appear in the short film. Insecure, he is nonetheless smitten with Bernice, just as Draycott Deyo (Patrick Byrne) is.

Other handsome suitors like Mark La Mura, of daytime television fame, appear.

The costumes and sets are lavish and fitting to the 1920s which enhanced my enjoyment. The hot summer setting also infuses the film with smoldering and rigid tension enhancing the experience. There is nothing like escaping into the past in style and enchantment.

The final revenge is extremely fulfilling as the classes clash. The socially awkward Bernice conquers the WASP’y Marjorie like a plain Jane would a beautiful evil princess. It’s quite satisfying.

The entire experience of Bernice Bobs Her Hair (1976) is pleasing and compelling. The kicker is when Bernice does indeed ‘bob her hair’ she looks amazing and trendy for the decade to follow. She gets her just desserts in more ways than one and the audience cheers her to victory!

The Bible: In the Beginning-1966

The Bible: In the Beginning-1966

Director John Huston

Starring George C. Scott, Ava Gardner, Richard Harris

Scott’s Review #1,139

Reviewed May 5, 2021

Grade: A-

An epic of grand proportions that nearly rivals the magic cinematography of Lawrence of Arabia (1963), The Bible: In The Beginning (1966) embraces its definition of majestic, magnificent, and sweeping.

The story follows the chronological telling of The Bible book, beginning with Adam & Eve.

It is important to remember that one need not be Catholic, Christian, or of any religious persuasion to enjoy the film’s rapturous beauty.

The pious and non-believers alike can enjoy the experience. There is a hint of the unbelievable and suspension of disbelief in some of the stories gracing director John Huston’s “Good Book.”

He also narrates some of the stories and appears as Noah.

Nobody is mocked for their beliefs, and the film is a straight-ahead interpretation of the first twenty-two chapters of the Book of Genesis, covering the stories from Creation and Adam and Eve to Isaac’s binding.

Abraham (George C. Scott) and Sarah (Ava Gardner) are heavily featured.

The film focuses on five main sections: Creation, Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, Noah’s Ark, and Abraham’s story. Some other stories are given less screen time and attention but are featured.

Speaking of Adam and Eve (Michael Parks and Ulla Bergyrd), they kick off the action with the fateful decision to pick and taste the luscious fruits dangling before their eyes as the Serpent fiendishly looks on. God punishes Adam and Eve for their temptations, setting off a common theme throughout the film and, indeed, the excellent book: resisting pleasures of the flesh and being penalized for caving into desires.

Aod is happy when people are unfulfilled and joyless. Sadly, some have taken this too seriously.

We could debate religion until the cows come home, and many have, but I became aware of a hint of ridicule or at least intense questioning on the part of Huston.

He creates scenes that most would deem ridiculous if not written in the words of the Bible. Again, Huston is careful not to mock anyone, shrouding any antics in good, stylized 1960s film, but a woman being turned into a pillar of salt for looking at the sky could be found amusing.

Admittedly, some chapters are better than others.

The trials and tribulations of Abraham and Sarah get off to a slow start when Abraham and company traverse miles and miles of the lonely desert so much that I was left wondering if they were on the road to nowhere.

Finally, the action takes off as Sarah realizes she is barren, which makes her maid conceive a child with Abraham. I never knew this saga had so much in common with the Hulu hit The Handmaid’s Tale, but the similarities are eerie and uncanny.

Noah and his Ark is also an excellent sequence and brings more humor than necessary, but I guess this is to counterbalance more severe stories. Noah adores animals, especially cats and lions, and treats them beautifully, choosing to save and live harmoniously with the creatures. They love him. The flooding scenes related to this chapter are exquisite and adventurous.

The film depicts God as a bit of a son of a bitch as he calls Abraham to lead his only son to a high mountain and sacrifice him. This tests Abraham’s will and is thoughtful.

If many of the actors look Italian, it’s because they do. Pupella Maggio, famous for her role in Fellini’s Amarcord (1973), plays Noah’s wife.

Much of the film was shot in and around the Italian city of Rome.

Huston not only narrates some of the sections but appears as Noah himself!

The Bible: In the Beginning (1966) is exquisite and pleasing cinematically. Many fans of religious cinema will prefer the more conventional The Ten Commandments (1956) to this one. While slow at times, by the conclusion, the film has aged like a fine wine and had me enthralled and appreciative of its achievements.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Music Score

The Cincinnati Kid-1965

The Cincinnati Kid-1965

Director Norman Jewison

Starring Steve McQueen, Karl Malden

Scott’s Review #1,138

Reviewed April 29, 2021

Grade: B

I suppose anyone really into poker playing or similar casino games might be partial to The Cincinnati Kid (1965), especially if they are a die-hard Steve McQueen fan.

But for those with no interest in the ‘sport’ and who think that McQueen is a royal douche who received a modicum of film success, the film is a marginally decent effort.

For those who don’t know, Steve McQueen, the actor and not the British filmmaker, was nicknamed the “King of Cool” and played the anti-hero in most of his films.

His heyday was from the mid-1960s through the early 1970s, and he garnered success by repeatedly playing the same role. He was notorious for insisting his hair was perfect, being selfish, and being a royal prick.

He died of cancer in 1980.

An earlier film of his, The Cincinnati Kid (1965), is set in Depression-era New Orleans, though the film’s severe 1960s look makes it almost impossible to determine that it’s not the 1960s.

Eric Stoner (Steve McQueen) is a cocky poker player nicknamed the Cincinnati Kid who challenges longtime champ Lancey “The Man” Howard (Edward G. Robinson) to a showdown at the table, where a war of persistence and luck ensues.

To add energy, Rip Torn is cast as Slade, a villainous man who seeks revenge against Howard and tries to help Stoner best him.

In addition to the inevitable final poker game, Stoner is immersed in a romance with good girl Christian Rudd (Tuesday Weld) as he tries unsuccessfully to fend off the seductive advances of his best friend Shooter’s (Karl Malden) girlfriend (Ann-Margret), who is also a close friend of Christian.

Romance and double-dealing are in the air in this film.

The main draw is McQueen because he is charismatic and carries the by-the-numbers film. The story point appears to be a battle between youth (Stoner) and seasoned wisdom (Howard), but other than the fantastic finale involving (what else!) a tense game of cards, I didn’t find the primary story experience all too interesting.

There are other impressive aspects, however, such as the trimmings.

Realistic is how the actors handle the playing cards, speak the game terminology, and smoke a fat cigar, adding some good authenticity to the film. The New Orleans flavor provides some culture, and many black actors appear in minor roles that at least give some representation of the actual southern city.

Despite the talented cast, only McQueen shines.

Weld and Ann-Margret are incredibly one-note characters and opposites (good girl and bad girl) with little development. Malden is the moral compass of the film but otherwise has little importance to do.

Interestingly, Norman Jewison replaced original director Sam Peckinpah shortly after filming began. He described The Cincinnati Kid as his “ugly duckling” film that enabled him to transition from the light films he previously made and take on more serious films and subjects.

Cinema lovers know he directed the 1971s Fiddler on the Roof, a completely different film.

I wonder if Jewison’s heart was in this film or if he did the best he could with a subject that was not close to his heart.

Knowing Peckinpah’s brilliant work, I wonder if he would have made The Cincinnati Kid darker and more violent.

One scene that turns my stomach is a gruesome and violent cock-fighting scene. Any animal cruelty makes my blood boil, so I turned my head and refused to watch the scene or the group of merrymakers sitting around cheering the bloodbath.

The Cincinnati Kid (1965) is an enjoyable watch for poker lovers or fans of Steve McQueen. It is also not bad for casual fans.

Though I have not seen it, I understand that The Hustler (1961) is a similar-themed and better-made film.

The Trial of the Chicago 7-2020

The Trial of the Chicago 7-2020

Director Aaron Sorkin

Starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Scott’s Review #1,136

Reviewed April 26, 2021

Grade: B+

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) is a Hollywood film with an important message. It’s conventional and explores a historic episode of great importance, and the story is told well with many liberties taken for effect.

Director Aaron Sorkin sticks to a familiar formula, peppering humor with the standard heavy drama, and creates a film that will appeal to mainstream audiences. He was rewarded with several Oscar nominations for the film.

It’s a crowdpleaser first and foremost.

I would have been bothered more by the traditional approach had the subject matter not been so weighty or not presented in a left-leaning way, which it was.

Solidly anti-war, this made the film more powerful and meaningful, though some of the comedic elements seemed silly and trite, and added to lighten the mood.

The period is 1969, though the main subject at hand occurs in 1968, so there is much back and forth. After antiwar activists clash with police and National Guardsmen at the important 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, violence erupts.

Charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot, seven of the protestors are put on trial. The charges are controversial because a new president, Richard Nixon, has just been elected, and a revenge-seeking Attorney General lusts for an example to be made of them.

The casting is tremendous.

John Doman is fabulous in the quick role of the evil Attorney General John Mitchell (historians know that he was later a convicted criminal), and Frank Langella makes Judge Julius Hoffman into the asshole he was.

I’ve never been as impressed with Sacha Baron Cohen (or rather, this is the first time I’ve been impressed) as he steamrolls into the role of Abbie Hoffman, a social and political activist.

Eddie Redmayne, John Carroll Lynch, Mark Rylance, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt also deserve praise as either a member of the seven or lawyers for either side.

Whether or not specific accuracy is achieved is not top of mind for me. The Trial of the Chicago 7 provides a historical account of the events that unfolded the night of the riots and the subsequent courtroom proceedings the following year. I’m okay with a few exaggerations for cinema’s sake.

The product is a safe and glossy affair and incredibly slick to the eyes.

The editing is fantastic. Snippets of the real Chicago riots of 1968 are interspersed with the created scenes, creating a sound effect through the back and forth. But before this, real-life comments from Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy kick off the action. Both assassinated, their existence is essential to witness before the point at which the film is ever made.

Justice is not always served. Sorkin’s point in including the sequences seems to hit home that there are good politicians out there fighting for truth and fairness.

My favorite scene is the final one. At the end of the trial, Hayden (Redmayne) is given a chance to make a case for a lenient sentence. However, over Judge Hoffman’s objections, Hayden uses his closing remarks to name the 4,752 soldiers who were killed in the Vietnam War since the trial began.

This act prompts many in the court to stand and cheer. Viewers will as well.

The main problem that gnawed at me is the same concern I had when I realized that Sorkin was at the director’s helm. He is a dazzling screenwriter, making the dialogue crisp and rich with intelligence.

But, known for television successes such as The West Wing (1999-2006) and Sports Night (1998-2000), this causes The Trial of the Chicago 7 to look like a made-for-television production versus a raw film experience.

I realize that Sorkin will likely never be a film auteur. Sorkin is the reason that The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a B+ film and not an A film.

The late 1960s were a prominent and sometimes tragic time in United States history. The Trial of the Chicago 7 delves into a pivotal event where several were railroaded and punished for something they did not do.

The film makes sure that the railroaders get their just desserts, and that’s fun to see.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Sacha Baron Cohen, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Original Song-“Hear My Voice”

Zero Dark Thirty-2012

Zero Dark Thirty-2012

Director Kathryn Bigelow

Starring Jessica Chastain

Scott’s Review #1,133

Reviewed April 14, 2021

Grade: A-

Director Kathryn Bigelow, not far removed from her Oscar win for The Hurt Locker (2008), returns with a similar style of film centering around war and more specifically about the emotional tolls and psychological effects from not just the battlefields but from dangerous missions.

The main character suffers from many conflicts and inevitably the viewer will as well.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) is unique for the genre by having a female in the lead role and star Jessica Chastain is front and center and terrific.

She is calm, restrained, and in control. She is tough to rattle and a powerful and inspirational character to be admired.

Chastain exudes cool in the face of danger.

Chastain does have a brilliant emotional scene at the end of the film. Her character, Maya, boards a military transport back to the U.S., as the sole passenger. She is asked where she wants to go and begins to cry. The emotion finally gets the better of her as it would to anyone.

The film is not all Chastain’s to brag about and there is little wrong with the film.

Beautifully directed, Bigelow layers her film with enough tension and magnificence to enshroud the moral questions viewers will ask, specifically about torture.

It’s somewhat fictionalized, and in fact, Chastain’s character is made up, but Zero Dark Thirty is a gem nonetheless.

But we also know the events happened.

The film starts incredibly well and immediately grabs the viewer’s attention with a brilliant first scene. Amidst a dark screen and soundtrack of actual calls made to the 911 operator from inside the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, the scene is about as powerful an opening as a film can have and bravely sets the stage for what follows.

These include many scenes of Arab detainees being interrogated (that is, tortured) for information about Al Qaeda. Is this justified or unnecessary abuse?

The viewer is immediately saddened and in tears and conflicted about whether the torture is justified having just heard the 911 calls.

I know I was.

From there, the viewer also is told a summary story putting the pieces of the first scene together.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden becomes one of the most wanted men on the planet. The worldwide manhunt for the terrorist leader occupies the resources and attention of two U.S. presidential administrations.

This is the crux of the film and the story told.

Ultimately, it is the work of a dedicated female operative  (Chastain) that proves instrumental in finally locating bin Laden. In May 2011, Navy SEALs launched a nighttime strike, killing bin Laden in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

We all know this but troubling is the use of torture. I keep coming back to this point.

I think what I like most about the film besides the riveting pacing, action sequences, and psychological appeal is the controversy that surrounds it.

The fact that it ruffled feathers at the CIA and in Congress about whether the info was leaked to the filmmakers makes me think that at least some of it is based on facts, despite what other reviewers (likely with a strong political bias) might claim to the contrary.

But as a political junkie that’s just my belief.

The film’s reproduction of enhanced interrogation techniques is brutal. Some critics, in light of the interrogations being depicted as gaining reliable, useful, and accurate information, considered the scenes pro-torture propaganda.

Acting CIA director Michael Morell felt the film created the false impression that torture was key to finding bin, Laden. Others described it as an anti-torture exposure of interrogation practices.

I guess we may never know the truth. But the film compels and provokes feeling.

Bigelow is at the top of her game with Zero Dark Thirty (2012) crafting a genre film (the war one) way too often told from only a masculine “us versus them” mentality and leaving behind the fascinating nuances that can make the genre a more interesting and less one-note one.

The masterful director does just that and makes us think, ponder, and squirm uneasily.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Actress-Jessica Chastain, Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Film Editing

Year of the Dog-2007

Year of the Dog-2007

Director Mike White

Starring Molly Shannon, John C. Reilly

Scott’s Review #1,131

Reviewed April 9, 2021

Grade: B-

Comedienne, Molly Shannon stars in Year of the Dog (2007), a quirky independent film that can be classified as a hybrid of the comedy and drama genres.

It’s peculiar, sometimes being very creative and nuanced while other times feeling generic and clichéd. Somehow it’s not predictable either- a plus.

It’s not the cute, sentimental film the premise might lead one to believe and at times it’s downright dark and depressing.

A story centering around dogs seems pretty cool but it usually conjures up a pitifully dreary family-style affair with a husband, wife, two cookie-cutter kids (a boy and girl naturally), and some story and drama involving the family pet. And, of course, a happy ending.

Thankfully, Year of the Dog bears little resemblance to that type of film.

While it could have been more cohesive and less messy, the film deals with pet death in the most interesting ways and the effort is there. While it’s not a downer it’s not cheery either.

After her beloved beagle, Pencil dies unexpectedly when she lets it stay outside all night, an administrative assistant named Peggy (Shannon) strives to find ways to fill the void in her life while blaming herself for his death.

She becomes lonely and despondent, finally bringing in treats for her co-workers and fussing over other people’s kids. An ill-advised love affair with a gun fanatic (John C. Reilly) leads to more misery causing Peggy to go off the deep end and change her life completely.

Shannon, unsurprisingly, is the best part of the film, though she doesn’t quite cut it as the lead. She is cast perfectly as the odd-ball secretary with no life outside of her pet dog, but isn’t she better as the interesting sidekick?

It’s tough to imagine another actress being as believable in the part and her comic timing is on fire. The dramatic parts are a bit of a stretch and I like her in comedic situations better.

The supporting characters are where Year of the Dog lacks. None of them are very interesting.

Laura Dern and Regina King are reduced to caricature types as the loyal best friend, Layla, and the cold sister-in-law, Bret, respectively. Layla is only interested in finding romance for lonely Peggy while Bret barely notices Peggy’s suffering.

Yawn!

Characters like these occur so often in stock comedies that I can hardly keep count. Talents like Dern and King deserve better than one-note characters.

Reilly, as the intended love interest, has no chemistry with Shannon and it’s obvious from the start that Al is written as the foil and opposite in every way from Peggy.

It’s just another standard cliché screaming from a mile away. Peggy dates Newt (Peter Sarsgaard) but the romance isn’t there either.

Where the film gets both interesting and lost, is when Peggy becomes an animal rights activist. It sets up Year of the Dog as a message film which never really works.

Peggy ruins furs, attempts to show children a slaughterhouse, and spontaneously adopts fifteen dogs because another injured dog dies.

It just doesn’t flow together with the comedy stuff. Especially when the ending takes Peggy in yet another direction.

It’s like the filmmakers decided to try and roll things up in a neat little bow but instead have a sloppily wrapped present with a nice bow on it.

Director, Mike White, also a producer and writer, creates a great concept but Year of the Dog (2007) hardly lights the world on fire.  The finale is too sentimental and too many cliches surface as the action plays out. Shannon is the only interesting character and the supporting players are stock written.

White also penned School of Rock (2003) which is a better film.

W.-2008

W.-2008

Director Oliver Stone

Starring Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks

Scott’s Review #1,130

Reviewed April 7, 2021

Grade: B+

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again- the United States political landscape forever changed with the dastardly 2016 presidential election. Presidents pre and post-2016 are held to a completely different standard.

We didn’t see this coming.

That said, the film W. (2008) is a biography and satire of George W. Bush, the forty-third president of the United States, who held office during the deadly 9/11 attacks.

Thought by some to be a moron, director Oliver Stone is careful to ease up on the obvious mockery and barbs that are usually thrown at Bush. There is some of that but surprisingly the film contains some sympathetic moments.

For example, a clever addition is a complex relationship between father and son, something shadowed from the spotlight. At least I was never aware there was any friction between Dad and Son.

Fans who lean or are conservative may not like the film. It’s not exactly pro-Bush but neither is it anti. It simply tells a good and accurate story.

Stone wisely features an all-star cast and offers a retrospective chronicling the life and political career of George W. Bush, from his troubles as a young adult through his governorship of Texas and to the Oval Office.

It’s well-made because it provides the uninformed viewer with an important history lesson.

The lineup is juicy featuring an array of elite Hollywood stars. Josh Brolin sinks his teeth into the title role while Elizabeth Banks is more low-key as former First Lady Laura Bush.

In support, James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn play George H.W. Bush and Barbara, while Richard Dreyfuss is fantastic as Dick Cheney.

Finally, Thandie Newton is as delicious as Condoleeza Rice.

Flashbacks are key to his life events revealing the rise of George W. Bush from ne’er-do-well party boy and son of privilege to president of the United States. After giving up booze for religion, George mends his restless ways and sets his sights first on the Texas governorship, which he achieves, then on the presidency.

By a fluke, he achieved this too but lost the popular vote, forever a bee in his bonnet.

However, the country’s involvement in the Iraq war affects his reign and decreases his approval rating.

The historical accuracy appears to be valid and most details are taken from non-fiction books. That’s why the film is perfect for those who wish to brush up on their history or who are intrigued about the life and times of a modern president.

Just be prepared for a bit of comedy.

To be fair, there are moments in W. when it feels like a long Saturday Night Live sketch and the characters are caricatures. It’s not exactly a parody nor is it a documentary either.

Sort of a hybrid.

The heart of the film belongs to Josh Brolin (reportedly he stepped in for Christian Bale at the last minute). Major props go to Brolin for a nuanced, spot-on characterization of the former president.

He’s got the mannerisms down and turns of the head, his walk, and speech patterns. He is careful to take a controversial public persona and portray him with both humor and humanity. Never completely silly but not as a straight man either. The real Bush always had a bit of a devilish aww shucks persona.

Post 2016 it’s tough to care much about W. (2008) though. It’s sort of an “of its time” film.  Too much has happened since the Bush years, or even since 2008 when the film was made.

Donald Trump made so many things irrelevant. I can’t wait until a satire emerges about him. You know one is coming.