Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Kieran_Frost]

HER (2013) [nom.]
dir. Spike Jonze
writer. Spike Jonze [OSCAR]
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams and Rooney Mara

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Los Angeles, in the near future. Professional personal letter writer and soon-to-be divorcée Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) purchases a new OS with artificial intelligence, designed to provide companionship in the form of a voice interactive app named "Samantha" (Johansson).

THOUGHTS: while I find Joaquin Pheonix's false disdain for awards infuriating, I do find his work a joy. He captures "everyman"; he is believably ordinary yet holds such worldly sympathy in his eyes. I also need to re-evaluate my views on Scarlett Johansson; a revelation (giving her best performance since Lost in Translation (2003)). The subtle futuristic setting, the vivid colours and clever "innovations" in technology; it all worked perfectly. And Amy Adams, god you need an Oscar ASAP; your work is consistently excellent. The film's greatest strength is of course the script; deservedly winning Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars. Fantastic dialogue, both complex yet trimmed of fat; witty and heart-breaking and honest. Pacing is an issue, and while his writing is flawless, Jonze's directing still needs a little urgency. I didn't love the film, but I did immensely enjoy it. A very worthy project, exploring big concepts in a refined narrative. Bravo.

OVERALL
A clever, original concept; a wonderful metaphor for loneliness and isolation. They've wrapped a compelling performance by Joaquin Phoenix in glorious visuals; tied up with the perfect bow = Scarlett Johansson's pitch perfect voice. A delight (though lacking in real highs and lows).
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WOLF OF WALLSTREET (2013) [nom.]
dir. Martin Scorcese [nom.]
writer. based on the novel the Wolf of Wallstreet by Jordan Belfort [nom.]
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio [nom.], Jonah Hill [nom.], Margot Robbie, Kyle Chandler, Jean Dujardin and Matthew McConaughey

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: the rise and fall of stockbroker Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio); from boiler-room trader to Wallstreet Wolf, and loving every minute of it.

THOUGHTS: Scorcese is a straight man's director; he explores men being men in manly ways, and women come and go as depthless nagging wives and hookers with zero attention on how they live or exist in their lives; but luckily nearly all of them will get their boobs about before they depart. I'm so over his films. Don't get me wrong, like Tarentino he's very skilled as a director; all his films are crisp, and slick and beautifully shot. They are also WAY too long. I learnt nothing in the second hour (of three) that I didn't see repeatedly in the first hour. How many scenes of whores and drugs and breasts and Leo going "WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" did we need??? And then we come to Leo. Now I haven't seen Dallas Buyers Club (2013); but I have seen 12 Years a Slave (2013); and how it wasn't McConaughey vs. Leo for Best Actor (rather than Ejiofor) I have no idea. DiCaprio gives a stunning performance; free of inhibitions, free of being held back. It's raw and visceral and balls-to-the-wall brave. The entire segment where DiCaprio is on quaaludes; from losing speech, to crawling to his car, to fighting Hill over a phone. Incredible, I never knew he had such brilliance in him. Jonah Hill too; fantastic. Though it does make me laugh the film is full of boobs and vagina, but the moment a penis is involved they use a prosthetic. LOL! Ultimately the film is just too long for what it offers (which is little beyond extreme excess; Wallstreet (1987) does much the same thing but in far less time). And while some will "justify" the long running time by saying the repetition is intentionally commenting on such excess; I know it's a common fault of all Scorcese films (regardless of subject matter). Learn to kill your darhlings, Martin.

OVERALL
Leonardo DiCaprio gives his greatest performance to date, a true work of genius. Sadly it is contained in a film riff with Scorcese-esq faults; too long, too misogynistic, zero effort to trim the fat. Even an excellent Jonah Hill couldn’t save it.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B-]

[simbob4000]

Did they show any vaginas in Wolf of Wall Street? I don't remember seeing any. Makes sense they would use a fake dick give what Jonah Hill is doing in that scene. Blue is the Warmest Color was said to use prosthetic for the women is some of it's scenes too.

[supermario]

BENHUR is a masterpiece. loved it

[Kieran_Frost]

MAJO NO TAKKŪIBIN (1989) ~ Kiki's Delivery Service ~
dir. Hayao Miyizaki
writer. based on the series of novels by Eiko Kadono
Voice Talents of: Kirsten Dunst, Phil Hartman, Matthew Lawrence, Tress MacNeille and Debbie Reynolds

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: like all witches who turn 13, Kiki (Dunst) must travel to a new city on her own, establish her independence however she sees fit.

THOUGHTS: Films by Hayao Miyizaki always fill me with such joy; and this was no exception. The ONLY really negative aspect was the voice of Kiki's magical black cat Jiji (voiced by Phil Hartman); his tone was more annoying than 'amusing negativity'... and even then, by the end his voice grows on you. There is just so much harmless joy in Miyizaki's films; from the size of Jiji (he is sooooo small, a magically uber small cat), to the rival witch, to the laughing pregnant baker, the old ladies, the sweet love interest. Oh it's magical. It's impressive how many loveable or intriguing characters Miyizaki creates, in such a short space of time. We never see the rival witch again, but we learn so much about her personality in that short seen (how she decorates herself in jewels, how her cat holds himself, her pigtails); it's all very simple, but incredibly effective. Something I've always admired about Miyizaki is how many of his films lack a real antagonist; more often than not the 'situation' or challenge is the true enemy (or those you think are enemies will become allies by the end). Though often "the situation" is tackling something prevalent in our world (but in a way that is never preachy or forced). Here the contrast is between the loveable harmlessness of Kiki's flying broomstick and the danger invoked by the new airship. Neither are directly mirrored (which I admire) but it's still clear as down how one tradition is being threatened by the monstrosity of the modern world. In many ways it's about loss of innocence; though not always as a bad thing. Frankly the whole film is about girls entering puberty; the pressures they are under, the struggles they come up against; and most importantly, how they learn to cope and rise above it. Not all change is bad. It's a very clever film; stunningly animated. The fictional, nameless city (Sweden-esq) on the sea = I could watch Kiki fly round that town all day; like all his films a computer game RPG set in this world would be stunning. This film probably won't change your life, but it's super fun and super beautiful. Possibly my least favourite Miyazaki film, and it's STILL 4 star; that's how brilliant his genius is, even his "worst" film is better than most else out there.

OVERALL
Charm, delightful, harmless; all the most wonderful words one could use to describe an animated film. On the service it's mindless fun, underneath it's a very clever film exploring the pressures of womanhood and the growing distance between tradition and the destructive intrusiveness of modern technology.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]



"TOP 5" films my Hayao Miyazaki
1. Spirited Away (2001)
2. Castle in the Sky (1986)
3. Ponyo: On the Cliffs, By the Sea (2008)
4. Howl's Moving Castle (2004)
5. My Neighbour Totoro (1988)

BENHUR is a masterpiece. loved it

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!! That chariot race = few moments in cinema top it.

[Nick Miller]

keiran

where is Vertigo and Psycho and North by Northwest!!

[Kieran_Frost]

keiran

where is Vertigo and Psycho and North by Northwest!!

North By Northwest (1959) was in there, but I bumped it out about two years ago (by Mrs. Miniver (1942)). (Now this is sad) But I do write down why I bump a film out; so for North By Northwest I wrote this: bumped out by Mrs. Miniver, some plot holes (how can they not work out he isn’t a spy, the wife would be clue), too long (esp. romance scenes); hencemen (chubbier one) not very good. Psycho (1960) is excellent BUT the second half is just no where near as good as the first (and that's a problem for me); it's half a masterpiece followed by half a very good film. As for Vertigo (1958). Eh. I don't get what all the fuss is about; not a massive fan of Jimmy Stewart as an actor (at-least under Hitchcock); and it was just too slow. That said, I have three Hitchcock films in my list; he is wonderful after all. Ang Lee is the ONLY director who has 4 films in the list; Sir Alfred Hitchock, Sir David Lean, Sir Ridley Scott, Sidney Lumet and Steven Spielberg all have three.

[Kieran_Frost]

I also watched Ten Little Indians (1965); based on the Agatha Christie play. I fell asleep half-way, partly because (knowing the play) it held little to no mystery (though I did love seeing Col. Pickering face off against Mr. Dolittle ). I knew who the killer was, I remembered why he was doing it, and everything became so formulaic you just wanted to jump to the end. No all "twist endings" ruin the film (Murder on the Orient Express (1974); another Christie work, is brilliantly acted, directed, paced; even knowing the ending doesn't effect the enjoyment). Sadly this film is too formulaic, and the director added zero "treats" to distract from the rather tedious pattern emerging (and seriously a man has died, and at breakfast everyone just seems liked it was any other Sunday). I "liked" the idea behind the bizarre choice of music at the start, cheerful and upbeat to separate you from the inevitability of the story; but it never quite lived up to the potential. Overall it was just a real dull version of the Family Guy spoof "And Then There Were Fewer".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CROODS (2013)
dir & writers. Kirk DeMicco & Chris Sanders
Voice Talents of: Nicholas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Catherine Keener and Cloris Leachman

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Eep (Stone) lives in the prehistoric era with her cave family; but when the tectonic plates collide, they must put their faith in Guy (Reynolds) to lead them across the land until they reach "Tomorrow".

THOUGHTS: it starts off badly; I admit that. While it's very refreshing seeing Eep with the figure of an athlete (not the usual stick thin, waistless heroines we've gotten for decades); the set-up is VERY paint-by-numbers. Thankfully it gets better... much better. It reminds me a lot of the Lego Movie (2014) in the sense you originally feel it's going to be rather generic and even lazy in its narrative, but twists the story into something you didn't expect; providing a surprising depth to something you believed would be bad. I was actually very moved by the final third (though I had hoped for a sadder ending). Much like in Toy Story 3 (2010) there was one moment where you genuinely think the film is about to be very, very brave indeed. Alas it's not. Oh how beautiful would it have been to see Grug throw his family into the unknown, towards the light... and NOT know if they make it. Not know if they survived, and leave us with the final image of him alone but hopeful. Hopeful that they did reach "Tomorrow." Oh well. Cloris Leachman was WASTED! As a giant fan of Leachman's amazing voice work as Dora in Castle in the Sky (1986) I was very sad she barely got anything to do. Her funniest moments were the silent ones (which we can't really give the voice actors credit for). And Ryan Reynolds steals the show as Guy (surprisingly!). He had the right level of humour, warmth and desperation; and my god his sloth named "Belt" was genius. Like the talking dog in Up (2009); it's just brilliant idea for humorous moments. The film itself was nominated last year for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars (deserved); and co-created by Chris Sanders (the man behind the wonderful How to Train Your Dragon series). Chris Sanders and Hayao Miyizaki are the only people nominated 3 times in that category (though Sanders, unlike Miyizaki, has never won). Will he hit Oscar gold this year? We'll have to see...

OVERALL
A surprisingly moving animated film; which is visually a joy to behold. While the "jokes" aren't original or even funny; the silent humour brings much mirth. A pleasant way to spend an evening.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B]

[Kieran_Frost]

SHOGUN ASSASSIN (1980)
dir. Robert Houston (sort of)
writer. adapted from the Lone Wolf and Cub film series
Starring: Tomisaburô Wakayama, Akihiro Tomikawa, Kayo Matsuo and Tokio Oki

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Ogami Ittō (Wakayama), a former Shogun executioner, travels the world with his three year old child Daigorō (Tomikawa); avoiding the various ninja assassins sent by the wicked Shogun (Oki)

THOUGHTS: to explain this film, basically it's a re-cut of two films in the Lone Wolf and Cub series; Sword of Vengeance (1972) and Baby Cart at the River Styx (1972) (both directed by Kenji Misumi); with a new story structure, soundtrack and dubbed lines. It's a cool idea, and I admire the creativity... BUT it doesn't really add much. The story doesn't flow as well as it should, and there is ZERO subtly in the story; it's nothing but vignettes of fights (probably because all the story wouldn't make sense). If you tried to slice up the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003), dubbed the dialogue and added a new score; it would be an interesting experiment. Could you drastically change the ideas, or would you be limited by the director's work? I don't know, if someone tried HELL YES I would watch it (out of curiosity, if nothing else). The main reason I wanted to watch this: the influence it had in creating KILL BILL (2003-2004). Obviously concept/style was inspirational; as was Mark Lindsay's score (RZA used several snippets of it in the KILL BILL score); the film even features in vol. 2 (the Bride watches the film with BeBe). I had no idea what to expect (other than a little boy who says "samurai" weirdly), and was a little underwhelmed. I did like the strong female presence, with Kayo Matsuo very enjoyable as Supreme Ninja (nice the only person to fight Lone Wolf and lives was a woman); and some shots are beautiful (SEE: below). The choreography is both impressive YET simple (in a good way; it was "realistic" -- or as close as you can get in a story like this); with a very fun use of different weapons -- I enjoyed finally seeing the "cat claw" (or Tekko-kagi) being used... though how that actually works as a deadly weapon against swords, I have no idea. But it just didn't click. The plot goes nowhere (essentially), and there isn't even a story; he's just wandering around randomly with random fights that lead to nothing. I was excited to see a 'cult classic' and ultimately found myself wanting more.

OVERALL
A very interesting, if unsuccessful idea. A noble attempt to honourably bastardise another director's work; but ultimately a nice new soundtrack doesn't really make up for the erratic plot and story. A very pretty, very depthless film.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]

[Kieran_Frost]

BIRDMAN; or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014) [nom.]
#126 on IMDB's "Top 250"
dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu [nom.]
writers. Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo [nom.]
Starring: Michael Keaton [nom.], Edward Norton [nom.], Emma Stone [nom.], Amy Ryan, Lindsey Duncan and Naomi Watts

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: faded Hollywood star Riggan Thomson (Keaton), famous to the world as the fictional superhero Birdman, attempts to relaunch his career on Broadway by adapting, directing and starring in Raymond Carver's short story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love"

THOUGHTS: Chekov said if there's a gun in the script, someone's going to shoot it; and I was so hoping the film was going to surprise me on every level. I cannot praise the directing enough. Iñárritu deserves Best Director at the Oscars for this film. He creates a near continuous shot, tricking you into thinking it's all one take. Following the cast down corridors, up stairs, out doors, through windows; he'd have you believe it was all done in one smooth movement. It perfectly reflects the world of theatre in film (where everything does just continue, scenes meld into scenes and time changes, while simultaneously ticking forward like clockwork). It's brilliant, and the technicality of it deserves endless praise. So too do the performances. Yes Michael Keaton was born for this role and he is stunning... but Emma Stone! WOW! She surprised me; she was dynamite. A thousand times better than Patricia Arquette in Boyhood (2014). If there is one major surprise I'd love to see at this year's Oscars, it's Emma Stone taking home the gold. Every scene she's in, she nails it; profound, loveable, broken, yet never the cliché. But everyone is excellent (minus Naomi Watts, randomly, and I generally adore her). The defining moment was Michael Keaton's confrontation with the theatre critic (perfectly portrayed by theatre goddess Lindsey Duncan); expressing EVERYTHING any actor or director or writer (or anyone in the entertainment industry) has ever felt about critics. And yet her views on theatre, how it should be more than just a whim of film actors; how it's about craft, training, hard work, determinations... I get that too. A perfectly balanced arguement (and one fascinating to see championed in a film). But that scene alone isn't the reason the film is so good, for it has many terrific scenes; each one different and enjoyable in their own way. For me the only major flaw was the ending. It felt... unfinished. Not that there wasn't a conclusion, but I don't feel Iñárritu committed fully to one specific ending (so gave us three instead). Endings are so crucial to a film's concept and message, and in this I felt let down. At-least the Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) never pretended to be anything but depthless. That said, it's still a colossal film. I so rarely can say I have seen something unlike anything I've seen before. Something... utterly unique. It's a brilliant achievement AND MOST IMPORTANTLY (unlike Boyhood) the concept is but one of its many, many praise-worthy delights.

OVERALL
Truly original; a film bursting with creativity and originality. A stunning ensemble lead by Michael Keaton (in what will be his career defining performance) and an intelligent, witty script; partnered with magnificent directing. A triumph on every level (though not as cathartic as one would desire).
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INHERIT THE WIND (1960)
dir. Stanley Kramer
writer. based on the Broadway play by Jerome Lawrence & Robert Edwin Lee [nom.]
Starring: Spencer Tracy [nom.], Fredric March, Gene Kelly, Dick York, Donna Anderson and Florence Eldridge

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Dayton, Tennessee; 1925. Local school teacher, Bertram Cates (York) is on trial for teaching the theories of evolution by Darwin to his students, defended by Henry Drummond (Tracy), while former three-time Presidential nominee Matthew Harrison Brady (March) handles the prosecution.

THOUGHTS: after lauding Kramer's Judgement at Nuremberg (1961) (also starring Spencer Tracey, also a court room drama) I was very excited for this film. Alas comparing the two only does harm to this film. What I adored most about Judgement at Nuremberg was the complexity, the exploration of all sides, of all ideas. It's disappointing to see more care and attention given to exploring the motivations and opinions of Nazis than those of religious faith. All those presented as the main voices of the religious arguements are all crazed, fanatical or just pathetic. Where are the religious people who a) aren't blindly bigoted in their views, b) not okay with the lynch mob or the hounding of witnesses BUT also believe in God and are against teaching evolution (since it is technically a crime). Even the judge and mayor are shown to be fickle in their doctrine. It's just all very lazy. At least the religion hating reporter E. K. Hornbeck (played by Gene Kelly) is taken down a notch at the end. But it was too little, too late. That is not to say the film is absent of praise. I just adore Spencer Tracy; he conveys righteous better than anyone (save Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird (1962); because NO ONE beats Atticus Finch when it comes to purity of spirit). And there are two very effective, very chilling scenes: the lynch mob outside the jail gleefully burning an effigy and chanting; and the fire-and-brimstone sermon in the woods, wind roaring around the priest. Wonderfully shot moments; but this film is about the trial, about intellectual discussion; how sad that it won't bestow the same rights on the opposing views. It's a strongly anti-religious film (and I don't think it really meant to be).

OVERALL
A disappointingly one-sided and shallow debate about justice; elevated by a strong ensemble and steady directing. Neither intellectually stimulating, nor emotionally complex in its examination of the issue. Calling it a missed opportunity is an understatement.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]

[simbob4000]

Those Inherit the Wind movies suck, and they only get worse with each new version. It would be interesting to see a version that brings up that the whole thing was just a tourist attraction, it would be a nice angle since Inherit the Wind has become such a thing. Although something like that would likely just end up as one of those terrible religious films, maybe with Kirk Cameron as the teacher.

Have you seen any of the actual Lone Wolf and Cub movies? As far as it goes with Kill Bill, I would actually say it's not much of an influence. It does get name-dropped, we hear a big of it, but it's not an influence in the same way that something like Lady Snowblood, The Mercenary, and a number of other films are. Lady Snowblood also happens to be based on a manga from Kazuo Koike, who also did the Lone Wolf and Cub series.

[Kieran_Frost]

AMERICAN SNIPER (2014) [nom.]
dir. Clint Eastwood
writer. based on American Sniper: the Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History by Chris Kyle [nom.]
Starring: Bradley Cooper [nom.], Sienna Miller and Sammy Sheik

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: after the attack of September 11th, Texan Chris Kyle (Cooper) enlists in the U.S. army, spending four tours in Iraq as a Navy SEAL sniper; where he becomes know as the Devil of Ramadi, resulting in an Iraq sniper dubbed "the Butcher" (Sheik) setting his sight on Chris' head.

THOUGHTS: I've been following the controversy of the film, and frankly I just don't get it. This film isn't about Iraq; it's not a comment on the Iraq war; it's a comment on PTS and what war does to a soldier. The same story could be done in Vietnam, in WWII; the war is immaterial. A lot of the complaints seem to mistake the difference between depicting a character as truthfully as possible, and supporting the views or opinions of a character. I don't feel the film makes Chris a hero. It certainly shows that many saw him as that, but nothing in the performance or the directing implies an agreement with that fact. The focus of both actor and director seems to be the turmoil and cost of taking so many lives, and what that does to a man (and whether he can come back out of it). I love Clint Eastwood's work, everything is worthy; and like I've said about every other film of his... this is no exception. His use of shadows, where he plays the darkness in a shot = I just adore it. It's crisp, it's smooth, it's subtle. He is not a showy director, he tells a story as honestly as he can. And KUDOS to Eastwood for not making Sienna Miller be topless. Eastwood is so good at conveying sexuality and a sex life without actually needing to show it (dear GOD Martin Scorcese please take note). Bradley Cooper is wonderful; now nominated a staggering three years running for the Oscar (each one deserved). He has this amazing way of showing (without really doing much) how almost childlike Chris can be, how so much of what he's feeling is overwhelming him because (like a child) he has no capacity to process the complex thoughts and realisations within him. A fascinating character portrayal, that has no qualms about showing the racism and bigotry inherent in how Chris views the Iraqi people. And let's also take a moment to comment on how beautiful Sammy Sheik is; if Eastwood wants to recreate his "two sides tale" done so successful for Flags of Our Fathers (2006)/Letters From Iwo-Jima (2007); I'd fully support seeing "Iraqi Sniper" next year.

OVERALL
An emotionally challenging film that doesn't give the answers many want or seek. It's not a comment on the Iraq war, but on the trauma of being a soldier, and the loss of humanity battle shreds away. A difficult, but rewarding film; though the subtlety will be lost on many.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA VITA Ê BELLA (1997) ~ Life is Beautiful ~ [nom.]
dir. Roberto Benigni [nom.]
writer. Roberto Benigni & Vincenzo Cerami [nom.]
Starring: Roberto Benigni [OSCAR], Nicoletta Braschi, Giorgio Cantarini and Giustino Durano

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Italy, 1939. Hopeful clown Guido Orefice (Benigni) intends to woe the beautiful new teacher, Dora (Braschi); by showing her all the whimsy and charm life has to offer.

THOUGHTS: I knew the premise and I think I'd seen a scene or two; but this was the first time I properly watched the whole thing. I applaud Benigni for his achievement here... BUT... it is more than a little egotistical. He spends the entire film carving out a character who is beloved by all, the greatest man alive, pure of heart, loveable, flawless, desirable (though he's no spring chicken) and yes even a noble self-sacrificial hero by the end. If you're going to do that DON'T cast yourself, it looks really bad. While the other actors do well in their respective roles; ultimately the only person who get any real character development is Benigni. Nicoletta Braschi as his wife (both in the film and in real life) has a few moments we are allowed to experience her thoughts; but even then most are connected to "how wonderful" Orefice is being. I don't want to imply he's unlikeable, his slapstick and comic timing is excellent. Emotionally we don't really get much of a range outside the loveable clown (surely a few seconds where he truly dropped the masked would have been welcome... and heartbreaking?). Directing wise it was a competent job; though nothing spectacular or innovative. If only it had been directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (a man who knows how to introvert frivolous amusement into something far darker), it could have been incredible. But while delightful, it missed the mark emotionally. There was so much that could have been mined, and got completely overlooked. Shame.

OVERALL
A very joyous, very fun film; just sightly "off" on some of the greater emotional beats. An unusual and original look at the fascist movement in WWII; offering sharp contrasts between the brutality of reality and the escapism of make-believe. A stunning score carries us perfectly from beginning to end; it is, quite simply, beautiful.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]

Those Inherit the Wind movies suck, and they only get worse with each new version. It would be interesting to see a version that brings up that the whole thing was just a tourist attraction, it would be a nice angle since Inherit the Wind has become such a thing. Although something like that would likely just end up as one of those terrible religious films, maybe with Kirk Cameron as the teacher.

While they'd be allowed to make a film of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial; I don't think they could adapt Inherit the Wind (since it's a play), unless they get special permission from the publisher (and if it's Samuel French... that ain't happening).

Have you seen any of the actual Lone Wolf and Cub movies? As far as it goes with Kill Bill, I would actually say it's not much of an influence. It does get name-dropped, we hear a big of it, but it's not an influence in the same way that something like Lady Snowblood, The Mercenary, and a number of other films are. Lady Snowblood also happens to be based on a manga from Kazuo Koike, who also did the Lone Wolf and Cub series.

No, I've never seen the actual Lone Wolf and Cub movies; this was my first experience of them (outside the brief scene in Kill Bill).

[Kieran_Frost]

BIG HERO 6 (2014)
dir. Don Hall & Chris Williams
writer. based on the Marvel Comics of the same name
With the voice talents of: Ryan Potter, Scott Adsit, Daniel Henney, Jamie Chung, Maya Rudolph and James Cromwell

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: San Fransokyo. Fourteen year old Hiro Hamada (Potter) is inspired by his older brother, Tadashi (Henney) to apply for the apprenticeship at the San Fransokyo Institute of Technology; but when the university is destroyed by “the Kabuki mask”, Hiro finds solace with Baymaz (Adsit), a personal healthcare robot his brother created before he died.

THOUGHTS: Ever since the Princess and the Frog (2009) Disney animated classics have really being hitting a stride, and this gingerly continues that trend. It’s amusing, moving, fun, creative… this is the new golden age of Disney animated films, and I couldn’t be happier. Do I enjoy it as much as the others? I don’t know. It reminds me a lot of Brave (2012); it’s very beautiful with a good pace, building on the success and maturing talent of the previous Pixar films… but ultimately is also just “copying” what works. You have the tragic death of a supporting character, the moving (supposed) death of a main cast member, the emotional core hidden in a seemingly superficial fantastical cocoon. Tick, tick, tick. It’s all great; is it “original”? No… but it’s still better than 90% of everything else out there. Now had the entire cast been Japanese (rather than Americanized) and had Baymax actually died at the end… or had “the Kabuki mask” turned out to be his brother… it would have been truly original and daring; instead of this enjoyably bold (but not TOO bold) formula we’ve been getting of recent years. In terms of the “Americanized” story, I’m on the fence. There is a very clear influence of Japan culture (architecturally, visually and socially) upon the world; so it is odd to contrast it by a somewhat “vague”/possibly-Asian-maybe-not lead star (and his possibly-Asian-maybe-not family). I didn’t love that; you shouldn’t take so much from a culture and not give back in equal measures (Hunger Games: WE MEAN YOU!!! And your complete absence of LGBT characters in a world clearly influenced by 80s LGBT culture). But to play devil's advocate… a) obviously they needed to drastically adapt the story, because Big Hero 6 was primarily mutants and linked to the X-verse (both of which I assume Fox still has ownership of). So we can’t “cry foul” of source material, they needed to make it different b) upon research Hiro IS voiced by an actor of Asian descent, his brother IS voiced by an Asian actor; in fact of the “Big Hero 6”, four are voiced by racial minority actors (and one of the two remaining cast was playing an inflatable marshmallow, so it doesn’t really matter what his race was). It’s still not the same racial make-up of the comic, and it’s not perfect but it’s vastly better than “just whitewashing”. It's just that nagging realisation: ultimately the story wouldn’t have changed at all if they were all Asian; dear film makers: just be braver (it’s 2015 dammit, we could handle it; we survived Mulan (1998) didn’t we?). They should have just embraced an all Asian cast. It was set in “fake Tokyo”; if they were all Asian I think the audience wouldn’t have considered it odd.

OVERALL
Another excellent addition to the current cannon of “the new golden age” of animated Disney feature films. It’s not groundbreaking (when it could have been) but it’s still immensely well made and enjoyable. A less brilliant version of the Incredibles (2004).
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HOBBIT: BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES (2014)
dir. Peter Jackson
writer. based on J.R.R. Tolkein’s novel of the same name
Starring: Martin Freeman, Sir Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly and Benedict Cumberbatch

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) and the dwarves are still looking for the Arkenstone, Gandalf (McKellan) is still fighting the Necromancer (Cumberbatch) at Dol Guldur, and Smaug (Cumberbatch... again) is still attacking Laketown

THOUGHTS: the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) is my favourite film of all time, so naturally I was disposed to finding the Hobbit trilogy entertaining. I enjoyed the first two instalments; they weren’t great but solid enough to keep me happy. But this film… is just bad. It’s almost a parody of the Lord of the Rings, lazily trying to mimic the successful beats of the original; yet ultimately delivering nothing but a plethora of fantasy clichés (UGH, the “reminiscing” about the meal in the first instalment… that was their “no my friends, you bow to no-one” moment… except a really sh*t, awful version of it). It was all so desperately try-hard; it’s difficult to decide what to mock first. Hmmmm... Luke Evans' insipid children definitely top the list. I came to see the Hobbit (and the wizard and sometimes the dwarves), not “void of personality” children PART II. Why does the film seem determined we root for them despite giving us no possible reason to like them. Why did we waste so much time on their loathsome “character development”? Imagine the two children we didn’t care about from the Two Towers, who flee the burning village on horseback… that... but a thousand times worse. At-least in their case we only had to sit through an unemotional reunion. Here we’re forced to “care” scene-after-scene of near-death (not close enough for my liking) drivel. Luke Evans’ son is sooooo gay (but hilariously trying to be macho, which doesn’t work); ironic since Luke “openly-gay-but-now-he’s-in-Hollywood-he-might-be-getting-married-to-old-friend-Holly Goodchild-wink” Evans could relate to a clearly gay person being trapped in a role that doesn’t quuuuuuuiet fit What next? Oh, Richard Armitage descent into an irrational mess, to the point his death cannot elicit any sorrow (though my god they REALLY try to trick us into caring by having half the cast weep uncontrollably over this unlikeable wretch's demise). One of the greatest parts of the Lord of the Rings was the perfect score by Howard Shore; yet here I recall only one moment I even noticed the music. It was nothing but lazy recycling or uninspiring new tunes. "The Resolution of Smaug" should have just happened in the Desolation of Smaug, because pointlessly including the showdown in the first 15 minutes of the film was meaningless (and very anti-climatic). This was not akin to sensibly moving Shelob into the Return of the King, this was just bad plotting. And WHY create a completely new action heroine in Tauriel, only to have her need rescuing by not one BUT BOTH of the men interested in her. Girl power indeed. Even Thranduil was void of his usual scene-stealing goodness (no actor could make that “because it was real” line work). The film has but one saving grace: I finally got Lady Galadriel in a combat scenario, and boy did she KICK ASS!!!! It was sadly visually uninspiring BUT the significance of the moment more than outweighed the disappointment in lack of creativity. And I think that’s the ultimate problem: Peter Jackson seems to really have phoned it in. Nothing was bold, nothing seemed to be exciting him (and therefore it cannot engage me). His first trilogy was rightly called a “labour of love” this felt more like a chore. A joyless chore. Finally we come to Ryan Gage’s Alfrid. AWFUL! A bad actor in a BAD role. I'm astounded they left out the scene where he kicks a puppy, just to show how eeeeeeeeevil he is? Think Wormtongue… but unfunny and DULL. I’m tired of seeing movies use “he dressed in drag, lol” as an attempt a humour. Stop mocking transvestites or using them to lamely depict “the levels of degradation someone will stoop to”; it’s offensive!

OVERALL
The only “epic” thing about this movie is the quantitative failure. An awful film; only saved from oblivion by Cate Blanchett (and a criminally underused Sir Ian). Surprisingly dull in visuals, absence of aural joy… a worthless waste of film.
~ rating: 1 out of 5 [grade: D]

[simbob4000]

That last Hobbit movie is the only one that actually feels like a whole movie. It's not all that good, but as a whole it's better than the first two Hobbit movies. At least this Hobbit had a end...an ending that unlike the last Lord of the Rings isn't a mess that won't end and ruins the film.

You think the little kid is gay? What? Why? I think the characters who longingly looks into everyone's eyes in these movies (and that goes for LotR too) comes off as more gay than the little kid that does nothing.

I can't believe you didn't noticed the music in that movie. That damn movie is constantly hitting you over the head with music from LotR, it's horrible, to the point of being funny, but it's also very noticeable.

That one character does take up a mind boggling amount of screen time, and he is pretty terrible. But you're whole transvestite remake seems so over reactionary that it's funny. The scene clearly isn't meant to make fun of transvestites or cross dressers, he's just hiding with some women so he doesn't have to fight. I think Peter Jackson just wanted to do this scene:

[Kieran_Frost]

I also watched Werner Herzog's Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979); eh! Visually the cinematography is beautiful AND some of the creative images Herzog creates are truly breathtaking, the exploration of Jonathan Harker's broken mind was excellent... BUT ultimately it's yet another retelling of the same story, with the same beats and the same "stuff." I'm kind of done seeing everything unfold the same way (yes I know it's how the book goes BUT it's been done before, many, many, many, CHRIST MANY, times; why make this film if you're just going to repeat what everyone has done before?). I zoned out after about half-an-hour. A beautiful, but unnecessary film.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE IMITATION GAME (2014) [nom.]
dir. Morten Tyldum [nom.]
writer. based on the biography Alan Turing: the Enigma by Andrew Hodges [nom.]
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch [nom.], Keira Knightley [nom.], Matthew Goode, Allan Leech, Mark Strong and Charles Dance

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1939, Bletchley Park. Cambridge professor and prodigal mathematician Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) has joined a secret military cryptographic team, who have but one goal: decipher the "unbreakable" Nazi enigma code

THOUGHTS: full disclosure – I thought this was going to be bad; I assumed I'd hate it. It’s Benedict Cumberbatch’s obvious attempt to win an Oscar, and Keira Knightley (who’s generally just awful); plus I heard the LGBT themes are more of an after thought. So count me surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. It’s slick, moves along at a good pace, the whole cast is very watchable; and the music is gorgeous. This HAS to be the year the wonderful Alexander Desplat wins his much delayed Oscar (he’s double nominated for this score and the music for the Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)). Yes, there are times when Benedict Cumberbatch does seem to be trying a little too hard; AND it’s frustrating that THE emotional beat of the whole film was given to the child playing Turing (Alex Lawther, who incidentally I saw on stage in South Downs, did a really good job, but come on, that was the emotional heartbreaking moment, give it to your lead actor somehow; in a monologue, in a confession, something); but despite all that... damn Cumberbatch was good. He'll always be Sherlock to me (and he should be careful about type casting as genius characters - Sherlock, Khan, now Turang); but he definitely deserved his nomination. And I was surprised how likeable and toned down Keira Knightly was; she’s actually really good (never thought I'd say that), and her end scene is beautiful. Talking of beautiful: Matthew Goode… phoar, I would! As for the story; it’s very underplayed in a good way. They DON’T spend numerous scenes hitting walls, screaming about the injustice of how Turing was “thanked” for his incredible service to the world; they leave the obvious indignity and monstrosity of the situation for the audience to discuss and feel. It’s incredibly brave. Had this been 1995; I would agree it needed to be emphasised, but in 2015 it’s okay to let the (hopefully) educated and evolved audience be intelligent enough to know what they did to him was an unforgivable crime; one no pardon will ever erase (though I'm of course very happy he got one). I really, really liked the film; it was entertaining, moving (without trying to emotionally manipulate), well paced; and who doesn't LOVE Charles Dance? Oh that scene-stealing Lannister gem! The only thing I didn't love was the unnecessary running scenes; was it needed and was Turing really the type of guy to go on intense runs?

OVERALL
A surprisingly powerful film; which neither goes for your heart-string nor leave it un-tugged. A simple, engaging, excellently directed story about one of the greatest heroes of WWII. One of my favourite films of the 2014.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELMA (2014) [nom.]
dir. Ava duVernay
writer. Paul Webb
Starring: David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Wendell Pierce, Lorraine Toussaint, Tim Roth and Oprah Winfrey

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1964. After accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. Martin Luther King (Oyelowo) turns his eye to the restriction on voting rights for black citizens in the South, and a non-violent march from Selma, Alabama to the state capital, Montgomery.

THOUGHTS: the subtitle of this film should be “How well Brits play famous America figures.” This film is oddly the opposite of my “gut instinct” about the Imitation Game (2014). I love David Oyelowo, he’s super sexy and incredibly talented; and from the trailer I thought the film would be unbelievably powerful and challenging. How disappointing to discover I felt very little for it by the end; I didn’t even care much for Oyelowo in it (he never really let lose). I very much enjoyed Lorraine Toussaint as Amelia Boynton Robinson (but I think a lot of that has to do with how much I adored her as “Queen Vee” in Orange is the New Black). It just… it didn’t move me. Maybe it's because this whole thing is so alien to me; I cannot begin to understand what this was like, that the importance and impact just isn't there? I can look at some of the technicals, for example how the “training scene” to remain non-violent when provoked was far more effective in the Butler (2013) (which ironically also had David Oyelowo participating in the Selma marches). But a film is more than just scene by scene specifics. It just didn't flow for me (and some things were just random; like calling a woman to sing down the phone to you). Obviously a lot of controversy surrounds the lack of nomination for Ava duVernay for Best Director (and I know I’ll get flack for this) but… meh. Little of the directing struck me as anything special. The explosion at the start and the first march across the bridge had a lot of power; but in between there was so so pacing, so so shots. It reminded me a lot of Julie Taymor’s work in Frida (2002); outside of specific moments (like the stunning bus crash) there was just absence. A great director is more than the sum of a few specific scenes.

OVERALL
A sadly unmoving film; that never evoked the emotional response I wanted to give. David Oyelowo is very good as Dr. King; and the whole cast is solid. The film just doesn’t explore anything new, or re-explore anything in an exciting way. Pity.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]

[Kieran_Frost]

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (2014) [nom.]
dir. James Marsh
writer. adapted from the memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Wilde Hawking [nom.]
Starring: Eddie Redmayne [nom.], Felicity Jones [nom.], Charlie Cox, Harry Lloyd and David Thewlis

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1963, Cambridge. Astrophysics student Stephen Hawking (Redmayne) meets the brilliant literature student Jane Wilde (Jones) at a party; but as his love life and academic career gain momentum, he is diagnosed with motor neuron disease and told he has only two years to live.

THOUGHTS: I have a personal bias against most acting in modern biopics. I enjoy them as an interesting tale, BUT find critics get a little too lauding in the lead performances (an good imitation becomes "an exquisite performance" when it's simply not true). Luckily this film manages to avoid that pitfall; because the performances really are excellent. Eddie Redmayne was born to be Hawking (and his gradual evolution in the physicality was remarkable) yet they never over-played their hand. It was sad, of course; but they never seemed to be "trying" to make you weep for him (which actually made it all the more emotional). I have to give kudos to Felicity Jones fantastic work; she brings depth and hurt and complexity, all the "less showy" role. Like Jodie Foster to Anthony Hopkins in the Silence of the Lambs (1991), or Tom Cruise to Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man (1988); it's the less obvious performance that steals the show. Harry Lloyd (Viserys Targaryen from Game of Thrones) was also incredibly good as Hawking's best friend and roommate. The music (which won the Golden Globe) was so apt for the film, but never over-powering. And visually there were some lovely set-pieces. It ticked all the boxes; but is it something I'd soon watch again? Not really; it's a wonderful tale of struggle over adversity, and it's refreshing to see a relationship we root for fall apart without either person being "the bad guy". Is that enough? Lastly what was with all the green? I'm sure there was a reason for it, but come on. There are motifs and then there are... in-your face messages that (if not explained) fall very flat indeed. When he dress was the same shade of green as the wallpaper, I felt either the costume designer or the production design made a major faux pas.

OVERALL
A beautiful film about the struggle of life, and the reward for perseverance and hope. Two stunning central performances, a majestic score and some very lovely visuals make it rewarding, heart-felt tale; though just shy of excellence.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]