Uncategorized

1977 Movie Review: NEW YORK NEW YORK, 1977

festreviews 1977 Movies, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , ,


NEW YORK NEW YORK, 1977
Movie Reviews

Directed by Martin Scorsese
Starring: Liza Minnelli, Robert De Niro, Georgie Auld
Review by Jayvibha Vaidya

SYNOPSIS:

Jimmy Doyle and Francine Evans meet in New York as young, struggling musicians. They fall in love, get married and struggle with fame, career and marriage, all against the backdrop of the 40’s big band era.

REVIEW:

“You do not leave me! I leave you!”

Part musical, part film-noir, Martin Scorsese’s New York, New York is an epic love story following the rise and fall of two struggling artists.

It’s V-J Day, 1945. The war has just ended and young Jimmy Doyle (Robert De Niro) is itching to have some fun. Enter Francine Evans (Liza Minnelli), classy, polished and utterly uninterested in Jimmy. A long fast-talking, insult-throwing scene sets their love story on course. The film follows their crazy, mismatched pairing as they struggle to make it in the music business in the city that never sleeps.

The look of the film shifts between gritty and stylized. The film showcases the busy, dirty bars in New York against the film noir rain-slicked streets. Some scenes are filmed in bright daylight or stark darkness with other scenes shot with gauzy filters re-creating the look of the 1940’s musical, with soft lighting and extreme close-ups. Utilizing these techniques, Scorsese creates a mood that is equally dark and exuberant; much like the relationship between the two lovers.

With many scenes largely improvised, the plot sometimes falters then gains momentum. The editing however, keeps most of the film consistently moving forward. Both actors bring amazing performances with De Niro more New York street-punk and Minnelli channeling the 40’s musical, film-noir dame. This slight mismatch works for the film as it slides between convention and satire; the characters are sometimes talented artists then raging egomaniacs.

As any epic love story, the couple endures difficulties and in this case it is Jimmy’s insecurity as Francine’s career catapults her into the limelight. The more Jimmy struggles to be a well-recognized saxophone player, the easier it seems for Francine to launch her singing career. The fights that ensue are painful, dark and violent. Apparently, Scorsese encouraged both actors toward more physical acting which escalated and ended up putting them all in the hospital! But the resulting scene is intimate and disturbing, giving brevity to the complexity of their marriage.

The film does not use the musical convention where actors suddenly burst into song. Instead, the singing and sax playing is all organic; as they’re rehearsing, auditioning or performing. De Niro learned to play the sax even though the sound was dubbed and in the film, he hardly sings. Minnelli however sings her heart out! She has the ability to convey a range of emotions through controlled, precise vocal performances. The “Happy Endings” sequence near the end of the film showcases her singing, dancing and comedic talent. It is at this moment that the film takes a break to highlight a musical convention: the performance within the performance. Utilizing large-scale sets, choreographed dancers and many costume changes, it is light, funny and entertaining. And of course, her performance of the title song written by John Kander and Fred Ebb went on to become one of the most famous songs sung in history.

New York, New York, is a love story between two people who are bonded through music. The last scene breaks the convention of the happy ending, allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusions about the fate of the troubled lovers. Sometimes adhering to the conventions of the musical and sometimes satirizing those very conventions, the film is an interesting, visually stunning piece of work.

SCREENPLAY CONTESTSUBMIT your SCREENPLAY
Voted #1 screenplay contest in the world!		 NEW MOVIE REVIEWSNEW MOVIE REVIEWS
Read Today’s POSTED REVIEWS		 MOVIE KILLSEE 1000s of PICTURES
Best of photos, images and pics		 MOVIE YEARMOVIES YEAR BY YEAR
Pages from 1900 to present

 

NEW YORK NEW YORK.pg

1977 Movie Review: THE LAST WAVE, 1977

festreviews 1977 Movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,


THE LAST WAVE, 1977
Movie Reviews

Directed by Peter Weir
Starring: Richard Chamberlain, Olivia Hamnett, David Gulpilil, Frederick Parslow, Vivean Gray
Review by Trevor Hogg

SYNOPSIS:

An Australian attorney defends a group of aborigines who are charged with killing one of their own for violating a tribal taboo. As the murder case progresses, he becomes plagued by apocalyptic visions of water that entwine him with the prophetical beliefs of his clients.

REVIEW:

The roving Australian director, Peter Weir, encountered his creative muse while on holiday in Tunisia. “I found a buried Roman head, a beautiful piece of marble which I somehow knew I was going to find. It was an extraordinary experience,” the respected filmmaker remarked upon recalling his moment of premonition. “I wondered what if a lawyer had found it, someone whom it was harder to assimilate, the rational man rather than the filmmaker who deals with the imagination.” The idea percolated to the point of becoming the starting point for The Last Wave.

It was not the first time the Australian had worked with Aboriginal actor, Gulpilil, who gained international attention as the star in Nicolas Roeg’s Walkabout. “I used him in a T.V. episode in a very straightforward part,” Weir stated. “He was being persecuted by a white overseer in an historical series, and we were chatting in a bar one night after work; he said some things about his family, and then suddenly he said a sentence. It was something like, ‘You see my father and I and that’s why the moon isn’t.” Peter Weir was confused by the remark. “I thought about it that night and the next morning and suddenly I realized what it was. That he was talking about another perception. He was talking about an experience for which there are no words. He’d seen something in another way. That was a breakthrough for me, firstly in writing the screenplay, and secondly in my future conversations with him because then I would look out for these moments or I would provoke them.”

To ensure an authentic representation of Aboriginal culture, the director flew to Darwin where he met with Nandjiwarra Amagula, a respected tribal elder and magistrate on Groote Island. “Anything with the Aboriginals underwent change,” Peter Weir replied. “Nandjiwarra was the key. In accepting to do the film, he accepted the principal of recreating a lost Sydney tribe and their symbols and tokens.” However, there were certain conditions; Nandjiwarra would not allow the use of existing tribal symbols which resulted in the art director creating fictional ones.

Weir continued. “I wanted the film to show the contrast between the European without the dreaming and the tribal person with the dreaming, and we talked about some of those things. Later, Nandji, changed quite a bit of dialogue and asked for certain things be put in.” He went on to give an example. “The dinner scene with the family, which is my favourite scene. It was really constructed by Gulpilil and Nandjiwarra. Nandjiwarra put in all the lines about the law and the law being more important than man, and that is really the heart of the film. It was a marvelous day of filming, one where you call ‘cut’ and nothing really changes, the conversation continues. At the lunch break they didn’t really care about leaving; the conversation between Chamberlain and Nandjiwarra continued.”

On casting Richard Chamberlain as the corporate tax attorney turned trial lawyer, the renowned filmmaker responded, “There was something in his face, there was some alien quality, and in my story my character had that quality. I had one actor, an Australian I thought of using but he was unavailable. Also, we couldn’t raise all the money in Australia. Chamberlain’s name occurred to somebody and I remembered that face, those eyes in particular.”

The Last Wave begins with a group of schoolchildren playing a game of cricket; however, they are quickly forced inside by an abrupt hail storm. The strange weather intensifies as David (Chamberlain) becomes obsessed with the ongoing murder trial. Haunted by images suggesting that the end of the world is at hand, he recruits one of the defendants (Gulpilil) to be his spiritual advisor. David’s apocalyptic visions climax when he confronts a tribal shaman (Nandjiwarra) in a sacred subterranean site located beneath the city. David escapes so to warn the people above of the imminent natural disaster. He collapses in hopelessness upon witnessing the rise of a great wave high above the urban landscape.

“I think I have to be honest and say that I didn’t find the solution to the problem of how to end the film,” confessed Weir when addressing the controversial conclusion to the movie. “There is no ending. I was painted into a corner. I have seen it happen with other filmmakers dealing in this kind of area. You can’t end it. You can try to be clever, and I tried a couple of other endings that did stop short of any wave, but they were just too neat. The ending just plagued me, and it was an extremely unhappy period. Part way through the film we broke over Easter. I remember a terrible few days wrestling with this ending and pretending I had found a solution to it.” He also went on to state. “It’s just the last chapter that is missing. I just have to leave it; don’t look back.” Upon further reflection, the storyteller admitted he would have approached things differently. “I think if I did the film today, I would…stay in the court of law.”

SCREENPLAY CONTESTSUBMIT your SCREENPLAY
Voted #1 screenplay contest in the world!		 NEW MOVIE REVIEWSNEW MOVIE REVIEWS
Read Today’s POSTED REVIEWS		 MOVIE KILLSEE 1000s of PICTURES
Best of photos, images and pics		 MOVIE YEARMOVIES YEAR BY YEAR
Pages from 1900 to present

 

THE LAST WAVE

1977 Movie Review: HIGH ANXIETY, 1977

festreviews 1977 Movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , ,

HIGH ANXIETY MOVIE POSTER
HIGH ANXIETY, 1977
Movie Reviews

Directed by Mel Brooks
Starring: Mel Brooks, Madeline Kahn, and Harvey Korman
Review by Mark Engberg

SYNOPSIS:

A demented hospital staff in this classic parody of Alfred Hitchcock’s suspenseful classics threatens a renowned psychiatrist suffering from vertigo mental illness.

REVIEW:

After tackling the traditional Western, the classic horror epic, and even the pioneer style of the silent movie, Mel Brooks takes on the most ostentatious of Hollywood entities: Alfred Hitchcock. This is a movie that not only suggests but demands familiarity with Hitchcock’s reputation as the master of suspense in order to get the better half of the jokes.

In traditional Mel Brooks style, the comedy is delivered without subtlety. In fact, he crams the references in your face like it was a pie from an abusive waiter. Or a bellboy (who gets no tip).

While the level of wit can be described as sophomoric, it must also be acknowledged that Mr. Brooks surpassed all level of expectation in this project mimicking the great works of Mr. Hitchcock: “The Birds”, “North by Northwest”, and of course “Vertigo”. Roger Ebert disapproved of Brooks’ satirization here, stating that Hitchcock classics were already full of wit and that a slapstick farce mocking the director’s style of storytelling was inadequate and heedless.

Mr. Ebert may have a point regarding Brooks’ simplistic style of principal shooting. Honestly, did the man ever study three-point lighting? Or how to eliminate a boom mike shadow from a reflecting angle? If not for Brooks’ impeccable sense of timing and unconquered comedy, his production would seem amateur and somewhat unnatural.

But given Mel Brooks’ pampered edge of such a heralded style and his respectful style of soft-core mockery, I must disagree with Mr. Ebert and his speculation of improper irony. Who better to challenge the Master of Suspense than the Master of Farce?

Instead of appearing as a cameo, as Hitchcock did in every one of his own classics, Brooks takes the center stage as the star lead in his sixth directed feature. While some may complain about the director’s preference for his own performed comedy, you have to admire the man’s ability to sculpt his own comedic invention into actual product. Mel Brooks is one of the few filmmakers from Hollywood who can be credited, or blamed, as the writer, director, and star of his own celebrated comedy.

Even though his lounge act performance of “High Anxiety” is badly lip-synced, it is obvious that this man is an extremely talented performer, capable of great physical comedy as well as insight. True, his films may have a production value comparable to art house theatre rather than cinema. But his sense of humor appeals to audiences of all ages, which today is an infrequent occurrence for a live action comedy.

Jaded from his harrowing airline flight, Dr. Richard Thorndyke (Brooks) arrives to assume control of the Institute for the Very, Very Nervous. Harvey Korman resumes his role as a spineless villain with many of the same traits he exposed in “Blazing Saddles”. His character, Dr. Montague, is hip deep in devilish conspiracy with Nurse Diesel. Cloris Leachman plays the demented villainess with such grace, her slurred speech and tightened jaw actually frightened the hell out of me when I first viewed this picture as a young boy. Her Cruella de Vil-like interpretation of Ken Kesey’s Nurse Ratched is a hallmark in comedic performance.

Montague and Diesel are bloodthirsty with deception. They plan to eliminate Thorndyke and run the institute as a prison ground for mental patients. Their imprisonment of a famous industrialist incurs the concerned reaction from his daughter, Victoria Brisbane (Madeline Kahn in yet another scene-stealing performance). Her best scene in this movie is a phone call from Thorndyke while a professional killer is strangling him. Except she thinks it’s a heavy breather. You have to see it to believe it.

As Thorndyke and Victoria join forces, their quest enables a frantic chase sequence, which pits our vertigo-challenged hero against a climactic backdrop of heights and bad men who have only half a mustache. I could explain, but why ruin it?

Howard Morris adds genuine warmth to the story as Thorndyke’s mentor, Professor Lilloman (pronounced “Li’l Ol’ Man”). As he nurtures Thorndyke out of his acrophobia, he supplies many laughs as temperamental comic relief. Comic rule #87: Old Jewish doctor types who swear loudly= huge laughs.

Also, watch for the scene where the bellboy attacks Thorndyke in the shower of his San Francisco hotel. While it may be clear that Brooks is spoofing “Psycho” in this shot-by-shot send-up, it took me repeated viewings until I finally recognized the actor playing the bellboy: none other than Barry Levinson, who co-wrote the screenplay with Mr. Brooks. After “High Anxiety”, Levinson would go on to direct his own immortal comedies such as “Good Morning Vietnam” and “Rain Man”.

HIGH ANXIETY

SCREENPLAY CONTESTSUBMIT your SCREENPLAY
Voted #1 screenplay contest in the world!		 NEW MOVIE REVIEWSNEW MOVIE REVIEWS
Read Today’s POSTED REVIEWS		 MOVIE KILLSEE 1000s of PICTURES
Best of photos, images and pics		 MOVIE YEARMOVIES YEAR BY YEAR
Pages from 1900 to present

 

1977 Movie Review: GRAND THEFT AUTO, 1977

festreviews 1977 Movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , , ,


GRANT THEFT AUTO, 1977
Movie Reviews

Directed by Ron Howard
Starring: Ron Howard, Nancy Morgan, Elizabeth Rogers, Marion Ross, Clint Howard
Review by James Aston

Teenage lovers Sam Freeman (Ron Howard) and Paula Powers (Nancy Morgan) want to get married in Las Vegas. When Paula introduces Sam to her wealthy parents they take a disliking to him, believing that Sam wants to marry Paula for money. Paula’s parents think their daughter would be better suited to local rich kid and busybody Collins Hedgeworth (Paul Linke). They throw Sam out of their house and send Paula to her room but Paula escapes and steals her parents priceless Rolls Royce before picking up Sam and hitting the road. Paula’s father, Bigby (Barry Cahill), deploys his helicopter to chase the couple as they race towards Vegas, Collins Hedgeworth joins the chase shortly after, stealing a car as he goes. Collins calls a local radio station and offers listeners a reward of $25,000 for anyone that can stop the fleeing couple. What ensues is an ever-growing chase full of crashes and explosions as everyone tries to claim the reward. As media coverage of the chase escalates Bigby makes a plea to his daughter over the telephone, but she refuses to listen. Sam wonders whether Paula’s motivation is love for him or a desire to spite her father, but Paula persuades Sam that she loves him. An epic pile-up occurs and the priceless Rolls Royce is destroyed. Sam and Paula manage to escape, eventually getting married in Las Vegas. 

REVIEW:

They say the simplest stories are told the best, and Grand Theft Auto succeeds where many exploitation movies failed. Few exploitation flicks made for particularly challenging viewing, but often the plot was so badly paced or paper-thin that it was in no way compelling or believable. Frequently the story was only a background device on which the supposed shocks, thrills and spills were hung. Considering the fact that exploitation movies were made in a matter of weeks to save money there was little time for writers to work on a script anyway. Not that the script mattered to the studios. Their motive was to attract an audience by making big promises about ‘dangerous’ subject matter in order to exploit the curiosity of the paying public. Quite often it turned out that the studio was over-hyping or downright lying about the content of those movies. Yet Grand Theft Auto manages to adhere to its promotional promise of seeing “the greatest cars in the world DESTROYED!” while telling a simple but well paced story that grows from a private affair between a teenage couple and the girls family into an all-out battle that involves the entire town. This is a breathless little comedy chase movie, although in 2009 you’ll probably laughing at delivery of the comedy rather than the jokes themselves. Grand Theft Auto delivers entertainment between the crashes and explosions thanks to a well paced story that is simple and nicely paced. However Grand Theft Auto is not a great movie by any means.

It might come as a surprise that Grand Theft Auto was directed by Academy Award-winner Ron Howard. Anyone that has seen Howard’s newly-released abomination Angels and Demons (2009) will tell you that the film is ridiculously convoluted and makes no sense whatsoever, and yet it is very well directed. Young Ron was never going to win an Academy Award for his direction on Grand Theft Auto, it’s clear that he was just finding his feet here. Admittedly Howard’s direction is on par with most other B-Movie directors of the time, excluding the occasionally brilliant Roger Corman, in that their mantra seemed to be “point, shoot and never retake a scene.” That’s understandable really considering the studios demanded a quick production. The fast turnaround of these movies meant that directors had no choice but to work quickly if they wanted to get paid, so it’s not entirely Howard’s fault that he doesn’t excel as director here. Perhaps it was also the added pressure of taking a starring role in the movie that stunted Howard’s work in both areas because Nancy Morgan shines the brightest out of the two leads. As those well versed in this genre might expect the dialogue is frequently corny and the acting is only a notch above diabolical across the board, but it really doesn’t matter. Every character is played for laughs apart from the lead characters, which makes Howard and Morgan stand out as ‘wooden’. Howard and Morgan are good choices as leads though with his youthful good looks, and while the chemistry between Sam and Paula doesn’t exactly crackle, they are well matched in terms of looks which is what is most important in a movie like this.

Teenagers in the late 1950’s were not visiting movie theaters because there absolutely nothing being produced by the main studios that appealed to them. Small exploitation studios such as New World Pictures made movies cheaply, quickly and frequently with the sole intention of getting those teenagers to spend their disposable income at the theater or drive-in every week, and in doing so made huge profits for decades until the major studios caught up. With Grand Theft Auto New World Pictures skilfully did everything they could to achieve that goal. The fact that this love story is based around a cars is a stroke of genius because of the huge audience that would go with their lover to the drive-in every Saturday. The teenage audience loved the extremely rebellious storyline because their own parents would disapprove, and they loved the promise of illegal activity from the title alone. They were thrilled by the coarse language and the destruction. NWP pitched the movie perfectly for their audience and it shows. NWP spent $602,000 making Grand Theft Auto and grossed a spectacular $15 million. They did have twenty years of refining the formula though, take a look at Teenage Caveman (1958) for a laughably bad early attempt at attracting this audience.

The acting is bad. The direction is sub-par. This could be repeated for many of the mass produced exploitation films that were released during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Grand Theft Auto is by no means a five star movie but when viewed alongside its peers it stands out. Other movies from this genre often gave a whole lot of sizzle without any smoke. They didn’t deliver the incredible, shocking or lurid content that they promised in their trailers and on their posters and those were the things the audience came to see. In fact they were utterly shameless when it came to exploiting their audience, and to add pain to injury these movies didn’t even provide much entertainment as part of the deal, because nobody took the time to pace the story correctly. Grand Theft Auto scores against its rivals by not insulting its audience. Watch this movie for what it is: a 1970’s exploitation movie that for once actually tries hard to deliver what it promises.

 

GRAND THEFT AUTO

Film Review: BRIGSBY BEAR (USA 2017)

festreviews movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival: http://www.wildsound.ca

BRIGSBY BEARAfter being freed from the kidnappers he thought were his parents, a man sets out to make a movie of the only TV show he has ever known.

Director: Dave McCary
Writers: Kevin Costello, Kyle Mooney
Stars: Mark Hamill, Claire Danes, Kyle Mooney

Review by Gilbert Seah

Who is BRIGSBY BEAR? The name indicated a TV cartoon show for kids. That is exactly what Brigsby Bear is, but why has no one heard of this bear? The answer is that Brigsby Bear is a children’s show character totally concocted and made by kidnapper parents to keep the child occupied.

When the film opens, we seen the now adult still kidnapped James Pope (Kyle Mooney) watching an episode of Brigsby Bear on television through VCR cassette tapes. James is shown having dinner with his parents, Ted (STAR WARS’ Mark Hamill) and April (Jane Adams) who practice odd rituals. It is soon revealed that James Pope was kidnapped from a hospital as a baby and since childhood all the way to adulthood has known nothing about the world except Brigsby Bear, a children’s show character fabricated by his kidnapper parents. One day, James is rescued and brought out into the real world where he learns that Brigsby Bear is not a real children’s show. Confused and baffled by these turn of events, James sets out to make a Brigsby Bear movie to show the world what he has learned.

The main flaw of the film is the film’s credibility. The credibility factor is sacrificed for the film’s charm. Director McCary goes all out to show that there is no badness in every character of his story. The kidnappers are revealed to be good hearted people whose only sin is wanting to love their own child. They even admit to knowing their abduction of James being wrong, yet they are desperate to love. For all the trouble that James creates in the environment around him, everyone is forgiving from his family (his sister initially shown as an independent no-nonsense sibling; his doting parents) to all his new friends. Everyone also aids James to make his Brigsby film. The title of his finished film, comically called “BRIGSBY BEAR, the film my friend help me make” tells the whole story.

It is difficult to figure out the intentions of BRIGSBY BEAR. Perhaps the message is that there is goodness in everyone, even if you have kidnapped a baby and kept it for your own for a full twenty years.

The most enjoyable bits of the film are the BRIGSBY BEAR episodes. The cartoon bear costume and his adventures saving the world from the evil Sunsnatcher are nothing short of hilarious – with lots of corniness thrown in for good measure. The special effects are crayon drawn but colourful enough.

BRIGSBY BEAR proves that corny can be funny! The good intentioned film over emphasizes the point of how good intentions triumphs over evil. The film ends up entertaining enough if one can stomach the over saccharine sweetness.

Small indie films like this one and previous successes like NAPOLEON DYNAMITE featuring geeky protagonists have a niche audience which somehow do reasonably well at the box-office. The well-intentioned BRIGSBY BEAR should do likewise.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFUvQi2TVOE

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

Film Review: SUNDOWNERS

festreviews 2017 movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , ,

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival: http://www.wildsound.ca

SUNDOWNERSIt’s not the destination wedding that matters, but the journey the hapless videographers have trying to capture it.

Director: Pavan Moondi
Writer: Pavan Moondi
Stars: Phil Hanley, Luke Lalonde, Tim Heidecker

Review by Gilbert Seah
 
SUNDOWNERS follows two young males Alex Hopper (Phil Hanley) and Justin Brown (Luke Lalonde) as they travel to a Mexican resort as videographers to shoot a wedding.

It is a case of everything that could possibly go wrong does, and in the worse possible way. Their trip is already doomed from the start when their boss gives them the incorrect flight information This is followed by incorrect hotel information. It does not help that Justin is recruited as Alex’s photographer and really knows nothing about the camera. When they finally meet members of the wedding family, they find more trouble afoot. The bridegroom has just lost his job and gone bankrupt, with the bride, who appears to be all over him, unaware f the situation. They meet the best man, who is of questionably character though appearing friendly enough. The father urns out gay and hits upon Alex. All the high jinx sounds ripe for crazy and laugh-out loud humour but surprisingly the film is only mildly funny.

For a film with a cast of stand-ups, the laughs are surprisingly few and far between. The film plays like an uncomfortable comedy where the comedy is supposed to come from the misfortunes of the lead characters. A similar example is THE OUT-OF-TOWNERS where a couple lands in New York City and everything goes wrong. Incident after incident work against the couple but as the audience wants the couple to do well, it is hard to laugh at the mishaps. The same goes for the two landing in Mexico where one thing after another do not go as planned.

If one observes the dialogue at many points in the movie, many of the lines can be put together in a stand-up comedy routine. But somehow put in the situation of the film’s plot, they do not come across as funny at all. This is surprising considering that many of the cast and director are real life standup comics. They should be aware of how critical timing is. An example is the horror comedy GET OUT by a director who is a stand up comic. GET OUT was unexpectedly funny, primarily out of timing and camera set ups.

The film benefits from the two lead actors Luke Lalonde and Phil Hanley. They are spirited, good looking, likeable and emit good chemistry. They appear to be people fun to be with which means audiences feel comfortable with their characters.

The film is set in Mexico. The film’s hotel setting looks like any one of the all-inclusive resorts that I have visited in Mexico. But the credits indicate the film being shot in Columbia.

Moondi gives the impression that he is out to get cheap laughs at every opportunity. An example is evident in the scene where the couple rides a cab and the camera focus on a row of bobbing dog heads laid out on the dashboard. Another has them sitting on the steps of a hotel waiting fro a cab when Mexicans walk behind them laughing as if the stand ups are provided by laughter to get the humour going.

SUNDOWNERS should and could have been funnier!

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com

1977 Movie Review: ERASERHEAD, 1977

festreviews 1977 Movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , ,

MOVIE POSTERERASERHEAD, 1977 
Movie Reviews

Director: David Lynch

Stars: Jack Nance, Charlotte Stewart and Judith Anna Roberts

Review by Russell Hill

SYNOPSIS:

A deranged man is forced to look after his strange-looking baby and struggles to cope with his own demons.

REVIEW:

David Lynch has always been an odd director. Turning narratives on their head, Lynch makes regular storylines seem unreal and not like anything which is based on reality. Take Blue Velvet for example – it’s a love story at first but weird and fantastical individuals appear throughout. Eraserhead is no different, especially as its imagery and storyline is more akin to Salvador Dali’s Un Chien Andalou.

Harry Spencer (Nance) lives in squalor. With an untidy apartment, Spencer leads a twisted existence. His strange girlfriend Mary (Stewart) informs him that she has given birth to a grotesque-looking child. Spencer and Mary struggle to cope looking after a deformed child and she leaves them both. Spencer tries to juggle his romantic feelings for the girl who lives opposite him with caring for his child. Will Spencer give into his rage and kill his child?

Eraserhead is certainly not for family viewing. Its use of strange imagery is similar to what might be in the psyche of a demented maniac. However, for adult viewers, it’s a fascinating film. As any new father learns, their baby can be terrifying. Although Eraserhead takes the metaphor to a completely different level, especially as the child doesn’t look human, one can sympathise with Spencer.

Lynch’s direction is sublime. Eraserhead was his first feature-length film and shows a truly great director in his infancy. The film touches on a subject which was very important to Lynch, especially as his own child had recently been born with clubbed feet. Although basing a character on his own personal life and turning it into an alien-like creature might be a step too far, the similarities are certainly evident.

Although it is an odd movie, Eraserhead is one of the best surreal films to have been made in the past fifty years. It isn’t surprising that it has been likened to the work of Luis Bunuel and Last Year at Marienbad because it takes several viewings to fully appreciate.

eraserhead.jpg

1977 Movie Review: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, 1977

festreviews 1977 Movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, 1977
Movie Reviews

Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring: Richard Dreyfuss, François Truffaut, Teri Garr, Melinda Dillon, Bob Balaban, Lance Henriksen
Review by Steven Loeb

SYNOPSIS:

Cableman Roy Neary is one of several people who experience a close encounter of the first kind, witnessing UFOs flying through the night sky. He is subsequently haunted by a mountainlike image in his head and becomes obsessed with discovering what it represents, putting severe strain on his marriage. Meanwhile, government agents around the world have a close encounter of the second kind, discovering physical evidence of otherworldly visitors in the form of military vehicles that went missing decades ago suddenly appearing in the middle of nowhere. Roy and the agents both follow the clues they have been given to reach a site where they will have a close encounter of the third kind: contact.

REVIEW:

In the early days of science fiction movies, beings from other planets were often used as a symbol of fear and destruction. During the Red Scare of the 1950s, aliens were often used as a representation for the invasion of Communism. They came, they saw and they destroyed everything in their path. By the late 1970s, though the Cold War was still going strong, the Red Scare was long over, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) had improved relations between the United States and Russia, leading to a reduction in the number of missiles that each country would be allowed to keep in their arsenals. It seemed that the two super-powers might be coming toward some kind of resolution to their decades-long war; of course this would not actually happen until more than ten years later. Nevertheless, if there is one film that shows a prevailing optimism in the direction that the Cold War, and the world in general, was taking at the time, it was Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), the third film directed by Steven Spielberg.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is the story of a small town electrician named Roy, played by Richard Dreyfuss, who experiences a seemingly random encounter with a UFO. After the experience, Roy becomes obsessed with aliens and UFOs. His behavior becomes extremely strange and erratic, including drawing the same mountain over and over. When he is unable to explain his behavior to his wife, she leaves him, and only then does he realize that he is drawing Devils Tower in Wyoming, the site where the UFOs are about to make contact with humans. As he races to get there, the government, having made a list of people who will be allowed to visit the aliens, apprehends him. After being questioned, Roy is added to the list, the aliens return the numerous people who had been abducted over the years, Roy and the others on the list enter the spaceship and are taken away to make contact with the friendly aliens.

Close Encounters was a film that Steven Spielberg had been working on for almost a decade by the time it was finally released. After shopping the film around, Spielberg was finally able to sell the script, and get creative control of the project, following the massive success of Jaws (1975). Based on a story he had written as a teenager, it is one of the few scripts for which Spielberg gets full writing credit, even though the script went through numerous changes and numerous other writers worked on different drafts of the story. Despite the contributions of other writers, in many ways, this is the first real Spielberg film, as this is where he began to incorporate themes that he would use in many of his later films, some of which reflect his own life and would come to define him as a director. This is the first of Spielberg’s films to depict an unhappy marriage; Spielberg’s own parents had divorced when he was a child and he often incorporates broken families, or single parent homes, in his films. Roy and his wife have a tempestuous relationship to begin with, and they see their marriage become even more strained as a result of Roy’s obsessions, ultimately leading to the collapse of their relationship. Spielberg would use this theme most famously in E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (1982), a film about a lonely boy who finds friendship with a lost alien. Spielberg’s films also often incorporate the themes of wonder and child-like innocence, seen here as Roy enters the spaceship at the end of the film. Though he is unsure of what is going to happen, he is excited and awed instead of afraid. This motif was used again in the Indiana Jones movies and, perhaps most successfully, in Jurassic Park (1993).

Close Encounters was the second collaboration between Steven Spielberg and Richard Dreyfuss, the first being Jaws two years earlier. Dreyfuss, who had first gained fame for his role in American Graffiti (1973), became a major movie star after Jaws. In 1978, he became the youngest actor ever to win the Best Actor Oscar for his role in The Goodbye Girl (1977), though this honor has since been surpassed by Adrian Brody.

Unfortunately for Dreyfuss, at the peak of his success, he developed a serious drug habit and, after crashing his car and being arrested for cocaine possession in 1982, he was forced to enter rehab. He was eventually able to resuscitate his career, going on to receive a nomination for Best Actor for Mr. Holland’s Opus (1995). After Close Encounters, Dreyfuss and Spielberg would work together one more time in Always (1989), a film that is widely considered to be one of Spielberg’s worst movies.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a huge success, both critically and at the box office. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards, including a Supporting Actress nomination for Melina Dillion, playing the mother of an abducted child, and Spielberg’s first for Best Director; the film would walk away with two Oscars, for cinematography and sound editing.

close encounters.jpg

TV REVIEW: UNBREAKABLE KIMMY SCHMIDT – SEASON 3

festreviews Mary Cox, television, Television Reviews, tv, TV Reviews, Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

kimmy season 3.jpgA woman is rescued from a doomsday cult and starts life over again in New York City.

Creators: Robert Carlock, Tina Fey
Stars: Ellie Kemper, Jane Krakowski, Tituss Burgess

Review by Mary Cox

Tina Fey’s award-winning Netflix Original series is back with a brand new season. The dialog is just as tight and consistent as it has been in the past, and Kimmy’s life is just as kooky and her friends are just as goofy as they were before, but that’s kind of the problem: Kimmy Schmidt isn’t bringing anything new to the table, and what it is serving up isn’t that appetizing.

Titus, who normally acts as a supporting character in the series, has some moments in this season where you initially think he’s going to be forced to grow as a person and to make hard choices. After fleeing from his cruise ship job, he returns to New York where he makes a difficult decision about his relationship with Mikey. However, Titus’ mission to be more responsible with his relationships is absolutely ruined by his actions at the end of the episode “Kimmy Bites an Onion.”

Titus’ plot arc encapsulates my major beef with Season 3 of Kimmy Schmidt: nobody grows, nothing changes, and at the end of the day, nothing that happens this season really matters. It feels like the writers are hesitant to encourage growth or development with these characters, because there’s this ongoing futility of Kimmy’s actions that overshadows the entire season.

Kimmy’s struggle to seek higher education is pointless, as an obnoxious Hand of God moment at the very end of the last episode gives Kimmy a plum position at a tech firm. It’s unsatisfying because Kimmy has done absolutely nothing to earn this position. Jaqueline’s plot to rename the Washington Redskins resolves much too early in the season, and the fallout after Russ is accepted back into his family is profoundly unsatisfying.

While this series has previously addressed social issues, this season puts more effort into making a platform where bigger topics can be discussed. However, the way these topics are discussed is sometimes a little questionable. Lillian’s fight to represent East Dogmouth comes off as weirdly pro-gentrification in it’s framing and delivery. Xanthippe’s Columbia adventures seem to defend the idea that privilege is something that we should be entitled to abuse, and that the idea of sexual consent is laughable. Fey’s depiction of Millennial feminists is drastically out-of-touch at best, and actually insulting at worst.

Also, this season tends to sweep Kimmy’s emotional issues under the rug in favor of highlighting the shenanigans of her sidekicks. Kimmy Schmidt has the unique position of being a show that prominently features a female character who is a survivor of serious trauma and abuse. In Season 2, the series explored Kimmy’s PTSD in a way that felt honest and real, but Season 3 puts Kimmy’s trauma in the backseat and barely even acknowledges her past.

Ultimately, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is still an entertaining series, but there’s some love lost in this new season. Hopefully Fey can pull things around by the premiere of Season 4.

******

“Mary Cox is an entertainment writer from the United States. Her hobbies include making good beer and bad decisions, watching drag queens fight on the internet, and overanalyzing everything. Mary one day hopes to be the person shouting “World Star” in the back of a Waffle House brawl video. She is currently tolerating life in Toronto. You can follow her on Twitter at @M_K_Cox”

Film Review: ATOMIC BLONDE (USA 2017) ***

festreviews 2017 movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , ,

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival: http://www.wildsound.ca

atomic blonde.jpgAn undercover MI6 agent is sent to Berlin during the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and recover a missing list of double agents.

Director: David Leitch
Writers: Kurt Johnstad (screenplay), Antony Johnston (based on the Oni Press graphic novel series “The Coldest City” written by)
Stars: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman

Review by Gilbert Seah

 Advertised as a female James Bond film with Charlize Theron as a top ass-kicking M16 spy, ATOMIC BLONDE tries its best to assume a British setting though Theron and most of the cast speak with an unchanged American accent. Who really cares, as the film delivers senseless action with dazzling visual and choreographed fight scenes courtesy of director David Leitch in his first solo directorial debut, himself a stunt coordinator and stuntman for stars like Brad Pitt and Matt Damon.

The film is written by Kurt Johnstad, based on Antony Johnston and Sam Hart’s 2012 graphic novel The Coldest City, published by Oni Press. The film opens with a commentary of how the cold war has ended in 1989 flowing the collapse of the Berlin Wall and then goes on to say that the film is not about this subject. The film is about the cold war revolving the good guys, the British M16 and the Americans in this case trying to retrieve a list of double agents that if fallen into the wrong hands would…..It does not really matter as Master of Suspense Alfred Hitchcock says. The point is that top level female spy, Lorraine Broughton (Theron) has been assigned to aid fellow spy and wild card David Percival (James McAvoy) with this mission. As it turns out Percival has supposedly got the list from Spyglass, a Starsi agent (Eddie Marsan) and he is to be escorted out of Berlin. Not so easy, as every Russian and German spy is also out to get the list.

With the film setting in the 80’s, one can expect a solid 80’s soundtrack. And the film has a great one at that, and not surprising as the music is by Tyler Bates who has put together similar memorable soundtracks for films like GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 1 and 2 and the two John Wick Films. The song are also appropriately chosen to fit the plot for example with Depeche Mode’s ‘Behind the Wheel’ during the defection segment and Queen’s ‘Under Pressure’ at the film’s climax.

The film’s excellent cast includes McAvoy (SPLIT), always good in portraying crazies. Eddie Marsan who plays Spyglass steals the show with a dead serious performance amidst the over-the-top action. German veteran actress Barbara Sukowa has a cameo as the coroner who delivers a key line: “In Germany, we do not make little mistakes.”

The film’s best action sequence lasts a full 10 minutes as Lorraine fights off multiple attackers in ultra-violent hand-to-hand combat on a staircase while protecting Spyglass. If this is not enough, an exciting car chase follows right after where villains in cars appear out of nowhere to chse the two. Director Leitch dishes sexiness to the limit with same sex scenes between Lorraine and a French spy (Sofia Boutella).

The plot of ATOMIC BLONDE is quite difficult to follow and there is no use trying as the plot is pointless. The story’s twist in the end of who is the double agent makes little sense either. But cold war spy films in the 70’s were often difficult to follow. ATOMIC BLONDE delivers dazzling senseless action, that is the point of the film and that it succeeds.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI7HVnZlleo

Also, Free logline submissions. The Writing Festival network averages over 95,000 unique visitors a day.
Great way to get your story out: http://www.wildsound.ca/logline.html

Deadlines to Submit your Screenplay, Novel, Story, or Poem to the festival:http://www.wildsound.ca

Watch recent Writing Festival Videos. At least 15 winning videos a month:http://www.wildsoundfestival.com