Tag Archives: Zoey Deutch

The Disaster Artist-2017

The Disaster Artist-2017

Director-James Franco

Starring-James Franco, Dave Franco

Scott’s Review #781

Reviewed July 2, 2018

Grade: B

The Disaster Artist (2017) is a biography-comedy that I found to be middle of the road to mostly good if I’m judging in overall terms- most I liked with a little criticism.

Due to the many accolades, I confess to having anticipated a bit more from the finished product and hardly found it any sort of masterpiece.

Still, I was both impressed and unimpressed by the performance of James Franco in the lead role, awed at the emergence of the actor as a director, and the Los Angeles setting is great.

At times the film teeters almost into bad slapstick or shtick, and a bit silly, and as much as I respect his performance, this criticism is directed at Franco. Nobody can deny his acting talent if he chooses the right films.

His attempt at making his character peculiar is noticeable within seconds so it seems Franco also makes him a bit of a goof and I was not able to take the character seriously all of the time.

And the weird accent threw me.

This film is based on the non-fiction book called The Disaster Artist. The work chronicles the making of 2003’s The Room, not to be confused with the 2015 film, Room. The Room was considered amateurish and one of the worst movies to ever have been made.

Told repeatedly that his acting stinks, oddball Tommie Wiseau (James Franco), a European-American aspiring actor decide to screw Hollywood and produce, direct, and star in his own film.

Mysteriously, Wiseau has an endless amount of bank funds, which he uses towards the film. Roommate and friend, Greg Sestero (Dave Franco), stars in the film and thus gets his big break. The duo, and various others, pitch in to create the project, which suffers from a level of ineptness on the part of Wiseau.

The Los Angeles setting really resonates with me as did the recurring theme of struggle within the Hollywood scene. These are major pluses to the film as a whole.

Los Angeles can appear to be a sunny and glamorous town but always contains a gloomy dark underbelly beneath the shiny exterior.

The film realistically depicts struggle and success- from the central characters to the supporting players making the film resemble an ensemble.

Thousands struggle daily for a break with no respect or appreciation given and The Disaster Artist scores a win focusing on this.

When Tommie brazenly approaches a powerful producer in a restaurant, he is unceremoniously dismissed for having no talent and told he will never get anywhere. In addition to Tommie, several actors associated with the film struggle.

In a wonderful scene, an older actress states that being on a bad movie set beats any other job by miles. The message here is that people in Hollywood are there because they truly love it.

The sweet, empowering theme of friendship and empowerment are also to be celebrated, nice especially given the cut-throat backdrop. Tommie and Greg are best friends and have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Neither gives up on the other, even during the tortuous initial audience reaction to The Room premiere.

Could the film have been slightly darker? Yes, certainly, as very few scenes of drug destruction or the porn that many hopeful talents turn to are mentioned. But the film is not really about that, it’s an enchanting tale of hope and fun.

Interesting to note and not evident to me while watching the film is that brothers James and Dave Franco play opposite one another. While there is somewhat of a physical resemblance, the chemistry works between the two actors as best friends.

James delivers a worthy portrayal of an unusual character with a strange dialect and long, stringy brown hair, and seemingly cross-eyed. The role is comedic and perfectly suited for an unusual actor such as Franco- he must have had a ball with the part.

Movies about movie-making always fascinate me. What goes on behind the scenes?

The Disaster Artist (2017) provides enough good film meat to make it an overall good experience. Staying true to some fine Hollywood history- the famous James Dean is referenced and the spot where he died even visited- nice touch! Franco is both good and disappointing in the main role.

All-in-all, for those who enjoy film making, Hollywood, or L.A. set films, give this one a chance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-James Franco

Why Him?-2016

Why Him? -2016

Director John Hamburg

Starring John Franco, Bryan Cranston

Scott’s Review #704

Reviewed December 6, 2017

Grade: D

Why Him? (2016) is epic film drivel starring quite capable actors in a mish-mash of dull, predictable stories, obnoxious characters, and a need to attempt to go raunchier and raunchier for a cheap laugh.

Why there is a market for films like this is beyond me as no thinking is required (maybe the film will please those fans!), but the film scores slightly higher than a solid “F” based solely on a few chuckles uttered thanks to the only dim bright spots in this mess, Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally.

A story told dozens of times before in “slapstick comedy” fare, the premise is tired beyond belief. A good girl meets a bad boy, they fall head over heels in love and must deal with the aftermath of her parent’s meeting, and hating the bad boy.

The main gimmick is the rivalry between boyfriend and girlfriend’s father, like an unfunny Meet the Parents (2000).  A silly and uninteresting plot point about each character’s business success or lack thereof is mixed in as if anyone cares.

As with all films of this ilk, the story is wrapped up in a neat, tidy little bow by the time the credits roll, and all characters live happily ever after in perfect harmony.

In one of his most disappointing roles, James Franco plays Laird Mayhew, the wealthy, eccentric, thirty-something CEO of an upstart video game company.

He is foul-mouthed and comically speaks his mind or absentmindedly shows his ass on a Skype chat with his girlfriend Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) while her parents are linked to the chat at a birthday party.

Stephanie, a college student and girlfriend of Laird, invites her parents, Ned and Barb (Cranston and Mullally), along with their fifteen-year-old Scotty, for the Christmas holidays.

Predictably, Stephanie’s parents are appalled by Laird and want her to have nothing to do with him. When Stephanie arranges for Ned, Barb, and Scotty to stay at Laird’s spacious home, the antics take off as feuds and misunderstandings erupt.

The main problem with Why Him? is that director John Hamburg (famous for mainstream comedies such as Along Came Polly, 2004, and I Love You, Man, 2009) seems determined to push the raunchy comedy elements further with this idiotic film.

He makes Laird as obnoxious and crass as possible yet tries to make the character more “likable” by giving him a clueless quality; therefore, he is not mean-spirited and should be beloved by the audience.

The character does not work. Franco has played terrific roles- specifically in 127 Hours (2010) and  Howl (2010). As a fan of the talented actor, I expected more from him, but alas, some performances are only as good as the written material.

If there is a bright spot worth mentioning, it is with the casting of Cranston and Mullally.

Two actors are undeniably good at physical comedy. They do as much as they can with poorly written, stock-type roles. Cranston’s Ned, a middle-class small business owner from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is both envious and resentful of Laird, perhaps admiring the young man’s business savvy and regretting not being as successful.

Barb is a one-note, ditzy yet lovable wife, a role made slightly better by Mullally’s goofy portrayal. In one of the best scenes, Barb smokes pot and becomes a mess in her bedroom.

The following day, Ned is trapped on the toilet and has an embarrassing experience with Laird’s best friend, Gustav. While these scenes are juvenile, they are made better by the funny actors.

Suffering greatly from a tired and overused storyline that falls flat, unlikable, and dull characters, the film offers nothing of substance or worth.

Why Him? (2016) is entirely plot-driven with no character development or well-written characters.

The film is a complete waste of time. It results from a studio hoping to achieve box office success by churning out a poor comedy with wasted talent that will please only those audiences not expecting much from their films.

Everybody Wants Some!!-2016

Everybody Wants Some!!-2016

Director Richard Linklater

Starring Blake Jenner, Zoey Deutch

Scott’s Review #585

Reviewed January 5, 2017

Grade: A-

A follow-up to the successful 2014 film Boyhood, directed by Richard Linklater, Everybody Wants Some!! (2016) is another slice-of-life story with interesting characters, trials and tribulations, and a coming-of-age theme centering around the main character’s struggles to identify with themselves and each other.

Like Boyhood, a timeline is used, but instead of taking place over seventeen or so years, it takes place throughout a long weekend preceding the start of the college semester, a blissful yet melancholy time for many.

The setting is steamy Texas in the late summer of 1980.

A few freshman baseball prospects, who were superstar athletes in high school but are unknown here, move into a large house inhabited by other baseball players, hoping to make it to the majors.

The college is fictional but is a Southeast Texas Cherokee team. The main character, freshman Jake (Blake Jenner), arrives to find a bevy of drunken jocks carousing for a good time.

He bonds with the other guys but is more introspective and complex and embarks on a flirtation with a theater student, Beverly (Zoey Deutch), while also connecting with various other jocks with whom he lives.

The film is successful because it is a quiet story. Like Boyhood, Linklater focuses on relationships and good storytelling rather than big bombastic moments or cliched stereotypes. We observe many acquaintances living life, getting to know each other, and having fun rather than taking life too seriously.

At the same time, they worry about their futures and choose to live for the moment, not knowing what tomorrow will bring.

They are stuck in a moment in time.

The musical soundtrack is fantastic- interspersing 1980s bands like Van Halen (known for the title song), Pat Benatar, Devo, and many others while mixing in classic artists like Neil Young and Led Zeppelin.

The film focuses on a bonanza of rock n roll history.

Everybody Wants Some!! It is well-written and intelligent.

Fellow intellectual jock Willoughby (Wyatt Russell)and Jake do not quite fit in with the other loud and self-centered jocks, forging a close friendship, discussing intricate aspects of rock songs by Led Zeppelin and dissecting the arrangements and simply talking about life rather than guzzling beer and chasing girls.

Ironically, Linklater chooses to have Willoughby diss Van Halen as a corporate rock band despite branding the title name of the film.

One may argue that nothing happens throughout the film, but that is the beauty and what makes it work as an honest, truthful piece of filmmaking.

How novel that the film does not contain any contrived plot devices intended to create tension between the characters- the film is, and that is the beauty of it.

Everybody Wants Some!! It is intended to be observed.

The romance between Jake and Beverly is sweet and unassuming. They come from different backgrounds- he a jock, she a theater major, yet they connect innocently.

The film displays different social groups coming together, which is a significant accomplishment of the film. We witness the jocks attend a theater-style party and enjoy themselves.

The film successfully merges differing social groups as one, but the key here is that the film never does this in a contrived manner. It simply happens organically.

Some complained about the age of some of the actors, many considerably older than teenage years, donning wigs, but that did not bother me. I enjoyed the maturity of the seasoned actors in these roles.

Linklater is a modern director who dares to tell interesting stories about ordinary individuals with whom the audience can immediately identify, making him a worthy talent of today.

Vampire Academy-2014

Vampire Academy-2014

Director Mark Waters

Starring Zoey Deutch

Scott’s Review #482

70291088

Reviewed September 18, 2016

Grade: C

Vampire Academy (2014) is a teenage intended mixture of Harry Potter meets Heathers meets Twilight. It is escapist fare and is quite light, but rather fun in an amateurish way.

I am certain the target audience is of the teenage, female persuasion, but when traveling one can be limited in film options.

Hence, on a chilly night in Norway, this film kept us occupied.

The story features a half-human-half vampire named Rose, a teenage girl, who aspires to be a guardian, and who is called back to a boarding school to uncover a hierarchical web of secrets, lies, and plots.

She is accompanied by her best friend Lissa.

Predictably, there is a romantic angle to the story as Rose has feelings for Dimitri, a fellow guardian.

The film itself is fine- it knows the demographic it is going for and young adults are sure to enjoy the compelling drama, likable leads, and attractive cast.

From a film critique standpoint, there is nothing wrong with the film, but it is a bit generic and slightly predictable- from the romantic perspective, though impressively the ending is a bit of a surprise and a whodunit.

Impressive also is Sarah Hyland (Modern Family), as nerdy classmate Natalie, who seems to be the brains and the keeper of gossip throughout the academy.

The role is against type for the young actress and she does very well.

It is tough not to compare this film to the Harry Potter series of films since many aspects of Vampire Academy mirror Harry Potter- only with a female in the driver’s seat. The mysterious teachers and characters are also reminiscent of the fantastical Harry elements.

Unfortunately, a planned sequel was scrapped due to a lack of interest, which surprised me. I would anticipate a film like this to be a hit and perhaps introduce a franchise, but not to be.

An adequate young adult film that borrows from other films and also harkens back to the days of teen-minded genres of the past, specifically the 1980’s.

Dirty Grandpa-2016

Dirty Grandpa-2016

Director-Dan Mazer

Starring-Robert De Niro, Zac Efron

Scott’s Review #432

80049285

Reviewed June 29, 2016

Grade: D-

It is a sad day when the only interesting aspect of a film is the gratuitous nudity of one of its stars, but that is precisely the case with Dirty Grandpa, as Zac Efron bravely bares all for the sake of art….or a big paycheck, whichever the case may be.

Otherwise, Dirty Grandpa is complete drivel.

It is crass, rude, mean-spirited, and blatant in its raunch. It also aspires (successfully) to be politically incorrect- quite surprising in these times of fairness and equality for all. If the film intends to be outrageous it succeeds in spades.

Unfortunately, there is not much comedy and the film is quite bad, even where dumb comedies are concerned.

Starring one of films greatest talents of all time- Robert DeNiro, one wonders why he would sign on to appear in this film- certainly not the money, perhaps it has to do with playing a role he has yet to do- we will probably never know.

DeNiro plays Dick Kelly, a retired Army veteran, recently widowed after forty years of marriage. Faithful for decades, he embarks on a road trip to Daytona Beach Florida, with his grandson, Jason, in tow. Dick’s goal is to conquer a slutty college girl he and Jason meet while they are eating at a roadside diner.

Lenore, the college girl, is with her friend Shadia, who knows Jason from school.  To complicate matters, Jason is engaged to self-absorbed Meredith. This sets off a chain of circumstances where each pair falls in love, all the while hurdling various trivial issues.

Thrown in are scenes of partying, acting silly, and outrageous crude remarks and behavior. The standard bathroom humor is not spared.

The subject matter of Dirty Grandpa is not unchartered territory as the “road trip/buddy movie” has been done oodles of times in film history.

My gripe is not so much with the film’s raunchiness, but to be blunt it is just not funny. Over the top in raunch comedy has worked many times before- think Pink Flamingos and other John Waters films.

But those films had characters to root for and who was interesting.

DeNiro’s character is the pits- Efron’s not so bad. The motivation of Dick Kelly is to have sex- almost like the guys in American Pie, but with them it was cute- but DeNiro plays a man in his 70’s.

That is fine, but he is so blunt about his need for sex and whines of not having sex for fifteen years because of his wife’s cancer. So, the audience is to think of him as a nice guy because he waits for his wife to die to score on spring break?

Lame.

Efron is my favorite character and as mentioned above- he bears a lot of skin, making it the most appealing aspect of this sorry film.

The chemistry between Efron and DeNiro is not terrible, and I bought them as grandfather and grandson.

Efron is not afraid to poke fun at his beefcake image and kudos to him for this. He has a fantastic, chiseled body, and good for him for showing it off.

Efron has the talent- does anyone recall The Paperboy? He was superlative in that underrated independent gem. His character is the straight man in Dirty Grandpa and the only “normal” character. He is the voice of reason if you will.

The supporting characters are as stereotypical as possible.

It is almost as if the film intends to offend, but with no good reason why. Dirty Grandpa has the dumb jocks, the horny teen girl, the weak, effeminate gay character, the Hispanic drug dealer, and so forth.

Danny Glover’s brief cameo appearance as a horny wheelchair-bound nursing home resident (and old buddy of Dick) is as much laughable (not in a good way) as forgettable. Most characters are thinly written.

Dirty Grandpa appeals to unsophisticated moviegoers who find crude, mean-spirited characters funny, and deem stock characters acceptable. Every other sensible person will dislike this film.