Tag Archives: 2002 Films

Gangs of New York-2002

Gangs of New York-2002

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Leonardo Dicaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz

Scott’s Review #1,327

Reviewed December 26, 2022

Grade: A-

Gangs of New York (2002) is an extremely violent and bloody epic by director Martin Scorsese that is an exquisite piece of filmmaking nearly flawless in every way except maybe its length and story.

On the one hand, it’s a beautifully choreographed and filmed crime drama with perfect costumes, art direction, and cinematography. Still, on the other, it’s tedious and lengthy, especially during the final hour, with choppy storytelling and seemingly one long continuous battle.

Scorsese being Scorsese and knowing his way around crafting an excellent film or two left me ruminating over the cinema and pondering whether I’d ever need to see it again.

Usually, I’m all in when it comes to repeated viewings of his films,  especially Raging Bull (1980) or Goodfellas (1990) but with Gangs of New York, the sobering almost three hours running time and the non-stop bloodshed gives me pause.

It’s not a mafia film but it is an Irish-centered crime drama harkening back to the mid-1800s so there are historical lessons to be exposed to. Familiar with most of his films there are good guys, bad guys, and a criminal, feuding overtone, and lots of grit and grime to plow through.

I can’t say it’s one of Scorsese’s top 10 but it’s a grandiose, epic-length behemoth that features a host of top-name talent but there are nonetheless aspects that leave it slightly beneath his most famous works.

But that’s nearly akin to comparing the works of Beethoven, Rembrandt, or other geniuses of one art form or another. Anyone respecting Scorsese or appreciating good cinema should see Gangs of New York.

Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a young Irish immigrant released from prison. He returns to the Five Points seeking revenge against his father’s killer, William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) also known as ‘The Butcher’, a brutal and powerful anti-immigrant gang leader.

He knows that revenge can only be attained by infiltrating Cutting’s inner circle. Amsterdam’s journey became a fight for personal survival and to find a place for the Irish people in 1860’s New York.

The most delicious part of the film is the rivalry between Amsterdam and ‘The Butcher’. DiCaprio and Day-Lewis make powerful sparring partners and as much as Amsterdam’s motivations are admirable it’s Day-Lewis who has the more interesting character.

To no one’s surprise, the actor channels his inner dictator as he method acts throughout the film. To no one’s additional surprise, he steals the show away from other tremendous actors like DiCaprio, Jim Broadbent, and John C. Reilly in supporting roles.

However, I need to ask why Day-Lewis was selected for the Lead Actor Oscar category when he is a supporting one.

Worthy of mention is Cameron Diaz who, for once, plays the dramatic role of a pickpocket. Typically cast in comedic roles she shows she has acting chops.

The story gets a bit wayward about halfway through and I stopped giving the story much credence about three-quarters of the way through. It’s as if Scorsese had frenetic schizophrenia moments with tons of good ideas but none of them formulating a cohesive plot.

The New York City setting is a favorite of mine especially pre-civil war and well before the NYC of modern times even existed. The prevalence of Canal Street and various others make this northeasterner heavily invested in geography.

Finally, to bring it all full circle, Gangs of New York powerfully reminds the audience of the age-old topic of immigration and how those who have citizenship too often oppose those who desire to enter a country they once also did.

‘The Butcher’s’ brutal opposition is a sad reminder of how the United States of America was never united and the senseless violence towards immigrants is never-ending.

Gangs of New York (2002) may not be Scorsese’s best work but even on his worst day, he creates a film worth watching. Mixing toxic masculinity, and revenge with a crazy story he succeeds where other directors might fail by providing compelling filmmaking with all the fixings.

Just don’t get too hung up on the story points.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Martin Scorsese, Best Actor-Daniel Day-Lewis, Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Song-“The Hands That Built America”, Best Sound

Minority Report-2002

Minority Report-2002

Director Steven Spielberg

Starring Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton

Scott’s Review #1,318

Reviewed November 27, 2022

Grade: B+

If you study his body of film work, the fascinating thing about acclaimed director Steven Spielberg is the growth and groundbreaking cross-genre categorization of many of his films.

Traversing blockbuster popcorn films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. the Extra-terrestrial (1982) to heavy drama with the 1993 masterpiece Schindler’s List, the man can do it all.

With 2002’s Minority Report, he bravely delves into science-fiction territory with a crime thriller and action tint. The film is tough to follow and mostly reminds me of Inception (2010), a Christopher Nolan vehicle influenced by this film.

Despite the cerebral tone, Minority Report is a fascinating study of futuristic crime-fighting styles with enough twists and turns to keep me engaged though I confess at times having no real idea what was going on plot-wise.

The casting of Tom Cruise is a major win. Who better to carry a film like this except maybe Bruce Willis though Cruise is a better actor. Nonetheless, he is believable as a crime chief with a slick edge and a wicked smile.

Unsure whether or not to trust him he remains at the heart of the success of the film.

Based on a story by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, ‘Minority Report’ contains a perfect premise to bring to the big screen. Set in Washington D.C. in 2054, police are now intelligent enough to utilize psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes.

The setup is fabulous and rife with possibility.

Cruise plays Chief John Anderton, the head of this Precrime unit, and is himself accused of the future murder of a man he hasn’t even met. Following an audit, it is predicted that in thirty-six hours, Anderton will kill a man who is a stranger to Anderton.

Anderton flees, prompting a manhunt led by Witwer (Colin Farrell).

It is revealed that Anderton joined the Precrime program after his son was kidnapped and never found. He is depressed, withdrawn, and addicted to hard drugs, and his wife Lara (Kathryn Morris) has since left him.

But is this all a setup and are others involved in the conspiracy?

The plot goes way off the rails in terms of explanation or logic but the fun is in trying to put the never-ending puzzle pieces together. Truthfully, after a while, I simply gave up this approach and enjoyed the visual eye candy and terrific futuristic style.

I rarely am a proponent of visuals over storytelling but the intelligence of the sequences and the thrilling nature of the acting assured me there was something there. I just wasn’t completely getting it.

Since it’s directed by Spielberg I was confident that the complexities I was being served were not shit. I was comforted by this knowledge and my enjoyment escalated.

Enough props can’t be handed out for Cruise’s dynamic performance parlayed by the coldness and harshness of the overall tone of the film.

Many of Spielberg’s films are heartwarming but this was not to be found in Minority Report (2002) and I liked it even more for that reason.

Spielberg gets another win by suckering me into a cinematic world that he magically can create. This time with perplexities and perhaps even some influence from the Matrix (1999) movies.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound Editing

Unfaithful-2002

Unfaithful-2002

Director Adrian Lyne

Starring Diane Lane, Richard Gere, Olivier Martinez

Scott’s Review #1,278

Reviewed July 21, 2022

Grade: A-

Unfaithful (2002) is an American version of the brilliant 1969 French film The Unfaithful Wife, directed by Claude Chabrol.

Directed by Adrian Lyne, most famous for directing the smoldering and creepy Fatal Attraction (1987) which awarded him an Academy Award nomination in the direction category, Unfaithful is unsurprisingly brimming with the same eroticism and sexual ferocity.

What’s exceptional about it is the character development and the empathy felt for the characters and their convictions.

This makes Unfaithful work.

To say it’s watered down from the Chabrol version is a bit unfair because it has an identity all its own, though his version is superior in suspense and naturally, more French from a cinematic perspective.

Lyne’s film is slicker and wrapped up tighter, and much more mainstream-it does the job well and provides compelling entertainment.

In both films, the subject matter of guilt runs rampant.

Edward (Richard Gere) and Connie (Diane Lane) live seemingly happily in their upper-middle-class Westchester County, New York neighborhood.

When Edward learns that Connie has lied to him about an affair, suspicion leads him to uncover the devastating truth about her infidelity with Paul. (Olivier Martinez) the hunky man who has captured her heart.

He confronts Connie’s ‘boy toy’ which results in a deadly accident caused by Edward’s surprising rage. Edward must cover up the truth with detectives questioning both him and Connie about their involvement with Paul.

Can their marriage survive the damage?

The Hallmark television movie premise rises to tremendous credibility thanks to the fantastic acting by Lane, Gere, and Martinez.

The standout is Lane who the audience may relate to a bit more than the other two. She fills Connie with a tired and weary tone. She appreciates her good life but is nonetheless bored with it.

Some may relate to her, but others will shame her for her infidelity.

Each character provides their motivation for their character actions. The stoic chemistry between Lane and Gere’s characters perfectly balances the lusty dynamic between the Lane and Martinez characters.

Wisely, the story is one that most married couples can deem true. When the romance wanes, sometimes the doldrums result. Connie doesn’t purposefully set out to cheat on Edward but the repetition of raising their eight-year-old son and casserole Wednesdays causes her to seize an unexpected opportunity.

The rainy, windy setup with a sexy young French artist at her fingertips, is smoldering with intrigue. The lusty scenes between Connie and Paul are rich with sex, like when they bathe together and make love in Paul’s hallway.

The titillating chemistry works well.

A clever scene in a coffee shop is daringly good. Connie’s girlfriends drool with delight as Paul walks by them, completely unaware that he is Connie’s new beau. How jealous they’d be if they knew the truth.

The face-off scene between Edward and Paul is shrouded with machismo as both struggle for the upper hand, toying with each other for power.

The tone changes to one of Hitchcockian intrigue as Edward and Connie must forge together and cover up their actions. Not trusting each other, there is an interesting dynamic among themselves and what they tell and keep hidden from the flocking detectives.

After all, an upstanding white couple couldn’t possibly be involved in murder, could they, the detectives ponder?

Easily serving as the opening act to the more famous Lyne offering, Fatal Attraction, Unfaithful (2002) both films draw parallels to each other.

They successfully manipulate the audience in a good way, using intrigue, thrills, and flesh to elicit a ‘glued to their seats’ result.

Sometimes a good, old-fashioned, thrill ride is just what the doctor ordered.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Diane Lane

Femme Fatale-2002

Femme Fatale-2002

Director Brian De Palma

Starring Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Antonio Banderas

Scott’s Review #1,137

Reviewed April 28, 2021

Grade: B+

The plot of Femme Fatale (2002) is muddy, to say the least, and I was left perplexed by the details by the time the film concluded. I even needed to review a synopsis to figure out what the hell went on but I was willing to do so.

But, let’s remember that it’s directed by Brian De Palma so the beauty is in the visuals’ style and stimulation, which makes the film pay off in spades.

Probably more similar to a modern De Palma film like 2012’s underrated and underappreciated Passion than more familiar turf like Carrie (1976) or Dressed to Kill (1980), Femme Fatale has juicy trademarks that only fans of the director will immediately notice and revile in.

The entire experience that De Palma creates is titillating, erotic, fetishist, and thrilling. It’s an enrapturing piece.

Unfortunately, Femme Fatale was a box-office dud but has subsequently amassed a cult following status likely by the legions of De Palma fans who appreciate the good stylistic film.

Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, with legs for miles and an abdomen to fry eggs off of, stars as Laure Ash, a master manipulator, who takes part in one last jewel theft intending to leave behind her life of crime. Her intention predictably doesn’t turn out so well but Laura sure does look great in her leather-clad outfits and affair with a female supermodel.

Later, Romijn-Stamos also plays an odd character named Lily, who is suicidal.

Reinvented under the presumption of a respectable married woman, Laura captures the attention of eager photographer Nicolas (Antonio Banderas). He becomes mesmerized by the elusive woman amid the gorgeous locales of Paris and accidentally shatters her carefully crafted world by way of his photo taking.

The steamy women’s bathroom love scene between Laura, who is bisexual, and Veronica, a model with a diamond gold ensemble top, is not just a male chauvinistic turn-on, but hugely important to the storyline.

Laura is supposedly in cahoots with thugs “Black Tie” and Racine who aggressively wait outside the restroom, but is Laura double-crossing them both? Is she partnered in crime with Veronica or is she just a mark?

The riddles of the plot are both positive and negative especially when one scene plays out twice, midstream and during the finale. There is a mystique that forces the viewer to give up on any comprehension and plausibility over Laura and her motivations and modus Operandi.

I chose to immerse myself in the bevy of trimmings that De Palma tosses our way like a hungry dog salivating over a bone.

He borrows a bit from the best of Alfred Hitchcock films (when doesn’t he?)and his own, neither a bad thing. The most obvious is from the 1954 masterpiece, Rear Window, an orgy of fetishism, which appears throughout, mostly concerning Nicolas as he spies on Laura again and again, almost obsessively.

Romijn-Stamos isn’t the best actress in the biz and Banderas would grow as an actor after this film but Femme Fatale is about style, not Academy Award acting and the beauty is trying to figure out a puzzle and being startled by a twist ending and a replay of the events to provide some sort of explanation.

The twist is quite a doozy and had me rethink the entire film. Plot holes be-damned it was a very good reveal but also made most of the rest of the film a bit worthless.

Femme Fatale (2002) will never reach the upper echelons of the best of Brian De Palma films but it’s hardly a waste of time to give it a spin either.

Forgetting the steaminess altogether, the film is to European appreciating viewers with the astounding and plentiful sequences in and around Paris.

Tadpole-2002

Tadpole-2002

Director Gary Winick

Starring Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Stanford, John Ritter

Scott’s Review #1,125

Reviewed March 23, 2021

Grade: B

Tadpole (2002) is an enjoyable coming-of-age effort that carefully, or too carefully, toes the line between being cute and exploring some morally questionable material.

The film gets away with the naughty subject matter because there exists a wholesomeness that lands somewhere between fresh and a commodity.

It’s a fun romp but nothing memorable either, borrowing from better films.

Aaron Stanford, the lead actor, makes the film better than it might have been and seamlessly matches wits and comic timing with heavyweight actors like Sigourney Weaver, John Ritter, and Bebe Neuwirth. He is charming just like his character and carries the film.

As Oscar Grubman (what a name!) he is compassionate and sophisticated, reciting Voltaire and speaking fluent French.

When he arrives home for Thanksgiving weekend it is revealed that he has a major crush on his stepmother, Eve (Weaver). She and Oscar’s father, Stanley (Ritter) share a ritzy Manhattan apartment and entertain a girl they think would be perfect for Oscar but he only has eyes for Eve and rebuffs the poor girl.

Despondent at not having a chance with his stepmom but desiring her, Oscar visits a local bar and runs into Eve’s best friend, Diane (Neuwirth). He gets drunk and she takes him home winding up in bed together! Oscar is filled with remorse.

Oscar’s and Diane’s tryst is the caveat for the rest of the antics of the film. Oscar is terrified that Diane will tell his father and Eve especially as she is on the guestlist for dinner the next night!  An amusing game of footsie under the table ensues between Oscar and Diane.

Diane is a Mrs. Robinson-type character to Oscar’s Benjamin if we want to draw comparisons to The Graduate (1967) and how could we not? Eve is like Elaine, Mrs. Robinson’s daughter.

Unsuspecting and slightly naive. It’s fun to reminisce about the classic film that director Gary Winick borrows from.

Speaking of Winick, he has a knack for creating coming-of-age stories featuring teenage characters with light angst and he commonly releases independent films. My hunch is that if Tadpole was a big-budget mainstream affair even more concessions might have been made for the brewing May/December romance.

The “dinner scene” is the best part of Tadpole and provides good physical comedy and a hilarious setup. It’s a stretch in plausibility and borrows from many slapstick comedies but somehow the scene works well and stands out.

The subject matter of a woman three times the age of Oscar is not as harsh as it sounds and is largely played for laughs and misunderstandings. This is where the film misses the mark and stays firmly in the safe lane.

Imagine the juicy possibilities that would occur if Eve reciprocated Oscar’s advances. Now that is an interesting concept!

I shudder to think that if Oscar were a fifteen-year-old girl and Eve a forty-something-year-old man this film would never have been made.

The double standard gnawed at me.

The ending is wholesome and predictable making the film satisfying for the character yet limiting for the viewer. Oscar more or less “snaps out of it” and realizes that girls his age are okay after all.

I half-wondered if the film would be revealed to have all been Oscar’s dream.

The cougar-esque subject matter provides light entertainment never daring to go as far as it could have, or should have. In the end, we understand a young, pubescent boy’s dreams and desires and may fondly recall when we were his age and all the troublesome sexual feelings that bubbled under the surface.

Tadpole (2002) is a watchable independent comedy providing enough to digest thanks to the worthy actors among its cast.

Adaptation-2002

Adaptation-2002

Director Spike Jonze

Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper

Scott’s Review #1,064

Reviewed September 24, 2020

Grade: B+

Adaptation (2002) is a kooky film that is recommended for all writers or lovers of the written word, especially for those ever having suffered from writer’s block.

The film is wonderful for people who are either curious or obsessed (me!) with how a novel is turned into a screenplay.

With an A-list cast featuring Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep, the offering is credible and not just a bumbling indie experiment with no budget. Stars must get paid, which allows the film a mainstream audience, and awards.

The film will be too weird for some. There is a measure of conceit and self-indulgence (it’s set in Los Angeles after all!) that is sometimes off-putting, but I adored the premise too much and chomped at the bit at what I was offered.

It’s quite non-linear and the characters sometimes do things that are weird or out of turn.

Adaptation is different (in a good way) and is recommended for its oddness as I cannot think of another film like it, though Being John Malkovich (1999) would be close. Director, Spike Jonze would later create Her (2013) and, of course, directed Malkovich too.

Charlie Kaufman wrote the screenplay and the central character is Charlie Kaufman, played by Cage, who also plays Kaufman’s brother Donald, a mooch. Charlie is self-loathing and disheveled but somehow likable. He struggles mightily to bring words into his head as he nervously sits at his typewriter day after day when he is tasked to adapt the novel, The Orchid Thief, into a film.

The novel’s author, Susan Orlean, played by Meryl Streep, intimidates Charlie, who decides to pay her a visit to New York City.

This film features the best work of Cage’s career. An actor who is “not for everybody”, the performance rivals that of Leaving Las Vegas (1995), in which he won an Academy Award.

A dual role is tough to play, but the actor does so with bombast and confidence, making the characters very different from each other and making me forget they were Cage.

Too often sinking to inferior action films like Face/Off (1997) or Con Air (1997), the actor wisely had an epiphany or something and made a wise decision. Cage does best when he goes for wacky- Raising Arizona (1987) is proof of that.

The supporting players, specifically Streep and Cooper are fantastic. Streep could fart through a film and still give a great performance and you can tell she enjoys the part of Susan, allowed to let loose. Her character loves sex and drugs and is not above devious shenanigans to get her way.

Cooper, who won the Oscar, is delicious as John Laroche, a theatrical character with missing front teeth, who is the secret lover of Susan.

Both provide great entertainment.

Adaptation simply feels good for a thought-provoking writer providing oodles of “writer things” to ponder and discuss with friends after the credits roll. Many scenes are rich with layered dialogue and rife with originality making the words sparkle with pizzazz.

And there are enough twists and turns to keep viewers guessing.

One of the most original and kooky films you will ever see, Adaptation (2002) pairs well with Being John Malkovich (1999) for an evening of the odd and absurd, but also films not altogether hard to follow.

The satirical Hollywood theme will both please and annoy but it’s all good fun and a lesson in creative art cinema.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Nicholas Cage, Best Supporting Actor-Chris Cooper (won), Best Supporting Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Adapted Screenplay

About Schmidt-2002

About Schmidt-2002

Director Alexander Payne

Starring Jack Nicholson, Kathy Bates

Scott’s Review #1,054

Reviewed August 18, 2020

Grade: A-

Anyone familiar with the works of director Alexander Payne knows that the man is notorious for crafting pictures with wry humor and dark sarcasm mixed with emotion.

Election-1999, Sideways-2004, and The Descendants-2011 immediately spring to mind.

Interestingly, several of his projects are set in Omaha, Nebraska, not exactly a hotbed of excitement, but there is a reason for this- he embraces every man.

Payne also has a knack for casting big stars, sometimes before they are big stars, giving them meaty and clever roles to sink their teeth into.

With About Schmidt (2002) he hits the jackpot and obtains the legendary Jack Nicholson, an actor famous for turning down many roles that simply aren’t good. This already bodes well for the film which spotlights an older character and plants the spotlight firmly on him, admirable in youth-obsessed Hollywood.

The film is very good, sometimes adding stock characters, but an admirable, worthwhile effort with surprisingly strong emotion and sentimentality. The result was both a critical and commercial success and is highly recommended.

The film kicks off showing Walter Schmidt (Nicholson) staring at the clock in his office, day after day counting the minutes until his shift concludes and he goes home for dinner. He has a dull job as an actuary at a life insurance company.

Finally, one day he retires and feeling useless, sponsors an African child, and the two become quick pen pals. Suddenly, Walter’s wife, Helen (June Squibb), dies as they are about to embark on a cross-country trip in their Winnebago.

Devastated, he finally goes it alone.

About Schmidt is a film with many emotions: happy, angry, sad.

Walter is a lonely, unhappy man, in a loveless marriage with Helen, though he doesn’t have the heart to tell her. She’s a nice lady, but the honeymoon ended years ago, and the spark has dulled.

At the same time, he has a tough time coping with her death and can barely cook, clean, or do laundry. He uncovers a secret about his wife that both turns his life into free fall and inspires him to conjure up the nerve to live a little.

Walter is a great character and exhibits the traits of many, many men. He is someone for audiences (especially males) to relate to and fall in love with. Bored with life, he is used to doing the same thing every day, no doubt eating the same meals, going to bed at the same time each night, etc.

Helen dictates what he does, reducing him to urinating and sitting down. Audiences will champion his reemergence to the land of the living! The fun is witnessing his escapades.

A hilarious sequence erupts when he meets the vivacious Roberta Hertzel (Kathy Bates). She is the mother of Walter’s daughter Jeannie’s (Hope Davis) intended, Randall (Dermot Mulroney), and has a voracious sexual appetite.

She immediately sets her sights on Walter and attempts to seduce the unwitting man in her hot tub. Bates is terrific in the role and her nude scene is something to always remember and major props to the actress for letting it all hang out!

The characters of Jeannie and Randall are not written especially well, and I was not a fan at all. They are “types” meant to complicate the plot or affect other characters in some way.

Actors Davis and Mulroney do their best with what they are provided, but they are meant to be obstacles for Walter to overcome. He loves his daughter and doesn’t want to see her marry a jerk.

Jeannie is angry because her life hasn’t turned out the way she wanted it to, so she takes it out on Walter. I did not buy or bond with Jeannie or Randall the way I did with Walter and Roberta.

Nicholson’s performance is one of the best of his career and the most multi-faceted. The final scene when he returns home to find a note from his pen pal with a sentimental crayon drawing is electric with emotion, feeling authentic, and is a pivotal breakthrough for Walter.

The character runs the course from submissive and lost to emboldened and strong. It’s a joy to watch his progression.

I love how Payne frequently celebrates and showcases older characters who are more than providers of advice, good listeners, or some other watered-down stock characters. They have their own stories and enriched meaningful lives.

About Schmidt (2002) has it all and is one of Payne’s top films deservedly showcasing this generation in cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Jack Nicholson, Best Supporting Actress-Kathy Bates

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

Director Joel Zwick

Starring Nia Vardalos, John Corbett

Scott’s Review #806

Reviewed August 28, 2018

Grade: B+

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a romantic comedy from 2002 that became a surprising sleeper hit at the time of release. A novel story idea, the film was even recognized with a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination.

The film achieved success the old-fashioned way by garnering word-of-mouth buzz despite little promotion.

Good-natured, earnest, and tender, the film was nonetheless marred by an abysmal sequel and short-lived television series- a lesson learned in leaving well enough alone.

Comedian Nia Vardalos reportedly wrote the story as a one-woman play and word of mouth among Hollywood A-list celebrities led to a film version starring Vardalos herself. This casting choice adds enormous authenticity as the writer’s vision shines through on-screen.

The film has a fresh and modern feel to it. Otherwise, the supporting cast is brilliant and perfectly selected. From handsome love interest John Corbett to veterans like Lainie Kazan and Andrea Martin, everyone plays their part to the hilt and seems to be having a ball with the comic elements.

Dowdy Toula Portokalos is a lonely thirty-year-old Greek woman, considered the black sheep of her family. Of traditional roots, she is expected to marry and bear children as quickly as possible.

Toula still lives at home and works in the family restaurant in bustling Chicago, yearning for something more out of life.

When she sees dashing school teacher Ian Miller (Corbett) in the restaurant one day, she makes an embarrassing attempt to catch his attention. Through a computer class, Toula blossoms and finally lands her man, but the drama is just beginning as the couples and their individual families’ differing cultures collide.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is written very well and, again, the authenticity is what shines through in each scene. Admittedly, it often feels like a television sitcom and many scenes play for obvious laughs, but the laughs work. The funniest of these scenes is when Toula and Ian (now engaged) decide to invite his parents to dinner at her parent’s house.

Predictably, events go awry as his parents-conservative and reserved, do not mesh well with hers-festive and bombastic.

Vardalos and Corbett may not have the greatest chemistry in film history, but the build-up and the romance are so charming that we can overlook the lack of lustful vigor or the sexual tension between the pair.

The film feels more like a PG-rated Cinderella story than anything heavier. Predictably, the couple shares a happily-ever-after ending.

As much of a jewel as My Big Fat Greek Wedding was in 2002, the risk with a film of this nature is to hold up well over time. Specifically, in the romantic comedy genre, films of this ilk have a short relevant shelf-life (if deemed relevant at all).

The humorous Windex references may be lost on audiences over time or just become stale over the years.

Some can deem My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) as fluff- mainly based on the romantic comedy genre it exists in. But it’s of better worth than that, mainly because of the fresh and genuine use of culture and differing backgrounds.

The film has a quality that most of the standard “rom coms” do not possess, that of authenticity. Yes, it contains Greek stereotypes, but the overall vibe of the film is that of a sunny, fun, happy experience.

An uplifting film can sometimes be just what the doctor ordered.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Debut Performance- Nia Vardalos (won)

The Hours-2002

The Hours-2002

Director Stephen Daldry

Starring Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep

Scott’s Review #803

Reviewed August 17, 2018

Grade: A

The Hours (2002) is a film containing the ultimate in acting riches. With names like Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne Moore associated with the film this is not surprising.

Not solely belonging to the ladies, however, Ed Harris, in particular, is dynamic in his role as are all the other males who appear in the film.

Told in three different sections in chronological order, but going back and forth, the stories all share connections via the novel Mrs. Dalloway, written by Virginia Woolf.

One of the best films of the decade!

Each segment of the film takes place within a single day, but decades apart. Wisely, director Stephen Daldry switches between the stories frequently leaving sort of a cliffhanger, making the drama more compelling and spicy.

In 1923, a depressed Virginia Woolf is portrayed by an unrecognizable Nicole Kidman in a role that won her the Best Actress Oscar.

Woolf resides outside of London and struggles to complete her novel amid nervous breakdowns and the watchful eye of her husband, who is aware of her mental pain.

In 1951, Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) seemingly has it all, living the “American Dream”. Residing in a nice neighborhood with a loving husband, she is pregnant with her second child, spending the days at home raising her young son, Richie, whom she is very close to yet does not understand.

After a fleeting lesbian dalliance with a neighbor, Laura goes off to a hotel with bottles of pills, intending to kill herself. She changes her mind after reading Woolf’s novel and dozing off, deciding instead to make a different decision.

Finally, in 2001, Clarissa (Meryl Streep), is bisexual and in a same-sex relationship. She lives with Richard (Harris), whom she dated in college, now the best of friends. He is gay, stricken with the AIDS virus, and close to committing suicide as he plans to jump out of a window.

This story (present times) is crucial to the film because it involves two characters from the 1951 story. These characters intersect with others in a touching and heart-wrenching way.

The greatest parts of The Hours are the brilliant acting and the richly written storytelling. Arguably, Kidman, Streep, and Moore all could have won Oscars for their performances, and I must mention that as brilliant as Kidman is (she is the sole Oscar recipient), and Streep is just universally good, I would have given the Oscar to Moore- the standout in my opinion.

Glamorous and intelligent, warm to her son, she makes a monumental and controversial decision. The character should not be sympathetic- yet she is. This is a testament to Moore’s infusing the character with confidence, reasonable thoughts, and even some empathy. We finally understand why she does what she does.

May I boast for a moment about Harris’s performance? Richard, once known as Richie as a kid (this will give something away), has lived a difficult life.

Abandoned, wounded, and suffering much loss, he is a tragic figure, pained beyond belief. His suffering is so monumental that we almost welcome his demise, and Harris offers so much of himself in this difficult role. He is both physically and emotionally hurt and Harris portrays this in spades.

Uniquely, all three stories work independently of each other. Yes, characters from one appear in another, but they are like well-crafted vignettes. Similarly, they each begin with breakfast, then involve the planning of a party or celebration of some sort, and culminate in sadness.

Yet, the film does not feel like a downer or preachy in any way, but rather, good, solid, humanistic story-telling, which I adore.

Sure, the film is considered a drama, but it also contains multiple gay or bisexual characters and therefore must be included in the chambers of LGBT filmmaking.

With an A-list cast, the film helps lead the charge (successfully so) to bring more rich LGBT films to center stage and garner mainstream audiences.

The great aspect of The Hours is that it is a mainstream film- a good solid drama.

Based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Michael Cunningham, The Hours (2002) does not try to draw parallels with each story or necessarily connect them in an obvious fashion.

Rather, the film version provokes thought both with LGBT and feminist approaches. Each female central character lives in a world run by men, as Woolf argues in her novel.

The film brilliantly adapts the novel and brings it to large audiences in a fantastic, riveting fashion.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Stephen Daldry, Best Actress-Nicole Kidman (won), Best Supporting Actor-Ed Harris, Best Supporting Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing

28 Days Later-2002

28 Days Later-2002

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Cillian Murphy, Noah Huntley

Scott’s Review #507

60027998

Reviewed November 2, 2016

Grade: B+

Before the influx of zombie-related horror films and television shows filled the land- arguably offset by the success of The Walking Dead series, a little film came along- now almost teetering on its influence being forgotten- that presented this genre with fresh insight and creative storytelling posing questions amid the mayhem.

28 Days Later (2002) rejuvenated this largely dormant film category with a gritty story of peril among a group of survivors spared from a deadly virus.

The film is smart as it explores morality issues and the needs of society to continue.

We initially are immersed in confusion as chaos immediately ensues. After a brief prologue of a group of laboratory chimpanzees gone mad, inflicted with rage, being let loose by animal liberators, and killing all present as well as inflicting the humans, we meet a lone man named Joe- the timing is relevant as it is “28 days later” from the incident.

The young man awakens in a hospital to find himself alone amid downtown London- not a soul in sight.  Fortunately, he has been in a coma and missed the crumbling of society due to an outbreak- somehow Joe has been spared.

Gradually, Joe meets others uninfected by the virus and they forge through the country in search of a military base rumored to be a haven.

The infected humans are not zombies, but rather, violent creatures who destroy anyone in their path. The film not only presents the grotesque creatures but also challenges the audience to think in a political sense- how will the survivors forge a new society?

How will women be treated differently from and by their male counterparts in a world that now lacks any police force or government?

My initial reaction to watching 28 Days Later- years after its initial release- is that it now seems slightly dated, but that has more to do with the legions of copycat films that have come after it and have been exposed to.

We have become more encompassed by this type of film, both in genre and in style. Appreciation is warranted for its gritty, fast-paced camera-work, extreme violence, and the use of “infected” who turn from human beings to vicious beings.

A fantastic part of this film is that it is not simply a horror film, it is more layered than that. There are moments of great beauty and tender moments among Joe and Selena- the sole surviving female other than the young, waif-like, Hannah, whose world has been shattered by the death of her loved ones.

In one sad scene, a couple has peacefully committed suicide, rather than face what would surely become of them.

There is a sense of a human story in 28 Days Later, which made me find the film heartfelt and almost sweet. Even the military soldiers- their motivations questionable- are relatable based on the world being turned upside down. A layered, complex, zombie film with some character-driven elements.

Irreversible-2002

Irreversible-2002

Director Gaspar Noe

Starring Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel

Top 10 Disturbing Films #4

Scott’s Review #375

60026141

Reviewed February 7, 2016

Grade: C+

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

This is admittedly a toughie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Far From Heaven-2002

Far From Heaven-2002

Director Todd Haynes

Starring Julianne Moore, Dennis Haysbert

Top 100 Films #53

Scott’s Review #332

60025011

Reviewed January 8, 2016

Grade: A

Far From Heaven (2002) is a gorgeous film, set in 1950’s upper-class and sophisticated Connecticut, that tackles not one, but two, separate social issues, in a wonderful story-telling fashion.

An interracial couple fraught with discrimination, and a homosexual husband hiding his secret lifestyle encompass this amazing film by acclaimed director Todd Haynes.

In years to follow, Haynes would also direct such masterpieces similar to the period (and story) of Carol (2015).

For starters, the cinematography and art direction are simply breathtaking- the beautiful and colorful small town in Connecticut, on the surface, prim and proper, is oozing with secrets and scandal just waiting to bubble to the surface.

An aerial view of the town allows the viewer to see this perfectly carved town in a sweeping motion.

Far From Heaven contains many similarities to All That Heaven Allows, made in 1955, and also focuses on a great scandal in a small, seemingly idyllic New England town.

Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) seems to have everything perfectly styled and kept at home in affluent Connecticut, a successful husband named Frank (Dennis Quaid), who is an advertising executive, beauty, and a neighborhood filled with friends.

One night when Frank is working late, Cathy surprises him with dinner at the office, only to be surprised herself by catching Frank passionately kissing another man. In an awkward scene, Frank admits to Cathy that he needs conversion therapy, but instead turns to alcohol and continues to secretly see men.

Devastated, Cathy befriends her gardener, Raymond Deagan (Haysburt), a handsome black man, and slowly begins a relationship with him. Needless to say, this causes gossip and scandal amongst the townspeople.

Far From Heaven is fantastic story-telling, weaving, in essence, two main social stories together.

Frank questions his sexuality, afraid to admit he is gay and risking his reputation and career. Undoubtedly, he is a tormented individual and we see him slowly come to terms with his sexuality.

Haynes, fantastic at crafting a worthy story, carves a similar tale in 2015’s Carol, only she is a woman confident about her sexuality, but hiding it from society. Since the time in both films is the 1950s, the sexual revolution has not occurred, let alone anything gay-related.

The center story though belongs to Cathy and Julianne Moore portrays her to perfection. I would argue that Cathy is Moore’s best role- along with Amber Waves from Boogie Nights.

Hurt and betrayed by her husband, she suddenly is filled with new and dangerous emotions- falling in love with a black man in a not very open-minded time.

Moore and Haysbert have fantastic chemistry from their very first scene together.

I love how Haynes showcases the perfection of the town- the lawns are perfectly mowed, the flower beds flawless, and everyone appears cheerful and colorful. But when something in their little town becomes amiss (in this case Cathy going against the grain) the fangs come out and the animals bear their teeth.

A wonderful scene showcases Cathy and Raymond’s slow dancing in a solely black bar. They sway as one and Cathy is accepted by the black patrons. Raymond (and his daughter) are not treated the same way by the white folks of the town once they catch wind of the shenanigans going on between the interracial couple.

Far From Heaven (2002) is a beautiful film- from the way it looks and is shot, to the powerful acting performances all around. Moore may be the star and the central character of the film, but Quaid and Haysbert certainly deserve their due.

They each give layered performances as wounded and tortured men- and the conclusion of the film- perceived as open-ended- is also not a happily ever after climax.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Julianne Moore, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 5 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Todd Haynes (won), Best Female Lead-Julianne Moore (won), Best Supporting Male-Dennis Quaid (won), Best Cinematography (won)

Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat-2002

Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat-2002

Director H.G. Lewis

Starring J.P. Delahoussaye, Christy Brown

Scott’s Review #65

60029437

Reviewed June 24, 2014

Grade: B

Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat (2002) is a sequel to the original Blood Feast from over thirty years ago.

It is not necessary to see the original before seeing this film (I hadn’t). The original killer’s grandson is the gruesome caterer/maniac in this installment.

Director H.G. Lewis heavily influenced John Waters, who has a fantastic cameo as a perverted reverend. This movie is so over the top and campy that it is not to be taken at all seriously.

The premise, if one can call it that, involves a lunatic caterer intent on using various female body parts to concoct a scrumptious meal to serve at a wedding.

The film is more of a comedy than a horror film in the traditional sense.

The victims are bubbleheads, mispronouncing words and traipsing around in skimpy outfits (or less) for no reason. The mean-spirited mother of the bride is a delight.

Scenes of taste testing and the presentation of “ladyfingers” are hilariously creative.

Campy in every way and poorly acted, but good late-night fun.