Tag Archives: Bruce Dern

2012 Films, Amber Tamblyn, Best Film of the Year, Bruce Dern, Christoph Waltz, Don Johnson, Jamie Foxx, Jonah Hill, Kerry Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Parks, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Carradine, Russ Tamblyn, Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Savini, Tom Wopat, Western

Django Unchained-2012

Leave a comment

Django Unchained-2012

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz

Scott’s Review #699

Reviewed November 26, 2017

Grade: A

Quentin Tarantino, the brilliant filmmaker, can do very little wrong in my opinion, and he releases yet another masterpiece with 2012’s Django Unchained, a western story centering around the delicate subject matter of slavery.

As with several other talented director’s stories, the main focal point here is a revenge-driven tale with plenty of bloody scenes and stylistic ferociousness, making Django Unchained yet another masterpiece in the Tarantino collection.

Certainly not for the faint of heart, the film will please fans of film creativity and artistic achievement.

As with many Tarantino films a stellar cast is used and each actor cast to perfection- it seems almost every actor in Hollywood is dying to appear in the director’s films- this time Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Samuel L. Jackson are the lucky ones, all featured in prominent roles- not surprisingly the acting is top-notch.

An interesting fact to note is that whoever appears in a Tarantino film seems to be having the time of their lives- what creative freedom and interesting material to experience.

A comparable director to Tarantino- as far as recruiting fine actors- is Robert Altman- also tremendously popular with talent.

The saga begins with clear Western flair as Django Freeman (Foxx) is led through the scorching heat of Texas with a group of other black slaves, presumably, to be sold by their abusive white captors- the time is 1858, and the abolition of slavery has not yet occurred the Civil War is still two years away.

Doctor King Schultz (Waltz), a former dentist and current bounty hunter, is on a mission to find and kill the Brittle brothers and realizes that Django can help him find the men.

To complicate matters, Django has been separated from his wife Broomhilda (Washington) and vows to find her and avenge her abductors.

As circumstances lead Schultz and Django to a vast Tennessee estate, the duo becomes business partners and friends. The race to rescue Broomhilda takes the pair to sunny (and equally hot) Mississippi- the home of vicious Calvin Candie (DiCaprio) and his dreaded “Candyland”.

The crackling heat and the atmospheric nature of Django Unchained combined with the revenge theme make the film an immeasurable success.

An ode to spaghetti westerns of yesteryear, the film incorporates similar music and grit so that the result is a modernized version of those films, with lots more blood and violence.

Slavery is a tough subject matter to tackle, especially when members of the Ku Klux Klan are featured, but Tarantino does so effortlessly, and as Django gains revenge on his tormentors, there is major audience satisfaction to be enjoyed.

The indignities and downright abuse that several black characters suffer can be quite tough to sit through.

The climactic dinner scene in Mississippi is splendid and the best sequence of the film. Schultz and Django dine with Calvin at his spectacular mansion. Calvin’s sinister and loyal house slave (Jackson) suspects a devious plan is about to be hatched and a vicious shoot-out erupts between the parties involved.

The ingenious and long sequence is a cat-and-mouse affair with all of the characters carefully tiptoeing around the others in fear of being revealed or discovered as fakes.

The scene is exceptional in its craft as we watch the characters dine on delectable food and drink, all the while motivations bubble under the surface.

Django Unchained is not for film-goers seeking either a linear story or a mainstream piece of blockbuster movie-making-Tarantino is not a typical Hollywood guy.

The film is exceptionally carved and constructed in a way that challenges the viewer to endure what some of the characters (specifically Django and Broomhilda) are made to go through. This discomfort and horror make the inevitable revenge all the more sweet and satisfying.

Quentin Tarantino has created masterpiece after masterpiece throughout his filmography of work.

Proudly, I can herald 2012’s  Django Unchained as one of the unique director’s very finest and will be sure to be remembered decades and decades in the future as being able to challenge, provoke thought, and satisfy legions of his fans.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Christoph Waltz (won), Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Cinematography

1964 Films, Agnes Moorehead, Bette Davis, Bruce Dern, Joseph Cotten, Mary Astor, Olivia de Havilland, Robert Aldrich, Thriller

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Leave a comment

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte-1964

Director Robert Aldrich

Starring Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland

Scott’s Review #632

Reviewed April 8, 2017

Grade: B+

The follow-up film, but not a direct sequel, to the surprise hit of 1962, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a psychological thriller directed by Robert Aldrich.

The film was intended to reunite Aldrich with stars Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, and Crawford did film several scenes, but the tension between the stars proved too much and Crawford dropped out.

Olivia de Havilland took her place and reportedly the filmmakers had to scramble to re-shoot the film nearly from scratch.

Shot in black and white, just like What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?, the film is very similar in style and tone, and, rather than Los Angeles as the setting, the setting is now the sprawling southern landscape of the deep south- Louisiana to be exact, and a vast estate with a lavish mansion is the featured ominous setting.

The action begins in 1927 at a grand party taking place at the well-to-do Hollis family mansion.

The night is fraught with tension and secrets are harbored- most notably southern belle Charlotte (Davis) and her married beau, John (Bruce Dern), plan to elope and steal away into the night together.

When John is threatened by Charlotte’s father, Sam (Victor Buono), he regrettably breaks up with Charlotte, destroying her. Later, John is decapitated and his hand severed leaving all of the guests only to assume that Charlotte was murdered after she appears wearing a blood-soaked dress.

Due to a lack of evidence, Charlotte is set free.

The remainder of the film takes place during present times (1964) and in the same mansion- now rather decrepit and slated to be demolished by the town in favor of a highway.

Charlotte, now old and haggard, has lived a life of seclusion, her father long since dead, and her only company is her dedicated and faithful housekeeper, Velma (Agnes Moorehead).

Frantic at the thought of leaving the safety of her estate, Charlotte asks her cousin Miriam (de Havilland) to visit. Events then become stranger and stranger as past secrets and jealousies are revealed.

Taking nothing away from the talents of Olivia de Havilland, I cannot help but imagine how much better Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte would have been if Joan Crawford had settled into the role of cousin Miriam.

The real-life rivalry between Crawford and Davis is in large part what made What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? such compelling work and the angry emotions were so fresh and real.

Interestingly, the characters are reversed in this film- Davis plays the victimized Charlotte, Crawford would have played the villainous Miriam, and the results would have been delicious.

The plot of the film is decent, but nothing spectacular, and not nearly as splendid all around as What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? was, although certain similarities abound between the two films: a giant mansion, black and white cinematography, a mentally unstable (or assumed to be) character, a character being either drugged or victimized and two female characters who are related.

To compare the two films, which is impossible not to, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? wins out in spades. It is the more compelling of the two films.

What does set Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte well above mediocrity (with lesser actors it may have been) is the casting of one of the greatest actresses ever to grace the big screen.

Bette Davis’s portrayal of the victimized Charlotte is fantastic. She encompasses vulnerability, anger, fear, and energy. Her facial expressions and those passionate eyes give so much to the character of Charlotte.

The clever resolution to the film and the plot twist after the film are quite well-written and surprising given that the characters assumed to be involved in the murder are not as guilty as one might think, or at least not in the way one might think, and by the time the credits roll, the story has a satisfying, hopeful ending.

Another success of the film is the use of two gruesome scenes- surprising since the film pre-dates the lifting of the film censorship rules.

When a severed head comes tumbling down the grand staircase of the mansion, it is frightening and not in the least campy or over-the-top. As John is hacked to death in the opening sequence, his hand is severed from his arm and it dramatically tumbles to the floor.

The scenes resonate because they were rarely done in mainstream film as early as 1964.

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a fantastic companion piece to the superior What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? but watched back to back, will make for a fantastic late-night experience.

Successful to the film are top-notch talents such as de Havilland, Victor Buono, Bruce Dern, Agnes Moorehead, and the superior film queen herself, Bette Davis, which makes any film worth watching.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Agnes Moorehead, Best Song-“Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte”, Best Music Score-Substantially Original, Best Art Direction, Black-and-White, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black and White, Best Film Editing

2003 Films, Bruce Dern, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Hopper, Documentary, Ellen Burstyn, Francis Ford Coppola, Jon Voight, Julie Christie, Martin Scorsese, Milos Forman, Pam Grier, Paul Schrader, Peter Bogdanovich, Robert Altman, Roy Scheider, Sissy Spacek, Sydney Pollack, William Friedkin

A Decade Under The Influence-2003

Leave a comment

A Decade Under the Influence-2003

Director Ted Demme, Richard LaGravenese

Starring Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin

Scott’s Review #392

60027599

Reviewed April 5, 2016

Grade: B+

Produced by the cable network Independent Film Channel (IFC), A Decade Under The Influence explores the decade of 1970s film, a decade that was arguably the most creative and liberating to filmmakers and audiences alike.

A period in film defined by the directors securing creative freedom instead of the studios, where artists instead of corporations finally ruled the roost. A Decade Under The Influence gives us an overview of the era.

Despite some conspicuous omissions, I enjoyed this informative piece a great deal.

The documentary is divided into numerous segments including sections on women in film, the transition into a different period in Hollywood, and the subsequent close of the decade.

The interviews are plentiful including a who’s who of stars: Martin Scorsese, Ellen Burstyn, Clint Eastwood, Robert Altman, Julie Christie, Francis Ford Coppola, and numerous other influential directors, actors, and filmmakers.

Each individual describes his or her perspective on 1970s cinema, and personal anecdotes of experiences or challenges are shared.

Ellen Burstyn, for example, describes how the success of The Exorcist afforded her a plethora of other film offers, but all of the roles were of prostitutes, dutiful wives, or women in peril.

She needed roles more stimulating than those so she chose to star in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, which was a much better-written role. What I found a bit sad is how there are still limited, layered roles for women in Hollywood to this day unless one goes the independent film route, which this documentary touts as a savior.

Francis Ford Coppola relays how The Godfather was never expected to be a success, but rather, how he was chosen to direct the film merely because he worked for cheap and was Italian-American.

How ironic that the film became such a monumental success and influential to film making as a whole for generations to come.

The documentary, at times, seems like an overview of the decade, with many clips of classic 1970s cinema interspersed with the talking points.

Despite being three hours in length, I still felt that there was so much more than the documentary could have explored. Not surprisingly, the stars granting interviews were granted heavy screen time for their films.

The documentary was fine, but could have delved much deeper- I could see a multiple-disc set totally of ten or more hours dedicated to the decade.

One conspicuous omission was Robert Altman’s Nashville, arguably, the best film of the decade. While it was briefly mentioned, and a still frame of a scene from it did appear, I felt that it warranted more dissection and discussion.

This was more surprising given that Altman was interviewed for the documentary.

Another miss was Halloween or any mention of John Carpenter films. Halloween influenced many horror films to come and The Exorcist received heaps of coverage, undoubtedly because star Burstyn and director William Friedkin appear at length throughout the production.

Additionally, in the horror genre, Black Christmas (a highly influential horror film) was not mentioned at all.

A celebration of my favorite decade of cinema, A Decade Under the Influence is a documentary that is a basic must-see for fans of 1970s cinema, or film students perhaps immersing themselves into the world of great film for the first time.

2003 Films, Biography, Bruce Dern, Charlize Theron, Christina Ricci, Drama, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Patty Jenkins, Scott's Top 100 Films

Monster-2003

Leave a comment

Monster-2003

Director Patty Jenkins

Starring Charlize Theron, Christina Ricci

Top 100 Films #83

Scott’s Review #347

60032559

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Monster (2003) may feature one of the best acting performances of all time-Charlize Theron simply embodies the role of the notorious female serial killer, Aileen Wuornos, in a simply astounding triumph.

The mannerisms, the anger, and the charisma that Theron portrays are nothing short of brilliance.

This brazen acting is simply the best aspect of Monster and the main reason to witness the film.

Besides this, the film itself is also great.

The film immediately focuses on Theron- we meet the down-on-her-luck prostitute sitting in tatters underneath an overpass.

Suicidal and with five dollars to her name, she goes to a dive bar for one last beer- having blown someone for the five dollars she reasons that the money will go to waste if she does not spend it.

Her older confidante is Thomas, a grizzled man assumed to be an occasional client of hers, who is played by Bruce Dern. She goes to a gay bar and meets Selby Wall (Christina Ricci), a lesbian.

Aileen insists she is not gay but winds up spending the night with her in Selby’s family home. The two form a connection and bond immediately, spending more time together and becoming immersed in each other’s lives.

When Aileen is brutally raped and beaten by a client, she begins down a dark and murderous path, killing men she meets after she steals their money.

Selby eventually catches on to this and is conflicted over whether to turn her friend in or serve as an accomplice to her crimes as the police close in on the pair.

Enough cannot be said of Theron’s performance. She simply becomes Wournos- from her walk to her infamous manic mannerisms, and her hair flip.

Theron, a gorgeous woman, gained weight, used false teeth, and became simply unrecognizable in the role of a brutal, angry, and trashy-looking woman.

Ricci also deserves praise, but plays her role as a bit clueless or dimwitted, counterbalancing Theron’s manic, in-your-face role. It works well. Both characters are longing for love and companionship and both are misfits.

In a sweet scene, the pair go roller skating together, hand in hand, to the famous rock song, “Don’t Stop Believin”.

This is a great scene.

One can argue the fact that director, Patty Jenkins, softens the way that Wournos is written. Known as a hardened, mean woman, Jenkins writes her as much more sympathetic.

This can also be attributed to the fact that Theron emits some vulnerability to the character- the woman never knew love until she met and bonded with Selby.

Needless to say, Monster (2003) is a dynamic, energetic film, thanks in large part to the powerful performance of Charlize Theron- a role that awarded her the Best Actress Academy Award.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Charlize Theron (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best First Feature (won), Best Female Lead-Charlize Theron (won), Best First Screenplay

1976 Films, Alfred Hitchcock, Bruce Dern, Karen Black, Thriller

Family Plot-1976

Leave a comment

Family Plot-1976

Director Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Bruce Dern, Karen Black

Scott’s Review #99

60020560

Reviewed July 9, 2014

Grade: B

Family Plot is sadly Alfred Hitchcock’s final film, made in 1976.

It is certainly not one of his greats, but not bad either, and a fitting way for a viewer to conclude his career.

The film is a jewel caper and has a vastly different feel from many of his other, earlier films. It has a slick quality to it and is reminiscent of a 1970s television movie, which is not a knock.

It simply feels more television-like than film, which likely could be because the film stars notable television stars, William Devane and Katherine Helman.

It also features some big film stars of the time- Karen Black, Bruce Dern, and Barbara Harris.

The film is a departure from other Hitchcock films in that it is a macabre comedy. It is a tongue-in-cheek story of a fake psychic (Harris) and her boyfriend (Dern) who become involved in a search for a missing heir, a jewel heist, and a murder.

All of the characters intersect as the film moves along and it contains some nice Hitchcock elements- the speeding car with no brakes down a hilly road is pure Hitchcock.

The film, for me, has a slightly melancholy feel as sadly, it is the great Hitchcock’s final farewell.

2013 Films, Alexander Payne, Bob Odenkirk, Bruce Dern, Comedy, Drama, Independent, Independent Comedy, Independent Drama, June Squibb, Stacy Keach, Will Forte

Nebraska-2013

Leave a comment

Nebraska-2013

Director Alexander Payne

Starring Bruce Dern, Will Forte

Scott’s Review #31

70275595

Reviewed June 17, 2014

Grade: B+

Deservedly receiving a handful of Oscar nominations, Nebraska (2013) tells the story of a senior citizen, incorrectly convinced he has won a million dollars.

He is determined to travel from Montana to Nebraska to collect the coveted prize.

On the surface, this film sounds like a downer and the use of black and white does wonders to set the atmosphere of coldness and bleakness in the wintry mid-west.

There are moments of humor and little-known June Squibb is a delight as the saucy wife of lead actor Bruce Dern, also wonderful as boozy, curmudgeonly Woody Grant.

There are a few unnecessary mid-western stereotypes, commonplace in director Alexander Payne’s films, but a heartbreaking, comical experience, makes this film worth watching.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Alexander Payne, Best Actor-Bruce Dern, Best Supporting Actress-June Squibb, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Director-Alexander Payne, Best Male Lead-Bruce Dern, Best Supporting Male-Will Forte, Best Supporting Female-June Squibb, Best First Screenplay (won)