Tag Archives: Naomi Watts

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Mulholland Dr.- 2001

Director David Lynch

Starring Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin Theroux

Top 250 Films #7

Scott’s Review #297

60021646

Reviewed December 12, 2015

Grade: A

Mulholland Dr. (2001) is my favorite David Lynch film and, as far as I am concerned, a pure masterpiece in experimental filmmaking.

Championed by many, yet hated by others for its non-linear and confusing storyline, trying to make sense of the mishmash of dreamlike plots is a waste of time and undoubtedly headache-inducing, as the film must be experienced and appreciated for its creativity.

My best analogy is that Mulholland Dr. is to film what Pink Floyd is to music – it must be savored and experienced. It is a film that invites interpretation and study.

The main story, if one is attempting to summarize in a paragraph, goes something like this:

Part 1- aspiring actress Betty Elms (played by then-unknown Naomi Watts) arrives in sunny Los Angeles as a perky, clean-cut girl. She stays in her aunt’s gorgeous suburban apartment while she is away filming a movie on location.

Betty meets an amnesiac woman, the gorgeous Rita (Laura Harring), who is hiding in the apartment. Before meeting Betty, we learn that Rita was involved in a car accident on Mulholland Dr. and is carrying a large sum of cash.

Still, she does not know who she is or even her name, making up the name “Rita” from a poster of Rita Hayworth she sees on the wall while showering.

Part 2: Betty (now named Diane) and Rita (now Camilla) are lovers, and Betty, no longer aspiring, has now become a neurotic, struggling actress with no work, and is involved in a love triangle with Camilla and another man, who are both great successes and pity Diane.

Diane and Camilla visit a club named Club Silencio, where a gorgeous singer brings them to tears with her singing, only to collapse and reveal herself as a phony. The host warns that everything is an illusion.

Intersecting vignettes seemingly unrelated to the central part of the story- a young director forced to cast a woman after threats from the mafia, a terrified man who sees a demented man behind the dumpster of a burger joint, and a detective searching for the clues to the car accident involving Rita- all come together to relate to the main story.

Mixed in with all of these stories are recurring odd characters- the seemingly sweet elderly couple that Betty meets on the airplane.

This strange cowboy appears every so often. Coco, the landlord, played by legendary film actress Ann Miller, in her last film, Coco, then doubles as a shrewish character in the alternate story, and finally, a mysterious blue key.

How do all these facets of story and character add up?

That is open to interpretation.

Some details support the theory that “Betty” is a figment of Diane’s imagination. She dreams of being fresh-faced and ready to take on L.A., and the woman that Betty and Rita find dead is likely Diane.

When the plot changes direction, the cowboy utters the line “Hey, pretty girl. Time to wake up.”, which seems to support this theory, though, as mentioned before, Mulholland Dr. is meant to be enjoyed, not stressed over if the puzzle does not always come together.

Mulholland Dr. (2001) is a masterpiece, pure and simple. An odd masterpiece with plots that can be discussed and dissected for ages…..and not understanding the film is not a bad thing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-David Lynch

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Cinematography (won)

Eastern Promises-2007

Eastern Promises-2007

Director David Cronenberg

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts

Top 250 Films #193

Scott’s Review #205

70059994

Reviewed December 15, 2014

Grade: B+

Eastern Promises is a 2007 Russian mafia thriller directed by David Cronenberg (The Fly, A History of Violence) that stars Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, and Vincent Cassel.

The film is an uneven experience, seemingly meshing two stories together- one fascinating, one unnecessary.

Watts plays a British-Russian midwife named Anna, who works at a London hospital. She attempts to find the family of Tatiana, a fourteen-year-old girl who dies during childbirth leaving a diary written in Russian along with her newborn.

Anna struggles to unravel the mystery surrounding the girl which ends up involving the mafia.

Mortensen plays Nikolai, the mysterious chauffeur to crime lord Semyon, and Cassel plays Kirill, the disturbed, alcoholic son of Semyon.

The plot segues into a story of a somewhat relationship between Nikolai and Anna that is not quite romantic and also a much more intriguing relationship between Nikolai and Kirill as a brotherhood of sorts develops between them.

This relationship is complex- Kirill wants Nikolai to prove he is a straight male by having sex with one of several female prisoners he and his father keep as part of a sex trafficking group.

During this scene, and a few others, the two men seem close, almost too close, given the sexual nature of what is happening during the scene, so this relationship is left vague, but intriguing nonetheless.

The latter story holds more interest to me, whereas the former seems contrived and rather uninteresting. Was the intention of the film to imply a romantic interest between Anna and Nikolai?

I found zero chemistry between the two and wondered if the audience was supposed to root for them as a couple or not.

The four principal characters in Eastern Promises are interesting to unravel. I found the characters of Nikolai and Kirill complex and interesting.

Not so much with the character of Anna. Why did I not find her so compelling? Besides a skimmed over the mention of how she lost a baby what vested interest did she have in mixing with the Russian mafia and putting her mother and uncle in harm’s way?

Sure, anyone would want to find an orphaned baby’s family, but why not just call the police? This seems like a large plot hole. Conversely, Nikolai is a fascinating, layered character played wonderfully by Mortensen.

What are his true motivations? Is he a good guy or a bad guy? His attempts at being accepted by Semyon and the family to join the mob family make him seem dangerous- but his kindness towards one of the Ukrainian prostitutes is sweet.

Kirill is a despicable character, but what is his sexuality? Does that make him get so drunk and angry? How does one explain his conflict over the baby shifting his character too sympathetic?

Ultimately, Nikolai and Kirill are complicated- Anna and Semyon are more one-note.

I would have preferred the story solely revolve around the mafia family and the Godfather-type scenes, specifically the two throat-slashing scenes violently done, and perhaps leave out Watts’s character and story altogether.

A gritty scene that takes place in a steam room pits Nikolai against two rival mafia men. The scene is long and intense. Mortensen performs the scene completely naked, which adds to the rawness and the brutality of the fight.

It is one of the most masculine scenes I can remember watching.

At times compelling, but riddled with plot holes and requiring some suspension of disbelief, Eastern Promises (2007) is an entertaining Russian mafia film that remains a decent watch.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

Luce-2019

Luce-2019

Director Julius Onah

Starring Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, Kelvin Harrison, Jr. 

Scott’s Review #1,122

Reviewed March 16, 2021

Grade: B+

Often unpleasant with shifting character allegiances, Luce (2019) is a painful look at race relations. The clever nuance is the relationships between people of the same race.

Superior acting elevates the film above just a nice idea, as heavyweights like Octavia Spencer and Naomi Watts lend credibility to a small indie film.

The result is sometimes muddied waters and an unclear direction, but the effort is exceptional and a worthy subject matter in modern times.

The film is down and dirty, and no apologies are given for what is dissected. The co-writer and director, Julius Onah, a Nigerian-American man, offers glimpses of grandeur, and it is impossible to guess how it will end.

We wonder if he bases the story on his own very real experiences, and I am eager to see what projects he comes up with in the future.

I found some aspects of the film implausible, if not logically impossible, and not every point adds up or is successfully outlined. But the effort and the balance of drama, thrills, and social issues are there for the taking.

I realized I was rooting for one character, and then suddenly, I was disappointed in their actions, and my allegiance shifted to another of the principal characters. This is key and a positive aspect of a good character-driven film.

At times, though, the characters’ actions are questionable, and more than one mighty shake of the head in disbelief will be experienced.

Liberal-minded parents Amy (Watts) and Peter Edgar (Eli Roth) have adopted Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr.), a child of a refugee from a dangerous third-world country. It is referenced that they have spent years in therapy to repair the damage he has suffered as a child.

It is implied he learned to shoot and possibly kill at a young age. Now a teenager and Americanized, Luce is popular in high school and a star scholar and track star.

Life is good. Or is it?

The film, based on J.C. Lee’s play of the same name, is shot conventionally and does not look like a play.

Luce writes and submits an alarming essay that forces the Edgars to reconsider their marriage and their family after their teacher brings it to their attention.

He challenges and makes an enemy of this teacher, Harriet Wilson (Spencer), who is extremely tough on students of color, being black herself. She snoops through one student’s locker and finds drugs, ratting on him and blowing his chances for a scholarship.

When she finds fireworks in his locker, she is appalled and makes it her mission to entangle his parents, but could she have planted them herself?

Is she out to get Luce, jealous of his success when she has had to struggle for hers? Tensions mount between Harriet and Luce as the story unfolds.

The acting is powerful all around the canvas, but Harrison and Spencer deliver a standout performance that is nearly brilliant. Watts and Roth are good, too, but with more standard portrayals.

Excellent is how we get to know each of the four principles in detail. Harriet, at first, appears a demanding shrew, but her personal life makes her sympathetic. She attempts to care for her mentally ill sister herself, but after a humiliating scene at school, she is forced to return her to her home.

Suddenly, I was a fan of Harriet. Later, I was disappointed in Luce and Amy, whom I thought I was supposed to root for. The film is topsy-turvy, and I enjoyed this juicy infusion of not knowing what was to come next.

When Luce’s female classmate, who harbors an enormous secret, takes center stage, the roller-coaster ride becomes even bumpier.

I wish there were more films like Luce (2019) to hit mainstream theaters. It provokes thought and opinion while featuring social problems, preconceived notions, and trusting one’s merits.

I wish the puzzle had been solved more satisfactorily than it was.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Director-Julius Onah, Best Male Lead-Kelvin Harrison, Jr., Best Supporting Female-Octavia Spencer

J. Edgar-2011

J. Edgar-2011

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts

Scott’s Review #1,099

Reviewed January 12, 2021

Grade: A

When director Clint Eastwood and actor Leonardo DiCaprio align, exceptional things can happen. This is evidenced by J. Edgar (2011), a compelling and well-constructed drama with a biographical and character-driven focus.

One gets inside the head and psyche of the title character, J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, with DiCaprio playing him flawlessly.

The film is left-of-center, surprising for the mainstream director, though his film-making style is familiar. Eastwood does what he does best by constructing a slick and “Hollywood” experience.

There are not daring camera angles or unique uses of light that Stanley Kubrick might use.  He creates a steady affair that will appeal to the American heartland, getting butts to the movie theater on his name alone.

The film opens in 1919 when a young Hoover (DiCaprio) is tasked with purging radicals from the United States and obtaining their secrets, something he’d carry with him for decades. He meets a new Secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), whom he makes an awkward pass and an even more awkward marriage proposal.

She refuses, and they become professional and personal allies.

The story then plods along with historical stops through the decades like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Martin Luther King Jr., and Richard Nixon.

Hoover is always involved in these escapades.

Hoover, who served as the head of the bureau from 1924 until he died in 1972, was a powerful and ruthless man.

Eastwood carefully dissects him, professionally and personally. He never married, lived with his mother, traveled, and enjoyed dinners with one man who in death, bequeathed his estate.

You do the math.

He was a gay man when one couldn’t be an openly gay man. Thus, he is conflicted, and Eastwood does a great job of showing the demons he wrestles with.

The relationship between Hoover and lawyer, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) is my favorite part of J. Edgar because it’s interesting and humanistic.

DiCaprio and Hammer give outstanding performances with flawless chemistry and charisma.

When Hoover professes his love for Tolson and quickly recants his statement then professes love for an actress, we view his turmoil. He loves Tolson but cannot bear to accept it even though it would free him from his chains.

Despite the tender nature of the sequence above or that his mother was a traditional, no-nonsense, shrew, Hoover is not portrayed as a hero. He was a complicated and damaged man and Eastwood hits this point home.

He blackmailed Martin Luther King Jr., kept sexual secrets on several Hollywood stars, and participated in various abuses of power.

The film does admit that the director also instituted fingerprinting and forensic measures that reduced crime.

Those who desire a straightforward lesson in history may be slightly perturbed by the focus on Hoover’s personal life. Eastwood could have easily made Hoover’s career the only facet of the production-enough material that exists for this.

Instead, we get to see the inner workings of the man. Kudos for this.

Dustin Lance Black, who wrote Milk (2008), a portrait of a gay man, is back at the helm serving as a screenwriter. But the two films are not modeled after one another. They are very different animals.

While Milk celebrates a man refusing to deny who he and others are, demanding their just civil rights, J. Edgar provides the narrative of a man fleeing from who he is.

Offering a rich and complex biography of a tortured man, the audience is exposed to a person wrestling with inner turmoil. Hoover was a famous man, but the film could easily represent those thousands of men who could not bring themselves to accept who they were.

The largest praise goes to DiCaprio who makes us sympathize, pity, and admire the complexities of his character.

J. Edgar (2011) hits a grand slam.

21 Grams-2003

21 Grams-2003

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, Benicio Del Toro

Scott’s Review #990

Reviewed February 14, 2020

Grade: A

21 Grams (2003) is an independent drama containing crisp writing, top-notch acting, and a unique directing style by Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

An early work by the acclaimed director, he delivers a powerful exposure to the human condition using intersecting storylines.

The result is a powerful emotional response that resonates among viewers taking the time to let the story evolve and marinate.

Outstanding filmmaking and a sign of things to come for the director.

The film is the second part of screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga’s and Iñárritu’s Trilogy of Death, preceded by Amores Perros (2000) and followed by Babel (2006), 21 Grams interweaves several plot lines in a nonlinear arrangement.

Viewing the films in the sequence is not required to appreciate and revel in the gorgeous storytelling and mood.

The story is told in a non-linear fashion and focuses on three main characters, each with a “past”, a “present”, and a “future” story thread. Events culminate in a horrific automobile accident, which is the overall story. The sub-story fragments delve into the lives of the principals as the audience learns more about them.

Ultimately, all three lives intersect in dramatic fashion leaving the viewer mesmerized and energized by the deep connections.

Paul Rivers (Sean Penn) is a successful, married college mathematics professor who desperately needs a heart transplant. He and his wife are considering having a baby in case he should die.

Cristina Peck (Naomi Watts) is a recovering drug addict now living a happy suburban life with a loving husband and two young children.

Jack Jordan (Benicio Del Toro) is a former convict who is using his newfound religious faith to recover from drug addiction and alcoholism and live a happy existence with his wife and kids. After the car accident, each life takes a shocking turn forever changing things.

The multiple timelines and back-and-forth storytelling are an excellent part of 21 Grams, adding layers upon layers of potential entanglements among the characters. This could be a confusing quality, but instead, it provides mystique and endless possibilities.

What worked so well in the outstanding Traffic (2000) is used by Inarritu and delivers. The recipe of clever plotting characters the audience cares about and top-notch acting is created, mixed, and served on a silver platter.

Penn, Watts, and Del Toro are stellar actors who give their characters strength, sympathy, and glory. Each has suffered greatly and faced (or faces) tremendous obstacles in life, soliciting feelings from viewers.

All three are good characters, trying to do the right thing, and grasp hold of any sliver of happiness they can find. They have moral sensibilities without being judgmental, delicious is how each character interacts with the others, but in differing ways.

The film is not happy and not for young kids, but the brilliant elements will leave the film lover agape at the qualities featured. The dark, muted lighting of the film is perfect for the morbid stories told throughout and the common themes of anguish, courage, and desperation.

The clever title refers to an experiment in 1907 that attempted to show scientific proof of the existence of the soul by recording a loss of body weight (said to represent the departure of the soul) immediately following death.

Only the second full-length film in Inarritu’s young career, 21 Grams is brilliant in human emotion and connections. The powerful director would go on to create Babel (2006) and The Revenant (2015), two vastly different films but with similar hearts.

21 Grams (2003) is a wonderful introduction to good things to come while utilizing crafty acting and layered writing to create a gem well worth repeated viewings.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Naomi Watts, Best Supporting Actor-Benicio del Toro

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Special Distinction Award (won)

Vice-2018

Vice-2018

Director Adam McKay

Starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #849

Reviewed December 31, 2018

Grade: A

Following 2015’s The Big Short, Adam McKay once again creates an intelligently written, thought-provoking political film based on facts and historical accounts.

With Vice (2018) he focuses on former Vice President Dick Cheney and his rise through the political ranks to second in command.

Brilliant and wise in every way, the film is fair-minded in its approach. Predictably, in this era of “fake news,” it will be embraced by liberals but shunned by conservatives.

In the first seconds of Vice, a disclaimer appears stating that Cheney was a private man with secrets, but the filmmakers did their best to relay accurate information. The salty language in this clip will likely elicit chuckles, but McKay stays the course with his statement.

Immediately, the film flashes to the September 11 attacks with Cheney sitting in crisis mode, about to make an important decision.

Vice then retreats to 1963 Wyoming as a drunken college-aged Dick Cheney (Christian Bale) is pulled over for erratic driving after a barroom brawl. He is nearly dumped by his girlfriend and future wife Lynne Cheney (Amy Adams), who threatens to find another man if Dick does not straighten out.

He manages an internship and an admiration for Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell), a staunch Republican and White House Chief of Staff, and begins his political climb.

In clever form, the film is narrated by a character named Kurt (Jesse Plemons), who we do not know is connected to Cheney until the end of the film. This adds an added measure of intrigue to the overall film, as we know a secret will be revealed.

Vice is also unique in direction, with constant back-and-forth timeline scenes and quirky humor throughout. Are the Cheneys portrayed as ridiculous? No, but sardonic humor is directed at them as their ambitions and power-hungry motivations are completely exposed.

The film does a great job of taking the viewer through the political state of Cheney’s administration, roughly the early 1970s until 2008, when Obama took office. The Clinton years are completely skipped, but that is more to do with Cheney being in the private sector rather than an intentional slight.

The Nixon years and the George W. Bush years are given hefty screen time and the latter is portrayed as nearly a buffoon as Rockwell portrays him as a boozy, dumb frat boy.

Bale is startlingly good as Cheney and deservedly steals the show. In addition to the forty-pound weight gain, the actor endured the facial and hair treatments (props to the makeup department!) and became the man.

His body movements, smile, and speech patterns are daringly good. With a sneer and a calculating grin, we see the wheels spinning in Cheney’s head numerous times, and Bale is incredible at portraying these thoughts to the audience.

The film contains many well-known actors in vital supporting roles worth noting. The depictions of the following are examples of excellent casting with spot-on representations: Tyler Perry as Colin Powell, LisaGay Hamilton as Condoleezza Rice, Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush, Alison Pill as Mary Cheney, and Lily Rabe as Liz Cheney.

All portrayals are excellent to watch, especially for viewers who remember the real-life people involved.

Some will undoubtedly complain that the film has a “liberal slant” and portrays Cheney as power-hungry and self-serving. While this is a valid point, and McKay makes left-leaning choices, the director bravely carves the film into an experience that goes both ways.

More than a few scenes (including the final scene) justify Cheney’s actions, in his mind anyway. Claiming to do what is suitable for the people and be a true American, his actions and yearning for power can be understood to some degree, or perhaps by some people.

Vice (2018) is controversial and undoubtedly divisive, which is unsurprising given the current state of American politics. It tells an inspiring and rich story of an elusive politician’s life and policies, daring to be forgotten, that still resonate across the United States.

The more I ponder this film’s importance, the greater it becomes, but stay past the credits for arguably the best moment in the movie and of monumental importance in 2018.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director- Adam McKay, Best Actor- Christian Bale, Best Supporting Actor- Sam Rockwell, Best Supporting Actress- Amy Adams, Best Original Screenplay, Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won), Best Film Editing

St. Vincent-2014

St. Vincent-2014

Director Theodore Melfi

Starring Bill Murray, Naomi Watts, Melissa McCarthy

Scott’s Review #246

70295665

Reviewed June 5, 2015

Grade: B-

St. Vincent (2014) succeeds only due to the charming, funny appeal of its star Bill Murray, who fronts this cute, mainstream comedy.

Set in blue-collar Brooklyn, New York, it tells the story of a curmudgeonly old man (the title character, Vincent), who befriends a lonely young boy named Oliver, new to the neighborhood.

Mixed in with the cast of characters are Oliver’s struggling mother Maggie (played by Melissa McCarthy) and Vincent’s pregnant, stripper girlfriend, Daka, played by Naomi Watts.

I found intrigue in how we get to know Vincent first and then watch him evolve from a grumpy, cutting old man to a begrudging babysitter of the neighbor boy while clashing with Maggie and fighting with Daka.

Murray returns to comic wit using his now-legendary flawless dry, sarcastic humor and perfect timing and displays much of that in St. Vincent. Throughout all of this Vincent remains brutally honest with his snarky remarks (mainly aimed at Maggie) yet heartwarming and I love this aspect of the film.

Thanks to Murray, Vincent is lovable, making the film, which with lesser talent, would be overly sentimental

As the film progresses we see Vincent’s struggles- his wife suffers from Alzheimer’s, and he is indebted to bookies (primarily Terence Howard- in a bit of a throwaway role).

The film staggers with some predictability issues and is formulaic and easy to predict a warm finale.

Of course, in true form, Vincent is a Vietnam vet who drinks and gambles and is angry at the world, but has a heart of gold so, despite being temperamental, the audience falls in love with him (patriotism helps).

The character contains every cliche in the book. A mean old man- who rises to new heights and becomes a nice grandfather figure to a bullied boy is what this film is going for.

The bullying of Oliver is also contrived- during one scene Oliver, after being picked on once again by the prominent bully, flies into a seething rage and breaks the bully’s nose.

The audience is supposed to buy that the waif-ish, shy kid triumphs over the bully. If only life were that simple. Inevitably, after both serve after-school detention, they bond over bathroom cleaning and become best friends.

Who did not see that coming?

In addition, most of the characters are one-note.

Naomi Watts is a sexy, and aging Russian (not sure I bought that accent) stripper with a soft spot- she comes across as uptight but is caring- another cliche.

Melissa McCarthy is a hard-working, soon-to-be divorcee, trying to raise her kid right- one-dimensional. Even Vincent is seemingly tough as nails, but of course, has a soft spot for the neighbor kid.

The casting of Watts, McCarthy, and Howard is okay, and I surmise the film was going for casting “name” actors, but these parts might have been played by unknowns and had the same effect.

The gem is Murray.

Murray effortlessly breathes life into a character who otherwise would have been as dull as dishwater. I found the writing the weakest point of the film.

A major incident brings the cast together united as one (yawn). The film closes with the family all happily eating dinner together. I do not see this as a spoiler as this ending can be seen a mile away.

Despite the flaws and sentimentality of the film, it is admittedly sweet, and humorous at times, and sends a nice message to the audience- be kind to one another and help each other get through life.

Without Bill Murray, this film would have been completely bland and unlikeable.

St. Vincent (2014) is a feel-good film that is perhaps too feel-good.

Birdman-2014

Birdman-2014

Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Starring Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #190

80000643

Reviewed November 6, 2014

Grade: A

Birdman (2014) is a unique art film that, happily, has garnered major exposure and publicity because a movie like this runs the risk of receiving praise and notice only from the art-house crowd itself.

The film’s star, Michael Keaton, portrays Riggan Thomson, a former action hero superstar from the 1990s, who was made famous for the “Birdman” character he created.

Having made sequels to the film, his career has since dried up and he hopes to establish credibility and prove himself a real actor by writing, directing, and starring in his play.

The film is set in and around the Broadway theater in New York City.

As opening night approaches, he struggles to pull everything together and emit a successful production while faced with an injured terrible actor, a difficult actor, his insecurities, and a miserable theatre critic destined to ruin his big chance.

To make matters worse, his daughter Sam, played by Emma Stone is a recovering drug addict who hangs around the theatre distracting actors with her charm and good looks.

Naomi Watts and Edward Norton play Leslie and Mike, other cast members in the production. Watts is sympathetic as the emotional actress with a heart of gold who finally has her dream of performing on Broadway realized.

Norton, outstanding as Mike, is blunt yet socially awkward and can only perform truthfully on stage.

Keaton is simply a marvel as he plays a dark and vulnerable man. He hates and wishes to shed his ridiculous movie persona of yesteryear and secretly cringes when recognized by fans. He uses it with a voice inside his head when he played “Birdman” years earlier.

The uniqueness of the film is the use of what seems like one long take as the action rarely stops and is ongoing. The film belongs to Keaton, who wonderfully relays vulnerability, pain, and fear within with an outward persona of bravery and masculinity.

Throughout the film I wondered, is Riggan suicidal? What is real and what is imagined? Are certain scenes foreshadowing later events?

The film has much depth.

One marvels at how art imitates life, is Keaton portraying himself? He was the original Batman in the successful superhero franchise beginning in 1989 and his career tanked shortly after.

Birdman is a comeback film for him and he is devastatingly good.

Norton’s character Mike impressed me. He is blunt flawed, scared, and addicted to the stage.

Stone has one particularly brilliant scene as she lambasts her father and with regret, later on, tells him that the world has moved on without him and that he is irrelevant just like everyone else. It is a powerful scene.

In another, Riggan is locked outside the theater during the performance, clad only in his underwear. How on earth will he return to the stage and complete the show? The quick slights at current Hollywood superstars playing superheroes, specifically Robert Downey Jr. are deliciously naughty.

It is impossible to predict what will come next and the film is very New York theater style. Keaton’s run-in with a theater critic in a cocktail bar is the best scene in the film as the critic’s vicious critique of “You’re a celebrity, not an actor” resonates with both pain and tremendous anger for Riggan.

Riggan is a sensitive, struggling man and Keaton so wonderfully shows his vulnerability in every scene.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Iñárritu (won), Best Actor-Michael Keaton, Best Supporting Actor-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Actress-Emma Stone, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography (won)

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 3 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Director-Alejandro G. Inarritu, Best Male Lead-Michael Keaton (won), Best Supporting Male-Edward Norton, Best Supporting Female-Emma Stone, Best Cinematography (won)

Diana-2013

Diana-2013

Director Oliver Hirschbiegel

Starring Naomi Watts, Naveen Andrews

Scott’s Review #63

70291112

Reviewed June 24, 2014

Grade: C+

Assuming all the details of Diana (2013) are accurate, this film was an interesting account of Princess Diana’s last two years of life and her transition from married royalty to single woman, all the while being the most famous woman on earth.

While the film was interesting, I felt something was missing and it was not as gripping as I had hoped.

I also did not quite buy Naomi Watts as Diana. Her mannerisms were off to me and the real Diana was taller.

Also, I didn’t quite believe that Diana could throw on a brown wig and walk freely around London unrecognized.

There was no chemistry between Watts and Naveen Andrews (TV’s Lost), who played a successful heart surgeon with whom Diana begins a romance.

These criticisms do not mean the film was a total failure,(there was a sincere likability and charisma that Watts brought to the role), but not as good as one would have hoped.