Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Kieran_Frost]

MALCOLM X (1992)
dir. Spike Lee
writer. based on the screenplay by Arnold Perl and James Baldwin adapted from the The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X and Alex Haley
Starring: Denzel Washington [nom.], Angela Bassett, Albert Hall, Kate Vernon and Al Freeman Jr

THOUGHTS: It became very clear, very quickly I actually know nothing about Malcolm X; so this film was a fantastic education in his teachings and philosophy. Spike Lee set out to make an epic, and that he achieved. It’s a lonnnnng film but necessary to properly depict the growing evolution of who he was and how he thought. It reminds me a lot of Gandhi (1982) in it’s scope and breadth of exploration. And like Gandhi; I found it more interesting than enjoyable. Segmenting it into three core times in Malcolm's life really showed the evolution of his thoughts and attitudes, and you need the length of dedicated time to truly convey this idea of who his character was, to who he became, and finally who he ended up being. I did love how Lee grounded the first third in almost fantasy, utilizing intentionally jarring narrative and style to create this ‘myth’. Showing things not as they were necessarily, but how the should have been in someone’s mind. Slowly muting the colours, tone and style the more real and truthful the story became. Though I could have done without a ten minute dance segment, for seemingly no reason. Also Denzel was a BEAUTIFUL man, my word! And unlike in Do the Right Thing (1989) where I found Spike Lee's acting detrimental to the film, here he worked perfectly fine as Shorty. Loved seeing Battlestar Galactica’s Kate Vernon in her early work; and Angela Bassett was of course, excellent (curious to see her in a more passive role, she still had such fire, LOVE HER). And seeing Nelson Mandela show up (playing a teacher) was a true treat! But this is Denzel’s film, and he embodied the passion, charisma and love of Malcolm X perfectly! It was a tour de force in acting! From beginning to end you couldn’t take your eyes off him.

OVERALL
A very informative, if long film; with a towering performance by Denzel Washington. It's the definitive Malcolm X performance, for good reason. Beautifully edited, this was a very snappy script, despite the length. It really should have been up for a lot more Oscars than just Best Actor and Best Costume. My only real complaint (and it's a minor one): I understand for the time period they could not explore his bisexuality, but it would have been nice to see an indication.
~ rating: ★★★★☆ [grade: B+]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHIPLASH (2014) [nom.]
dir. Damien Chazelle
writer. adapted from the short film Whiplash by Damien Chazelle [nom.]
Starring: Miles Teller, J. K. Simmons [OSCAR] and Paul Reiser

THOUGHTS: I will prefix this by saying the only class I’ve ever failed in my life was Music 150 at university; and a lot of this movie (much like my unfortunate music teacher) assumed I, as a viewer, would have, at the very least, a rudimentary understanding of music. They were wrong. So you can appreciate some of my critique is how the movie doesn’t explain anything. Is the drummer the most important part of a band? I don’t know. Movie sure made it seem that way. And I just cannot relate to that level of reverence to a teacher. Maybe I just always had enough confidence in myself, or wasn’t bothered about being told ‘good job’ ahead of feeling that for myself as my primary motivator. I say all this because DESPITE these rather core misgivings I was hooked. Genuinely couldn’t tell where the story was going, it didn’t fit ‘a formula’ of concept. It constantly stopped being the film I assumed it would be; which is a rare and beautiful thing for me to experience. JK Simmons was AMAZING! I cannot fault this performance in any way; it was a masterpiece of acting. One of the greatest monsters of cinema; a mix of Miranda Priestly from the Devil Wears Prada (2006) and Gunnery Sgt. Hartman from Full Metal Jacket (1987). Bravo! Really my only genuine criticism was the romance, it wasn’t needed and added nothing to the character beyond another example of his musical obsession.

OVERALL
Surprisingly magnificent film. Short, sharp, brutal. Loved it! More films should aim for this length, 1 hour 36 mins. GORGEOUS! Did everything it wanted to, and left it at that! JK Simmons was... revolutionary. Honestly I cannot praise the detailed brilliance of this role enough, it is not one note; far from it. It's intricate and layered and beautiful to watch. I'd actually have nominated him for Best Actor, not supporting. Antagonists can be leads too!
~ rating: ★★★★☆ [grade: A-]

[Kieran_Frost]

LITTLE WOMEN (2019)
dir. Greta Gerwig
writer. adapted from Louisa May Alcott 1868 novel of the same name [nom.]
Starring: Saoirse Ronan [nom.], Florence Pugh [nom.], Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet, Meryl Streep, Tracy Letts, Bob Odenkirk, James Norton, Louis Garrel, and Chris Cooper.

THOUGHTS: I hated, hated, HATED the nonlinear narrative time jumping! That is a very specific trick, used to convey confusion, mystery and disjoint the natural flow of a story. Classically in cinema it was used to enter an almost fantasy state, a realm where logic does not need to be obeyed. It’s a very specific narrative tool (that is horribly overused by far too many films to appear ‘edgy’), and it can serve a purpose, don’t get me wrong. Who doesn’t love Memento (2000)? But using it for this story is just fundamentally wrong. To me, this is an exploration of the passage of four girls into womanhood. It’s about evolution, change, growth!!! These things all take time, and it’s a linear trajectory, the polar opposite of a non-linear plot. Jumping back and forth from one to the other destroys the journey. Toward the end, a weeping declaration “our childhood has ended” meant nothing. We’ve been watching your adulthood for a while, actually. Beth deserves more than “the character who dies” (spoilers - oh shut-up - that’s a very famous moment from Friends) but this time jumping… it carts out her later sickness so early, not only plaguing her character with unnecessary misery from the get, but ruins the importance of her mother returning to help after the first bout of scarlet fever. And Teddy! I love Timothée Chalamet, I think he’s an incredible talent; so free and playful in his work. BUT… wooing two sisters in two different time periods at the same time in the film just… makes you not believe his love for either, nor convincingly feel he deserves any March girl. Ughhh! I get it’s the seventh film adaptation, gotta spice it up… but not by ruining the point of the novel. There was no growth. Merely difference. And that may seem like splitting hairs, but in a (rather plotless) story, character depiction is EVERYTHING. What a waste. Visually it looked great, and Saoirse Roman is always good. But I felt nothing. She delivered the lines exceptionally well, with passion and longing and hunger, a need for more than what society tells her women should have… and yet I felt nothing. Florence Pugh was excellent (but come on, was anyone remotely convinced she was 12 at the start of this film? I think not). And Eliza Scanlen did a lovely job as Death Girl, I mean Beth (the film didn’t seek to treat her as anything but a walking corpse, why should I bother?). Yet despite her sweet performance… upon her inevitable death… I felt nothing. As for Emma Watson… what do you want from me? Was she so bad she actively ruined scenes like My Week With Marilyn (2011)? No. But every single actress I’ve ever worked with could have done as competently mediocre a job, and most would have done vastly better. She is not an actress. She has zero feel for performance. Or line delivery. Or… emotion! GOD, SHE’S RUBBISH! Honestly thank the film lords for Meryl Streep’s hilariously b*tchy aunt, otherwise I’d have been bored to tears.

OVERALL
Skip this film, go watch the 1994 version with Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst and Susan Sarandon; it is vastly more enjoyable. Not as polished, and maybe a tad sentimental at times... but it's not a hot mess like this film. This film could have been magnificent, it had (nearly) all the ingredients to make a beautiful piece of cinema, but with a tortured script, there was little the actors could do. A huge pity.
~ rating: ★★☆☆☆ [grade: C-]

[Kieran_Frost]

WEST SIDE STORY (2021) [nom.]
dir. Steven Spielberg [nom.]
writer. based on the 1957 Broadway musical of the same name
Starring: Ansel Elgort, Rachel Zegler, Ariana DeBose [OSCAR], Mike Faist, Brian d'Arcy James and Rita Moreno

THOUGHTS: I just don’t see the point? It’s pretty much the same as the 1961 film. The songs sound the same, the dancing looks the same, hell, even some of the costumes and set are identical (intentionally, but still). Why bother? Why is Psycho (1998) reviled but this is praised? I understand the logic of wanting to really emphasis and explore the racism in the feud this time round BUT from a viewer’s perspective: it totally tips the balance of sympathy, making the Jets pretty irredeemable and the Sharks our heroes (which was never the point of the original Shakespeare play nor the musical adaptation). Riff’s death is void of any emotion or warmth because of this choice. Oh no, a REALLY racist character who started this fight due to his colossal racism, just got killed by a Puerto Rican who had suffered his racist abuse for years. Ain’t nobody gonna cry over that! And they made suuuuuch a point of patting themselves on the back for casting the Sharks authentically Puerto Rican… then hand the role of Maria to an actress who is not Puerto Rican? Natalie Wood was, arguably, THE most egregious casting in the 1961 version; of all the things to rectify with a remake, that was it... yet they didn't. What was the point?? And on the topic of Rachel Ziegler, how did she win the Golden Globe? She is NOT good! Zero chemistry with Ansel Ergot, limited range of emotion and void of depth in her choices. She’s not even that good a singer, nor was she a big name… why was she cast? What an earth did she bring to the table besides NOT the right ethnicity??? There were only two things I enjoyed: I loved the creation of the Valentina role. But that’s less kudos to the creative team for thinking outside the box and more ‘we wanted to get Rita Moreno in it somehow’ (thrilled they did, she was wonderful, but I can’t really give them too much credit because the motive was not driven for narrative reasons). And then we have Ariana deBois. WOW!!! What a star making performance! Truly mesmerising. She just has that ‘it’ factor, that you cannot force or teach (someone just has to possess it); and you can’t take your eyes off her when she's on screen. She commands your attention in every moment, bravo to her, she was sensational (a well deserved Oscar victory). AND becomes only the third ever openly LGBT+ actor to win an acting Oscar (the other two being Sir John Gielgud for Arthur (1981) and Angelina Jolie for Girl, Interrupted (1999). Which brings me to my final complaint: the complete absence of gay characters, considering all the other updates to bring this into a more modern day acceptability of diversity... I find a little rude. You have the original Shakespeare play with a plethora of possibly gay characters (most notably Mercutio). You have Shakespeare himself, who is, at the very least, bisexual. You have the original Broadway musical with music by Leonard Bernstein (gay) and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim (also gay). You have many of the ensemble males of the 1961 and 2021 cast who... how to put this politely... I would heavily suggest might be a friend of Dorothy. We REALLY aren't gonna add any gay people? REALLY? When Riff being gay makes total sense and is right there in front of you... and we're... not gonna do it? *sigh*

OVERALL
An extremely pointless remake. Visually it's even more of a spectacle that its predecessor; but that's not a reason to remake a film, and change so little else. See it for Ariana deBois, she's incredible; the rest is a waste of time (and a lot of Hollywood money). Ultimately this film can be summarized with just three words: What's The Point?
~rating: ★★☆☆☆ [grade: D+]

[Kieran_Frost]

A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD (2019)
dir. Marielle Heller
The film is fine, even sweet; the ensemble is fine, if not desperately engaging. But Tom ‘mother f*ckin’ Hanks… WAS ASTOUNDING. Truly one of the very best biographical performances I’ve ever seen; when you are a living legend like Tom Hanks, so distinct and memorable in your own right, to imbue the goodness and mentality of another is no mean feat. Eventually I just pretty much shed a tear every-time he came on screen. Fred Roger was truly was one of the greatest philosophers of our time, and more could learn from his understanding of kindness. The film’s major downside is when you have a character like Mister Rogers, a man endless fascinating… every scene he’s not in feels ‘less than’. It’s a balancing act, and I’m not sure they accomplished it. It just needed… something more. Some other angle. Depicting the various locations as if they were in the Neighbourhood-Of-Makebelieve was super cute, but we needed that level of playful creativity throughout. When Tom Hanks is delivering his A++ game; you need to do more than just show up.
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: B-]


BEING THE RICARDOS (2021)
dir. Aaron Sorkin
[enters carrying his soap box… breathe, just breathe…] *ahem* FUN FACT: Lucille Ball was the first woman to head a TV production company! Let that sink in! She pioneered filming with multiple cameras before a live studio audience, using distinctive sets adjacent to one another in the studio. She took a pay cut to retain the rights to the footage, creating the idea of re-runs. You know Netflix, AmazonPrime, Disney+? Well you have Lucille Ball to thank for that! She was nominated for 13 EMMYs, winning five. She produced Star Trek! STAR TREK!!! And Mission Impossible! She created a television dynasty! So why the f*ck am I watching the oldest story in the book about a husband cheating on his wife? We’ve had this tale since Medea (that’s 431 BC). This is one of the most pivotal artists in television her-story, is this REALLY the sum total of interest Aaron Sorkin has in her? Yes, Sorkin has wonderful dialogue, and a witty, fun script; but he made creating a website and using complex math to play baseball interesting; I cannot believe he was unable to showcase Lucille Ball’s trailblazing career in an interesting way! That said… breathe… the acting is fantastic. Nicole Kidman is perfect as Lucy. I wish we had even more moments of her replicating iconic “I Love Lucy” scenes. Both Javier Bardem, and J.K. Simmons (AND the unsung Nina Ariadne, who should have been nominated also) were wonderful foils (and fools), but this is Lucy’s show, and Nicole Kidman steals every moment. As it should be! A very entertaining film, that disappointingly failed to capitalize on the wonder of it’s subject… because we REALLY needed yet another film about a brilliant woman where the core of her being is purely focused around what her man is doing. *eye roll*
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: B]


KING RICHARD (2021)
dir. Reinaldo Marcus Green
[For point of reference I saw this, and formed these opinions BEFORE Will Smith assaulted someone at the Oscars, I just hadn’t got round to writing them down]. I think my biggest disappointment is, by the end of the film, I couldn’t really tell you much about the personality of Venus or Serena Williams. This film only exists because of them, and yet they are pretty superfluous to the core of the movie. And why was it called King Richard, when Saint Richard was probably more apt to the storytelling. A film bursting with scene after scene of people not believing he has the next two greatest tennis stars, and the film smuggling knowing he does; all the while polishing his halo. I actually said out loud “f*ck you, movie!” after Saint Richard comforts Serena with “I’ve planned for you to become the greatest tennis star of all time!” A stupid comment REPEATED at the end of the film. Serena Williams is arguably the greatest tennis star of all time BECAUSE OF HER! Her talent! Her skill! Her dedication! Her discipline! How dare a film that only exists because of Serena and Venus sum up all their natural abilities and hard work as “they’re so lucky their dad planned so well.” Thank god for Aunjanue Ellis, as Serena and Venus’ mother, otherwise this film would have been unbearable. She was fantastic, and just the most beautiful character. The discipline and control when she went over to that neighbour… stunning! As for Will Smith, he delivered a very good performance because he’s a very good actor; but it was no-where near as impressive as the astounding work of Andrew Garfield in Tick, Tick… BOOM! (2021). Andrew should have won!
~ rating: ★★☆☆☆ [grade: C-]

[Kieran_Frost]

THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN (2022)
written & directed. Martin McDonagh [nom.]
Starring: Colin Farrell [nom.], Brendan Gleeson [nom.], Kerry Condon [nom.] and Barry Keoghan [nom.]

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: the Isle of Inisherin, 1923. Folk musician Colm Doherty (Gleeson) abruptly begins ignoring his lifelong friend and drinking buddy Pádraic Súilleabháin (Farrell), but when sweet and innocent Pádraic refuses to accept this new state of affairs... the sheep shears come out!

THOUGHTS: I am such a colossal fan of McDonagh, long before his sublime film work, I loved his plays (if you haven't read the Pillowman, or Hangman, or the Lieutenant of Inishmore; do yourself a favour and search them out, they are magnificent). McDonagh is so unique and original in his concepts, and this is no exception. The set-up is bonkers, in the best possible way. And thirty minutes before the end I truly has no idea how this story would conclude, which is so rare and unusual, I cannot praise that enough. The entire cast is magnificent. Colin Farrell is astounding, he’s never been better. Truly, truly incredible in his adorable hapless nature and naively mindless ignorance. His loss of innocence is as believable as it is brutal. Barry Keoghan steals every scene he’s in (though admittedly he has the showiest role; think Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained (2012)). Kerry Condon is undisputedly brilliant, just shining purity in a monstrous world (I think she might be the surprise win, come Oscar night). And then we have Brendan Gleeson, effortlessly imbuing so much into such minute gestures. He tells you everything while doing virtually nothing. The fact all four are nominated for an Oscar fills me with unbridled joy. The film itself… I loved, but I love nearly all his work, both on stage and screen. I’m biased, sue me! It's witty, full of depth and thoughtful about each characters place in the world. And that's really a huge compliment; this feels like a fully realised place, with the island's own way of doing things and how people go about existing. The cinematography by Ben Davis is perfectly balanced with the film's tone; bleak without being ‘gorgeously’ bleak, captivating sunsets without unrealistically fauning upon them. My only complaint, really, is the ending. I understand WHY it ends the way it does, and arguably it's the truthful end for the film’s metaphor and set-up. I do applaud that. But... ughhhh.. it just lacked that donkey kick I was ultimately hoping for. I just feel there was a stronger choice to make.

OVERALL
To fairly contrast it with McDonagh’s other film work: it’s more mature and impactful (though less funny) than In Bruges (2008) and more succinct and traditionally plotted than Three Billboards Outside Epping, Missouri (2017), but lacks that true genius that makes “Three Billboards…” a masterpiece. It's just a wonderfully made film, and far superior to Seven Psychopaths (2012)
~ rating: ★★★★☆ [grade: A-]

[JBatmanFan05]

MOST RECENTLY BUMPED OUT:
Se7en (1995)

Certainly one bump out I in like no way can see.


Very likely Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom would make my list (in addition to Raiders).

[Kieran_Frost]

BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER (2022)
dir. Ryan Coogler

I was so excited to see this, and for the most part it delivered. But it had in its court, for want of a better morbid analysis, extra emotional impact to play with as Chadwick Boseman actually died before filming… and I just never felt truly moved. I think it was a mistake putting the emotional weight on Letitia Wright’s shoulder. She’s not a bad actress, let me be clear, but that heartbreaking reality is so complex. I remember the episode of the West Wing where the cast had to ‘reveal’ Leo McGarry died (because the actor John Spencer, who played Leo had himself passed away), and it was so brutal. Allison Janney broke me. And this just… didn’t. Angela Bassett was a powerhouse and deserved that Oscar nomination (the first for the MCU), though I don’t think it’s a winning performance, personally. I wish we’d been let into how she felt, truly felt about T’Challa’s death, instead of reserving that primarily for Shuri. The set-up, the moving of chess pieces between Wakanda and Talokan (Atlanteans in the comics) was excellent. The first half was super exciting, but the showdown and resulting conclusion didn’t deliver. So much wasted potential. Ryan Coogler captures many things wonderfully, but his directing of action set-pieces is very tepid. It’s glorious being back in Wakanda but I wanted more, and they had all the ingredients to make something truly special… instead of something… good. Two final thoughts: huge praise to the designers, who smashed it out the park. Visually this is A FEAST! And a big shout out to Danai Gurira, who has made Okoye one of the most interesting, engaging and surprising characters to come out of the MCU.
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: B]

Certainly one bump out I, in like no way, can see.

I adore the film, it's truly wonderful. It's just, sadly, it's by and large the exact same film as Nora Inu (1949). And I find Stray Dog more intricate in what it says and comments on, about society. Plus it came first, which generally gets a larger 'kudos' over more modern versions.

Very likely Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom would make my list (in addition to Raiders).

A sequel has to be truly, truly special to make it into my "Top 100". I think only one has? (and a trilogy, ha). The downside is most sequels, one some level, come from a desire to capitalise on success (RE: make more money) and recapture what made the first so good... neither of which are very worthy ideas when it comes to making original, innovative art. Though I think a few remakes are in my list, such as the Maltese Falcon (1941).

[Kieran_Frost]

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (2022) [nom.]
dir. Edward Berger
Writer. based on the 1929 novel of the same name by Erich Maria Remarque [nom.]
Starring: Felix Kammerer, Albrecht Schuch, Moritz Klaus and Daniel Brühl

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Germany, 1917. A group of idealistic school friends enlist in the German army, spurred on by their school master on tales of glory and honour... determined to play their part in Germany winning 'the Great War'...

THOUGHTS: This is a difficult one for me to review, because it was a truly excellent film, but I love the original All Quiet On the Western Front (1930), it won Best Picture at the Oscars, it’s in my ‘Top 100’. I just can’t NOT compare them, esp. the ending. I have such sympathy, because the original film’s ending is often cited as one of the most iconic and brilliant shots of cinema. I think they were smart to not try and recreate it, but their substitute sadly didn’t work. And actually missed the whole point from the book, the seemingly peaceful final day was reported, so blasé, as “All quiet on the Western Front”. One final dig to the tragedy, to twist the knife. A big battle, which they did here, misses that cruelty. But… to the positives, of which there was a plethora. The transition from boys to men is so brilliantly done, a brutal portrayal of the economic necessity of war. Starting with the death of Heinrich his uniform removed, washed, sown up and delivered to a new recruit. Emphasising the callous ‘cannon fodder’ these boys enlisted in to. The music by Oscar nominee Volker Bertelmann is key to this energetic, modern exploration of a classic film. It’s jarring, intrusive, foreboding, insistent; capturing the director’s youthful hubris in this retelling. James Friend’s Oscar nominated cinematography is BEAUTIFUL!!! Favourable comparable to Roger Dealings’ sublime imagery captured in 1917 (2019); though the macabre brutality of corpses on corpses on corpses was more harrowing under Deakins’ eye. And the midway battle across No Man’s Land was INCREDIBLE! Truly war cinema at its finest. I think Felix Kammerer was excellent as our lead, but it is Albrecht Schuch’s performance as the nihilist Kat that stole the show (so happy to see he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the BAFTAs). Lastly I want to celebrate the subtle use of food: it’s importance in the film, it’s necessity to life and forgettableness when in abundance… a brilliantly subtle metaphor for establishing injustice between troops and commanders. Not since Denethor bit into that tomato in the Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King (2003) has food so perfectly served as a comment on war.

OVERALL
As remakes go, it's probably the best remake of a masterpiece I've ever seen (Steven Spielberg, please take note, before you deliver more pointless cinema like West Side Story (2021)). It's not trying to give us the same beats and moments as the original, it's fresh and new and exciting in its bold retelling. The entire ensemble is excellent, major kudos to casting director Simone Bär, casting this many talented lads is NOT easy. I was impressed and in awe through-out by the acting. I don't think it'll win Best Picture at the Oscars, no film that has won Best Picture has ever won again; but I'm thrilled it's been nominated for 9 Academy Awards. Thoroughly deserved.
~ rating: ★★★★★ [grade: A]

[Kieran_Frost]

THE BATMAN (2022)
dir. Matt Reeves
At nearly three hours, this is unacceptably vague. Had this film had the same atmosphere, mood and energy (all very possible) but clocked in at 1hr 50mins I’d have no problem. In-fact I might have praised it. But I did NOT sit through 3 hours for the villain’s end game to make no sense, the finale to lack any real stakes and too much be set-up for the next one. At 3 hours long I expect some damn conclusions, thank-you very much! Performance wise, Colin Farrel and Paul Dano impressed, but had limited scope for true variety. Robert Pattison will probably never be, in my eyes, a great actor. I couldn’t decide if his vague, energy-less Bruce Wayne was revolutionary or just… incompetently delivered. Either way it led to some (unintentionally) funny faces. And that hair… big mistake. Huge. Cinematography by Greig Fraser was the highlight; gorgeous!
~ rating: ★★☆☆☆ [grade: C-]


TOP GUN: MAVERICK (2022)
dir. Joseph Kosinski
There is very much 80s charm to this, which is a compliment, as it successfully harkens back to the original Top Gun (1986) without being ruled by it. BUT… oh, everyone had taken some delusion pills in praising this a wee bit too much. The dialogue is very ham-fisted, unsubtle, uncreative… and dated (and in this specific case, not in a good way). The story (FUN FACT: written by the son of Sally Field) was good, it’s purely the dialogue that failed. A lot of things don’t feel believable; a bar waitress being front-and-centre at an admiral’s funeral, for example. Or the fact Maverick still has photos in his locker from 30 years ago and seemingly NOTHING happened in his life or career since then to justify a photo, so that’s all we see on said locker. And very little is actually earned, instead we’re told (because that’s good writing ). The beautiful and talented Jennifer Connelly tries her best, bless her, but no-one could make that inorganic romance work. We get it Tom Cruise, you’re totally not gay, which is why you constantly smile at women every moment of the film to really show us how much you like them sexy lady mammaries. THAT SAID… overall I actually did enjoy it once it focused on the mission. The 80s cheese was charming: the by-the-book colonel who by the end gives a thumbs up, the handsome and cocky antagonist who bromances the f*ck out of camaraderie by the end, the 'you’re-not-my-real-dad' drama. All cheesy and I enjoyed it. And the action sequences are truly old school engaging and exciting. It’s a good film, it really is; but far from a masterpiece. And the shirtless volleyball, while appreciated, was sadly absent of homoerotic goodness that the original film just bathed in. In-fact the two times Tom Cruise hugs guys in the film, his crotch is weirdly and noticeably pushed away from them… which is totally normal. #justsayin’
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: B]


TURNING RED (2022)
dir. Domee Shi
This was an interesting one. I applaud the concept, I think it’s a great metaphor for puberty in adolescence and tackles some really wonderful issues for teenagers to see reflected on the silver screen (much like Inside Out (2015) teaching kids it’s okay to be sad sometimes, this movie de-stigmas periods). It’s an important message. The detailing and believability of the girls relationship was fantastic! And it remained funny and self-deprecating throughout, with gorgeous animation from start to finish. It was, in many ways, the strongest Pixar films since Coco (2017). But… it just didn’t give me the feels. The resolution, while bold and unexpected left a lack of emotional release. I was ready for something moving, I was ready to ball my eyes out… and instead, it was just… kind of sweet. Oh well. Still excellently made, very polished, very assured and Sandra Oh is fantastic voicing the overtly loving mother (SIDE NOTE: so beautiful seeing a positive parental relationship in animation… which is often a rare sighting). A very worthy achievement, just absent on the final feels which Pixar and Disney normally deliver.
~ rating: ★★★★☆ [grade: B+]

[Kieran_Frost]

EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE (2022)
written & directed. Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert [nom.]
Starring: Michelle Yeoh [nom.], Ke Huy Quan [nom.], Stephanie Hsu [nom.], James Hong, Harry Shum Jr. and Jamie Lee Curtis [nom.]

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Evelyn Quan (Yeoh) is a middle-aged Chinese American immigrant running a laundromat with her unhappy husband, Waymond Wang (Quan); but a seemingly innocent visit to IRS inspector Deirdre Beaubeirdre (Curtis) has far reaching consequences... that tears the multiverse apart...

THOUGHTS: Michelle Yeoh is just phenomenal as Evelyn! This role is NOT easy; being the same character BUT different, yet maintain that through thought…. while displaying fantastic martial arts and effortless comic timing mixed with honest emotional depth. To seamlessly switch from glamorous movie star Evelyn to the Evelyn who’s utterly forgettable running the laundromat, to same day laundromat Evelyn but slightly less liberated, to singer Evelyn, chef Evelyn, dominatrix Evelyn, to sausage fingers Evelyn, oh look she’s now a rock, a piñata, animated… It’s a lot! At times overwhelming but boy was it a fun ride! Irreverent and silly at just the right moments, breaking up the bits between fantastic fight choreography, moving performances and seemingly super complicated physics. The Daniels directors are not afraid to take a big swing, the biggest swing, even! And while at times it can be a little overwrought, overlong or trying to be too many things at once, I forgive those faults because they really went for it full throttle (plus being about the multiverse sort of gives you permission to be too much). Visually it’s a delight, the perfect blend of crisp but playful, with imaginative choreography and enchanting set-pieces. Special shout-out to Shirley Kurata for her costume designing debut! WOW!!! I was shocked to learn this was her first time, what magnificent, imaginative, creative work! Speaking of jaw-dropping facts: SEVEN PEOPLE were on the Visual Effects team. SEVEN! The fact they were not nominated at the Oscars was an insult. When you have a budget of $300 million and a thousand members of staff, shocker you get nominated for making something pretty (I'd bloody well hope so, for that money and resources). But seven? This is something very special! So to Benjamin Brewer, Jeff Desom, Ethan Feldbau, Evan Halleck, Kirsten Lepore, Zak Stoltz & Matthew Wauhkonen I salute you all, and your groundbreaking brilliance with less resources than most dramas. And if you don't believe me, the Whale (2022) has over 50 people listed on the special effects team. Elvis (2022) has over a hundred and fifty. Even Tár (2022), bloody Tár had over twenty five! The brilliance of what they accomplished with just seven people is staggering. As for the acting, I really have only positives to say about the entire cast; they shine: Jamie Lee Curtis was equal levels bold and disgusting; adding many layers to this literal ‘Karen’, Stephanie Hsu massively impressed me in her variety and monstrosity… and major major applause to Ke Huy Quan returning to cinema after so many years. You’d know him best as Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) or Data from the Goonies (1985); well he absolutely smashed it out of the park. Beautiful depth of feeling to his tragic, much overlooked and forgotten husband. My only con… the score’s a total non-entity. And that got nominated... but the seven people who did all those special effects... forrrrrrrrgetaboutit!

OVERALL
This is one of the most unique, daring and unapologetic films I've seen in such a long, long time. Nothing excites me more in cinema than not playing it safe, and this film is just... brilliant for that. The cast is perfect, I fell in love with all of them, with the whole film. It gave so many special moments, so many iconic images and ideas, that you just can't plan. Michelle Yeoh is a goddess, figurative (and literally) in this; not since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) has a film so beautifully captured the colossal range of her talents and greatness. It's one of the best films I've seen in years.
~ rating: ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ [grade: A++]


N.B. added to my "Top 100"

[Kieran_Frost]

CARLITO’S WAY (1993)
dir. Brian dePalma
I loved how this is a deconstruction of the gangster genre, akin to Unforgiven (1992); though not as brilliant. And it’s perfectly apt to have Pacino unravel the myths when, like Eastwood to westerns, Pacino was so prolific in creating the gangster genre (and he’s always so watchable too). And the chase was fantastic, would have gone even further, had the entire final third being one long chase! But what was the point of showing me the ending at the start? I understand the power of dramatic irony, but the tension and anticipation of NOT knowing how it ends would have vastly out-weighted those benefits. And I’m surprised to read the music by Patrick Doyle was so praised at the time… I found it incredibly insistent and overbearing. Arguably the film’s biggest weakness.
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: B-]


DEATH ON THE NILE (2022)
dir. Kenneth Branagh
My thoughts here are pretty much the same as Murder on the Orient Express (2017); visually it’s beautiful, I like Branagh’s Poirot, I like the additions to his character backstory, I like the updating of the characters (RE: diversity) BUT… they messed with the structure and it spoiled the mystery. Agatha Christie structures her stories, her pacing, her reveals so methodically. YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THAT!!! It was done for a reason and if you take any part away, or restructure it… it falls apart as a great mystery. Which is exactly what happened here (my husband guessed who the killer was, and how they did it within minutes of it happening… that shouldn’t happen).
~ rating: ★★☆☆☆ [grade: C-]


DIRTY DANCING (1987)
dir. Emile Ardolino
I liked it. It was fun. And YES the dancing was great, which is arguably a very big cheque they needed to cash with such a title. Patrick Swayze was just so super hot… Jennifer Grey was great in the lead, and I enjoyed that it actually tackled far more serious things than I had assumed. That said An Officer and a Gentlemen (1982) covered a lot of this ground years earlier, in a much more brutal way. But it was very 80s; full of toxic masculinity and a determined woman who realises being in the peace corp speaks nothing of her character, now she’s pretty and dances. So she’s ‘better’ now, and NOW her father is proud of her. Cue rolling eyes.
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: C+]

[Kieran_Frost]

While I will try and watch as many of the Oscar films this year, I won't be watching Avatar: the Way of Water (2022) and here's why...

AVATAR (2009)
written&directed. James Cameron [nom.]
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 2154. Earth's resources depleted. Pandora. Ummmm... machines... and... look, it's blue Dances With Wolves...

THOUGHTS: That was it?!?!? THAT WAS IT? That was what everyone had been going on about for over a decade? What depthless, empty sh*te! Is it pretty, sure… AND? Is that all it takes to make people like a movie: shiny shiny pretty things? This was SOULESS art. It reminds me of all that AI art everyone was sharing weeks ago, it’s pretty but boy ohhhh boy did it remove the heart and soul of personality from art. This is not original, it’s not creative in storytelling or characterisation or dialogue… oh my god, the dialogue!!! It’s not even charitable enough to call it cliché and stilted, this is… AWFUL! Who still uses phrases like “punk ass b*tch” to show masculinity and toughness? Cameron was using phrases like “kick his corporate butt” back in Aliens (1986) and the Abyss (1989), and twenty years later he’s not evolved or improved one iota. “Who’d you expect, numbnuts”?!? Or “Calm down, Ranger Rick”? Who the f*ck is that??? When three time Academy Award nominee Sigourney Weaver can’t make your dialogue bareable (not good, I’m talking BAREABLE) you know you have a problem. The alien, IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE, saying “that moron is going to die”. Really? Ughhh… there is no creativity here, no effort ON ANY LEVEL to think outside the box or interpret anything about another race. The army general has a southern American accent, ‘the suit’ just loves money and that’s his motive. These are lazy, stock characters with no creativity in them. There is a reason this was not nominated for any major writing awards. There is a reason none of Cameron’s films have ever been nominated for writing. Titanic (1997), the film that tied for the most Oscars ever… was never nominated for writing. Ask yourself why. And Cameron wrote the screenplay for this sequel, so spoiler alert: it’s gonna suck as well! Also why do they wear loinclothes, they clearly have no genitals! If I had to say positives: it’s a very very pretty CGI world full of generic and unoriginal pretty things. Sam Worthington is hot, and his blue ass looks great. The end.

OVERALL
What a sh*t film!
~ rating: ★☆☆☆☆ [grade: D]

[Kieran_Frost]

MODERN TIMES (1936) [AVAILABLE FREE ON YOUTUBE]
dir. Charlie Chaplin
I’ve actually never seen a Charlie Chaplin film, so this was quiet a treat. I was very impressed to learn he both directed AND composed the score. Bravo! It begins with a big, muscular shirtless man at work… so it’s a yes from me, ha! I was also surprised to learn it’s not actually a silent film. In fact the Tramp himself, while silent throughout, sings at the end. Which confused me… because I distinctly remember in the film Chaplin (1990) he agonized over the magic of his character being lost in the Great Dictator (1940) if he finally allowed him to speak. I guess that was artistic licensing for dramatic effect? As for the film, it’s surprisingly topical; tackling poverty, hunger, the cost of living, works rights, unions, strikes, loss of income… elevating it above ‘merely’ clever set piece vignettes. Though they were very funny, esp. the robotic food dispenser and blindfolding skating in the mall. And I was NOT expecting him to go on a cocaine fuelled rampage in jail (genuinely that happens). Paulette Goddard (who would go on to become his wife) is just beautiful and so expressive in her moving role, but this is Chaplin’s film through and through. His charisma and star power is just… incredible. Undeniable. Physically and emotively he is absolutely captivating.
~ rating: ★★★★☆ [grade: A-]



THE GOLD RUSH (1925) [AVAILABLE FREE ON YOUTUBE]
dir. Charlie Chaplin
Alaska, 1896. The Tramp (Chaplin) seeks his fortune during the Klondike Gold Rush, hoping to win the heart of dance hall girl, Georgia (Georgia Hale). This is the 1942 re-mastered version (a “director’s cut”, if you will) by Chaplin, with tighter editing, a new score and - most importantly - narration, provided by Chaplin himself. It makes it one of the most accessible silent films I’ve seen. The addition of a cheeky narrator, drolly commentating on the situational farce just… elevates the comedy without taking anything away from the slapstick (plus explains the replication of this tactic in many Looney Tunes cartoons of the 40s and 50s). And I FINALLY know where the Simpson episode “Mountain of Madness” drew its inspiration, where Homer and Mr Burns are trapped in a log cabin by an avalanche. Though most iconic is the ‘dancing bread roll’ scene, where Chaplin sticks two forks in them, pretending they are his legs. It’s just a genuinely funny film, I laughed out loud many times; so beautifully absurd with a little heartbreak and commentary on toxic masculinity added for good measure.
~ rating: ★★★★☆ [grade: A-]



SHERLOCK JR (1924) [AVAILABLE FREE ON YOUTUBE]
dir. Buster Keaton
I went through a lot of stages with this: super pumped to watch a lauded Sherlock Holmes film, squealed when Buster Keaton’s name came on screen, then disappointed it WASN’T actually a Holmes film, then it becomes a Holmes film (f*ck yes)… and then it wasn’t very Sherlock-esq. It’s just a very thread bare story, and while it’s only 45 minutes long, it still felt drawn out and slow in parts. I applaud the genius of the stunts and set pieces (all done by Keaton himself), and some proper magic happens at one point… but a film is more than visuals. More than several brilliant stunts or clever camera tricks. It had no soul, no chemistry between the stars. There was so much potential in this story, the possibility she is the true genius detective, the Chicago (2002)-esq day dreaming, LOVED the idea of half the movie being a film-within-a-film; but a love letter to cinema or feminism or even Sherlock, this was not. I find the story, performances (and stunts) far more engaging in the General (1926). Go watch that instead.
~ rating: ★★☆☆☆ [grade: C-]

[Kieran_Frost]

BARBIE (2023)
dir. Greta Gerwig
writer. based on the Barbie fashion dolls from Mattel
Starring: Margo Robbie, Ryan Gosling, America Ferrera, Kate McKinnon and Helen Mirren

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 'Stereotypical' Barbie (Robbie) is off her game, she's tripping over, her feet aren't naturally shaped for high heels and she's talking about death... a lot... time for Ken (Gosling) and Barbie (McKinnon) and Barbie (Issa Rae) and Barbie (Dua Lipa) and Barbie (Sharon Rooney) to get to the bottom of this!

THOUGHTS: The second part of my ‘Barbenheimer’ double-feature (though I'm reviewing these alphabetically); I was very happy for some intelligent levity. It’s an incredibly clever exploration of the most famous (and controversial) doll in history. This film could have gone SO badly, think of how many films based on toy lines work. Masters of the Universe (1987), G.I. Joe (2009), any of the Transformers films… not the stuff of art and accolade. Mammoth praise must be given to the movie for, frankly, not being sh*t. And it’s far more than just good or fun, it’s got so many wonderful qualities. The detail of design in Barbie World is whimsical, witty and loving. The costumes are one jovial delight after another. And who can object to an irreverent dance break for levity? But the crux of the film’s excellence is the unpacking of all the gender baggage that comes with the unrealistic expectations set by the most famous blonde bombshell in history. And the marvelous Margot Robbie is the perfect actress for the role, a proven taskmaster for adding depth and nuance to seemingly stereotypical Barbie dolls. It’s just… such a tall order for any story; finding a satisfying conclusion to the state of gender equality throughout the world. You have two hours: GO!!! And I feel the movie took some easy outs, when complexity was the crux they aspired to. Why was there so much diversity in shape and look of the Barbies, but the Kens remained far more stereotypical in model good-look appearance? Why were the 'good' men of the film characterized as meek, timid and indecisive? Did they need to make the husband to America Ferrera the butt of the joke, going so far as to mock him for learning his wife and child's language, when surely it's a good thing he's trying? Was that Supreme Court jab necessary? There are women on the US Supreme Court, so actually... isn't BarbieWorld hypocritical? And I know that wasn't the intent. It was such a smart film, they didn't need to go for the low-hanging fruit (even if that was the point). Even if it was making that statement: this is how we are treated! It's a movie rightly crying out for equality and to find ourselves in a situation better than we have, so BE BETTER. Lead by example; aim for the stars. Oh well. Regardless it’s a very worthy effort and Ryan Gosling is PERFECTION as Ken. I feel almost bad saying, about a film designed to celebrate femininity, that a man steals the show. But by god he does. Utter perfection. His comedy, his character arc, his complexity and emotional roller-coaster; it was just a pleasure to watch him on screen.

OVERALL
A monumental task, and a very worthy effort that sadly fails at the end. It was too high a shot, too grande a leap; doomed to be unsatisfying. Potentially the film should have gone for a less neat, vaguer end; therefore more truthful to reality (and free itself of the burden to answer the impossible). But visually it was a treat, with an excellent ensemble and some (very loving) jabs at the world of Barbie. A treat to behold.
~ rating: ★★★★☆ [grade: B+]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPPENHEIMER (2023)
dir. Christopher Nolan
writer. based on the toy line
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Kenneth Branagh and Robert Downey Jr

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: J. Robert Oppenheimer (Murphy) has been enlisted by Gen. Leslie Groves (Damon) to lead the Manhattan Project, in the hopes of creating a weapon powerful to bring an end to WWII.

THOUGHTS: This. Is. A. MASTERPIECE!!! While I prefer the Dark Knight (2008) as the Joker has always been my number one favourite villain; this is clearly the more sophisticated and detailed film. Similar to Once Upon A Time in Hollywood (2019); I don't know if it's my favourite Tarentino film but it's certainly his magnum opus. For a little time I worried at the film’s insistence ‘this is art, this is important’ that consumed the first forty minutes… but the movie truly delivers, and has the receipts to back-up those bold flexes early on. Paramount to state: Cillian Murphy is INCREDIBLE! Lesser actors would have used 3 hours to cry, rage, go through the gamut. Instead Murphy stays honest and level through-out, effortlessly carries the core of the story. It's a truly magnificent character study and one that just makes me in awe of his talent. That’s not to take away from the others: Emily Blunt, Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr are excellent, in-fact the entire ensemble impresses. Gary Oldman shines in his 5 minutes of screen time as President Truman. Huge applause must also be given to Ludwig Göransson. His music is ceaseless, that’s an incredible undertaking when over 50% of the film is basically montages careening to the inevitable end, brutally fueled by the score. And like the flex, I was worried that the almost consuming story montage would make the film little more than powerful vignettes, but it just works. It slams on the breaks at JUST the right moment, diverting to the crux of the film's message at the perfect intersection. Honestly the film is near flawless; I cannot sing it's praises enough. Could it have trimmed 20mins off the runtime? YES, but like Everything, Everywhere All at Once (2022) it’s not a deal breaker nor a genuine hindrance. Merely an observation. Negatively there was CUNF (completely unnecessary nude female) from Florence Pugh, highlighted even more by the noticeable hiding of Cillian Murphy’s d*ck (and he showed it in 28 Days Later (2002), so what’s the issue?). It wasn't necessary and is a black mark against the film. Honestly my only other critique was the Senator's aide at the end; his tone and delivery was a little too brisk. I understand it was voicing society's objection, but there is no way that senator would have taken that obvious affront without a retort. A minor grumble, ha.

OVERALL
This is a truly fantastic movie; informative, powerful, sobering. Cillian Murphy is astounding, it's Nolan's best film. It’s a stellar moment in cinema, and I encourage you all to see it. ��
~ rating: ★★★★★ [grade: A+]

[Kieran_Frost]

THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946) [OSCAR]
dir. William Wyler [OSCAR]
writer. based on the 1945 novella "Glory For Me" by MacKinlay Kantor [OSCAR]
Starring: Fredric March [OSCAR], Myrna Loy, Dana Andrews, Teresa Wright, Harold Russell [OSCAR] and Cathy O'Donnell

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Boone City, 1945. Three Navy officers (March, Andrews & Russell) return to their Midwestern hometown after the war; adjusting to life as civilians.

THOUGHTS: Winner of 7 Oscars including Best Picture, I was left very disappointed. Maybe in 1946 this was considered bold and daring; and I do applaud the film for the brutal frankness of how the country is treating soldiers so soon after the war ended. It just... was a flawed set-up. We didn't know what they were like or how they were treated BEFORE the war; so building a film around 'how much has changed' is problematic. Considering how long it was, it could have trimmed a lot and had time to add a few pre-war scene at the start (or at the end, that could be quite sombre); or devoted more time to establishing in narrative how they used to behave. Secondly it had nothing new to say after the first 30 minutes. He's using alcohol to numb the pain, he's struggling with the loss of his hands and his sweet-heart that got him through the war isn't so sweet. All the resolutions were too neat, too easy (and too signposted). The movie took far too long to be that simple. That's not to say there weren't great treats at various point. Teresa Wright was, as always, WONDERFUL. She really carved out a career playing the strong girl next door, sweet and kind but tough as nails when she needs to fight. I already adored her in Little Foxes (1941), Mrs Miniver (1942) and Shadow of a Doubt (1943); and she was single handedly the best thing about this film. I'm shocked she wasn't at-least nominated. Again for 1946 her line of "I'm going to break that marriage up!" made me choke on my coffee, you go gurl!!! DAMNNNNN! I was disappointed in Myrna Loy as the steadfast wife; she had (arguably) the best role and just... did little with it. Nothing creative. I never believed their chemistry as husband and wife; it all felt very untrue. I was also very uncomfortable at the frequent and casual use of a Japanese slur by the main husband, I understand that was the time period but still... it's not aged well. And while I applaud the pro-soldier stance of the film, one moment veers dangerous into pro-war; which I was far less happy with (considering the film had spent a long time depicting the very real consequences of said war). It was just all... unfinished. Like a soufflé that's not risen. This needed some serious editing, a better score, tighter narrative and pace, pace, pace. And cut the orchestra while inspecting the planes. The most melodramatic stationary planes in cinema history. Christ on a cracker!

OVERALL
Monstrously too long, and very slow for what was being delivered. The ensemble were all very competent, and the star of the film is the acting (which is what I'd expect from any William Wyler film). Not desperately exciting, and besides Teresa Wright no-one delivered gold. A disappointing three hours.
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: C+]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLORY(1989)
dir. Edward Zwick
writer. based on the 1965 book One Gallant Push and the 1973 book Lay This Laurel
Starring: Matthew Broderick, Andre Braugher, Cary Elwes, Denzel Washington [OSCAR] and Morgan Freeman

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Boston, 1862. After an injury at the Battle of Antietam, Capt. Robert Gould Shaw (Broderick) is promoted to colonel of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, one of the first all-black regiments in the Union Army.

THOUGHTS: To the surprise of no-one, James Horner's score is awesome and it's the star of this film! Kudos, Mister Horner. Now to the nitty-gritty. First and foremost... Matthew Broderick. Oh bless you, you tried (having just graduated from the Orlando Bloom school of facial hair). He's just... not a good actor? Can I say that? He's not a bad actor, by any means, but he's not good. And he was utterly unbelievable in period drama. There is an art to period performance; a more controlled, nuanced energy. Always holding back, always on guard. Unable to express your feelings, but have them bubble up in other ways. He lacked all of that, he was so modern you wondered if a high-five was far away. And I'll say it, blasphemous though it is... Denzel was too modern also; and I don't think he should have won the Oscar. AHHHHHHH, Boom! It's out there! He was good, don't get me wrong. Powerful, playful, emotional, even whimsical (but in such a very modern way that constantly drew me out of the film). The truly deserving Best Supporting Actor was Andre Baugher. A very young Andre Baugher, who had the best character arc, the most real breakdowns and I loved the battle against toxic masculinity he fort through-out the film. His naivety and hopefulness was almost cruel to the viewer, and I loved it. Sorry, but Denzel's first Oscar should have been Andre's. Cary Elwes was AWESOME, and Morgan Freeman! OH Morgan! Remember when he gave everything in his fibre to his performance, I miss those days. He was just effortlessly wonderful here. *le sigh* I'm focus a lot on the performances, I know that; partly because there is little else to say. It was a very safe film. Some shots were very pretty, the war beats were very Full Metal Jacket (1987), the resolution very... signposted. The whole film was just all very... eh! Zwick cannot shoot action scenes to save his life, all the smoke in the world can't disguise how uninspiring and confusing those battles were. Slow-motion is not a crutch, it is a tool. A tool that was misused here. A LOT.

OVERALL
Eh! A perfectly nice war film that really don't do anything special; and in-fact falls into cliche'd cinema beats more often than not. Incredibly enjoyable and some very note worthy performances elevates the ham-fisted directing. That said, crowds cheering make me cry in any film, and so yes when everyone started celebrating the 54th I was blubbering like a baby!
~ rating: ★★★☆☆ [grade: B]