Tag Archives: Bill Paxton

Titanic-1997

Titanic-1997

Director James Cameron

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet

Top 250 Films #160

Scott’s Review #327

1181461

Reviewed January 6, 2016

Grade: A

1997’s Titanic is a sweeping, gorgeous epic, directed by James Cameron, that is perfection at every level.

This film has it all: romance, disaster, gorgeous art direction, and flawless attention to detail.

The film will make you laugh, cry, and fall in love with the characters, even though you know the inevitable outcome.

The film is based on the real-life sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912, when the ship collided with an iceberg.

I have witnessed this film being derided for being a “chick flick” or too “sappy”, but I vehemently disagree and feel it is a classic for the ages.

Titanic successfully re-invented the Hollywood epic.

Jack Dawkins (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a penniless artist who meets high-class socialite Rose DeWitt (Kate Winslet) aboard the luxurious Titanic, on its maiden voyage from the coast of England to the United States.

Rose is engaged to cagey Cal Hockley (Billy Zane).

Depressed, Rose contemplates diving overboard to her death, but Jack saves her and convinces her otherwise. They spend time together, and he draws her portrait. As their romance blossoms, Cal catches on and plots revenge.

In the mix is Rose’s snobbish mother, Ruth, played by Frances Fisher.

The main theme of the film is social class and the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

James Cameron demanded perfection from this film, and he sure got it. Every detail of Titanic is flawless and historically accurate, from the dining room silverware to the costumes to the set pieces barely visible in the background.

Cameron even had a replica of the original Titanic built for filming purposes- with limitations, but what a vast undertaking this must have been.

That, along with the smoldering romance between Jack and Rose, is what makes Titanic one of my favorite films.

Two fantastic scenes are when Jack is taken under the wing of Molly Brown, played by Kathy Bates. Molly is not the snob that many other upper-class people are, and she lends Jack a tuxedo so he will look dapper for Rose. She also tenderly teaches him the appropriate way to use silverware.

Tragically, the other scene is more melancholy- a gorgeous classical piece plays in the background as the vast ship is engulfed in water and slowly sinks, causing many deaths.

At well over three hours long, the film’s conclusion is quite sprawling, and one feels as if one is aboard the ship. By this time, I was invested in the characters, both lead and supporting, and the tragedy that ensues is both a marvel and heart-wrenching.

Titanic (1997) is a film that must be viewed on the big screen for full effect, and is a timeless masterpiece that has aged perfectly.

Oscar Nominations: 10 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-James Cameron (won), Best Actress-Kate Winslet, Best Supporting Actress-Gloria Stuart, Best Original Dramatic Score (won), Best Original Song-“My Heart Will Go On”, Best Sound Effects Editing (won), Best Sound (won), Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup, Best Costume Design (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

U-571-2000

U-571-2000

Director Jonathan Mostow

Starring Matthew McConaughey

Scott’s Review #1,126

Reviewed March 25, 2021

Grade: B-

U-571 (2000) is a entertaining film. It’s got excellent cinematography, some thrills, and a clear good-guys vs.-bad-guys mentality with machismo for days.

It’s an American film if there ever was one, and will please American audiences seeking cookie-cutter material with loud noise and a satisfying ending.

It’s also got some scenes of guy peril that will please a certain type of audience demographic- think blue-collar males.

The modus operandi is that all the Americans are good and the Germans are bad. It is World War II after all. It wasn’t that simple, folks, but according to the film, it’s pretty cut-and-dried.

But that’s entertainment and a box-office hit.

It’s not a bad film at all, but a beer-and-pizza-style film, not a martini-and-avocado-dip film.

For those seeking something more authentic versus formulaic and riddled with cliches, U-571 will disappoint. It’s also shamefully inaccurate and severely muddies the waters.

The film does not portray a historical event, so it gets away with a lot.

But it’s a fictional film meant to entertain, so my suggestion is to sit back, grab some popcorn (or beer and pizza), and enjoy it for what it is. Please don’t look for any rationale beyond the studio wanting to make a lot of money.

And there is the exceptional cinematography and cool locales to keep us marginally happy. The story is inane, but the trimmings work.

When a German U-571 submarine (hence the title of the film!) with a sophisticated encryption machine onboard is presumed lost and buried during a World War II battle at sea, the Allies send an American Navy force led by Lieutenant Andrew Tyler (Matthew McConaughey) to retrieve it for study.

Boarding the German ship, the Americans’ cover as a rescue force is quickly blown. Forced to take the crew hostage, the Americans lay their explosives and prepare to destroy the German vessel before the Nazis can send naval backup.

It’s a race-against-time routine frequently seen in masculine thrillers.

About those historical inaccuracies.

The American portrayal is skewed and slanted to be pro-American, and this point offended many of the British military and public. Even Prime Minister Tony Blair got involved.

The Allies captured Enigma-related codebooks and machines about fifteen times during the War; all but two of these by British forces.

Watching the film, one would think the Americans did everything and the British were incompetent.

Let’s ponder for a moment why filmmakers, especially screenwriter David Ayer and director Jonathan Mostow, would embrace such inconsistencies. My hunch is that they were attempting to target their film to male American moviegoers.

The tactic worked, and the film was a hit.

A cool tidbit is the casting of rock star Jon Bon Jovi in the supporting role of Lieutenant Pete Emmett. At this time, launching an acting career that included a role on television’s Ally McBeal, it’s impressive to see him on the big screen and not playing himself.

I’m not sure he pulls it off, but as a fan of the 1980s hitmaker, I enjoyed this aspect.

McConaughey carries the film well and is his usual dashing and charismatic self. Before the actor started doing more quality, character-driven films nearly a decade later, he would later state that he disliked several roles he took on and did them solely for the cash payday.

One wonders if U-571 is one of those films.

Bill Paxton and Harvey Keitel have little more to do than act tense and play second fiddle to McConaughey.

From an inclusive perspective, and I kid because there is nary a strong female to be found, there are no strong female characters. It’s a shame that, given the year 2000, Mostow should have known better.

Couldn’t one of the high-ranking majors or lieutenants have been a woman? If nothing else, it could have added some sexual tension—or perhaps a same-sex relationship.

The film does nothing for diversity.

It’s a very intense and exciting war film that accomplishes what it sets out to do. It’s well-executed and a crowd-pleaser, U-571 (2000) doesn’t contain much more than that and will be remembered as a slick, entertaining thriller with a big movie star.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Sound Editing, Best Sound (won)

Twister-1996

Twister-1996

Director Jan de Bont

Starring Bill Pullman, Helen Hunt

Scott’s Review #763

Reviewed May 25, 2018

Grade: B+

Twister (1996) is a film with amazing, groundbreaking special effects that blew people away (pun intended!) when it was released to the masses over twenty years ago.

Moviegoers flocked to theaters everywhere to enjoy the escapist summer feel-good hit starring popular stars of the time.

The film spawned amusement park rides and lots of other fun things during its run.

The visuals are what truly deserve to be enjoyed here, not the generic, tried-and-true subplots of romance, childhood trauma, and corporate greed that are mixed in.

The film does not hold up well in the present day, as its dazzling effects now look rather dated when compared with modern blockbusters. This results in Twister being reduced to “one of those 1990’s films”.

Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt star as American storm chasers, Bill and Jo, obsessed with their craft of tracking tornadoes throughout the Midwestern United States.

Adding drama to the plot is that Bill and Jo are an estranged married couple in the midst of a divorce.

Bill brings his new fiancée, Melissa (Jami Gertz), along as numerous meteorologists converge to track storms using newly invented devices.

Predictably, a series of vicious storms commences while Bill, Jo, and Melissa play out a love triangle.

Twister gets off to a fantastic start when a wicked storm kills the five-year-old Jo’s father, prompting her to pursue her chosen career. Jo has never gotten over her father’s death, becoming fascinated by deadly storms.

The effects of this initial storm are very well done as Jo’s father’s death scene is riveting- the poor man being sucked into the deadly cyclone is memorable.

Regardless, this scene sets the tone for the ample effects to follow- most notably the terrifying sound of the swirling storm as farm tools and animals fly around onscreen.

After the initial introduction, the rest of the film mainly follows the group as they drive around and encounter storms, with Bill and Jo taking center stage.

As a child who spent many summers in the Midwest, sans tornadoes, thankfully, I felt a sense of nostalgia watching the film.

It is assumed that Twister was filmed on location (with studio help), but the authenticity is apparent. From the vastness of the plains to the dusty roads, cornfields, and the small-town U.S.A.

I enjoyed the down-home, slice-of-life feel.

The action and effects are lightning-quick and quite realistic. As mentioned, the sound effects are as strong as the visual effects, and I never doubted for a second that the twisters had a realistic quality.

This successfully merges into the summer blockbuster that Twister’s producers undoubtedly were going for. Making a ton of money, the result was successful and inspired by Hollywood.

Despite the superlative special effects, though, this is the only reason to watch Twister, and seeing the film once is enough excitement.

The writers (Michael Crichton and Anne-Marie Martin) attempt to incorporate a romance into the story, and this does nobody any good.

This negative aspect is even more apparent since the chemistry between Paxton and Hunt is non-existent, and Gertz’s Melissa is meant to be the odd woman out all along.

A large amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary to “buy” various scenes. Ludicrous are countless scenes where characters either outrun the monstrous twisters or, somehow, the storms encircle them but miraculously never touch them.

When Jo, Bill, and Melissa’s truck is captured inside the funnel cloud, the vehicle and its passengers somehow remain unharmed.  Tornadoes do not simply come out of nowhere to attack without any indication on the radar.

But alas, this is a disaster film, and liberties must be taken.

The famous “cow scene”, notoriously used twice in the film, seemed groundbreaking and cutting-edge in 1996, but in 2018 now seems hokey and unnecessary.

Times sure do change in cinema, especially with technical effects and CGI growing each year.

Admittedly, the film does contain a good, all-American rockin’ summer tune by Van Halen named “Humans Being”, which always makes me think of summertime when I hear it.

The entire Twister soundtrack was an enormous success with radio airplay, which led to further successes for the film.

Perhaps now watched as a blast from the past or a revisit to some sort of nostalgic time for folks, Twister (1996) is a great example of a once-popular popcorn movie falling into semi-obscurity.

Given another twenty years, the film will undoubtedly fall apart—a nice film for its time, but not much more.

Oscar Nominations: Best Sound, Best Visual Effects

Nightcrawler-2014

Nightcrawler-2014

Director Dan Gilroy

Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo

Scott’s Review #225

70295182

Reviewed March 1, 2015

Grade: B+

Nightcrawler (2014) is best described as an intense crime-thriller set in Los Angeles featuring a wonderful performance by Jake Gyllenhaal as an unstable thief named Lou. He cons and manipulates his way to success videotaping accident scenes and selling them to news stations.

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

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

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

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

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

It makes Nightcrawler look great.

Gyllenhaal deserves praise for his role as Lou and is largely responsible for the success. He was a co-producer.

From an acting standpoint, he is excellent and reminiscent of the frightening performance that Robert DeNiro gave in Taxi Driver (1976). With an angular face and eyes that seemingly never blink, he is intense and driven on every level.

He is a sociopath.

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

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

This is a brilliant performance by Gyllenhaal.

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

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

Does she like bad boys or does she admire his talent?

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

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

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

Nightcrawler is a dark thriller, which deservedly garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and a slew of Independent Spirit Awards.

Intense, rich, and visually appealing, it is one of the success stories of 2014 cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Male Lead-Jake Gyllenhaal, Best Supporting Male-Riz Ahmed, Best Screenplay (won), Best First Feature (won), Best Editing

Aliens-1986

Aliens-1986

Director James Cameron

Starring Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #80

Reviewed June 29, 2014

Grade: B+

Aliens (1986) takes away the rawness of the original Alien (1979) and infuses a glossier, slicker look to the film franchise.

The film was made eight years later, but story-wise, it is set fifty-seven years into the future when Ripley, played to perfection by Sigourney Weaver, awakens.

To her horror, she discovers that the aliens have colonized, and she is forced to return to prevent a catastrophe. The militia is in tow, adding a helping of masculinity that supports the film throughout.

This scenario perfectly sets the stage for what is to become an excellent sci-fi adventure story.

There are wonderful special effects that were quite extraordinary when the film was shot in 1986. The tunnels and spacecraft are perfectly lit and designed, creating a bright, fun setting, and the audience knows that doom is lurking.

The actual aliens are visually frightening and, compared to the original, are more plentiful.

Sigourney Weaver takes center stage and leads this film successfully.

I’m not sure many other actresses could pull off her level of authentic toughness and, in the process, give off no sex appeal and still get away with it.

The only detractor from the film is that it seems a bit dated in a purely 1980s way. It has an 80’s look to it, and that’s not a positive.

Not on par with the excellent original Alien, but otherwise, a well-made, supernatural thrill ride.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Actress-Sigourney Weaver, Best Original Score, Best Sound Effects Editing (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)