Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Kieran_Frost]

I watched the first half of Knights of the Round Table (1953); and then fell asleep. It was just very dull! The dated green-screen (was travelling to the English cost just too expensive???), the lifeless performances; all of it just evoked such mediocrity. It took me ages to realise "the Frenchman" was Lancelot (since he had an American accent... like everyone else). The costumes were beautiful; but this was just such a generic "Arthurian tale"; and making Merlin more akin to a priest than a druid; who then is poisoned??? Ugh! Possibly the worst adaptation of this tale (certainly the most boring).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD (1963)
dir. Stanley Kramer
writer. William & Tania Rose
Starring: Spencer Tracey, Mickey Rooney, Sid Caesar, Jonathan Winters, Ethel Merman and many, many, many more.

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Five motorists are thrown together after a recently released thief (Jimmy Durante) crashes his car in the Mojave Desert, CA; his dying words nothing but a cryptic location to a fortune buried “under a big W”.

THOUGHTS: the film is described as a “comedy epic”; and it more than lives up to the name. It’s very long; I’ve never known a comedy to be so long. Maybe people can only laugh for shorter periods of time? Who knows, but I do think there is a reason comedies are never this long. Though truthfully it took quite a while to get into the style of comedy (it is very extreme slapstick); so maybe the length is needed? Once I allowed myself to embrace to the absurdity; the increasing escalation of ridiculousness had me belly laughing and the film became a surprising gem. A lot of the cameos by the “whose-who” of American comedians were lost on me; but I still found many of the characters hilarious. My favourites were probably the ridiculously OTT British colonel Terry-Thomas (who voiced “Sir Hiss” in Disney’s Robin Hood (1973)) or “the First Lady of musical comedy” Ethel Merman as the monstrously overbearing Mrs. Marcus; the way she believably makes everyone hate her: loved it! And then we come to Spencer Tracey. At first I was worried he’d be the necessary “straight man” to the clowns… but his descent into the farce is a wonderful parallel for his character in the film. This is the fourth collaboration I’ve seen between director Stanley Kramer and Tracey, and while it’s not my favourite, it’s certainly the most surprising. On the one hand it’s an absurdest comedy, which gets more and more elaborate in the chaos and destruction; but ultimately it’s a very biting critique of society and the ceaseless madness of greed. It's a very clever script, which isn't at all surprising since it's from the writer of the Ladykillers (1955) (a film I adore) and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) (another Kramer/Tracey teaming). The ability to deliver a complete story, while also making a more complex point is not easy; so kudos to such a wonderful writer (still need to see the Russian Are Coming, the Russians are Coming (1966) which he won the WGA for).

OVERALL
A wonderfully silly screwball comedy. A slow burner, and probably far too long for its own good; but screw it! I applaud the vision and daring to create something as vast as this! Most directors would never be brave enough to attempt something so vast, with a cast so huge. I bow down to Kramer; this took guts (didn't fully work, but it's always better to risk it all than play it safe).
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]

[Kieran_Frost]

I also watched the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II (1980), a re-edited telling of Superman vs. Gen. Zod with 75% of the original footage by Richard Donner (that was re-shot or just removed by Richard Lester in the original release). The film is a vast improvement on the original, a more intimate and encompassing story; which makes Gen. Zod a far greater threat than I ever released. Lois Lane has far more balls too, which I approve of. Such a shame his original vision never made it to the silver screen; because the franchise wouldn't have gone downhill so rapidly had he remained behind the camera.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TRAIN (1964)
dir. John Frankenheimer
writer. based on the non-fiction book Le front de l'art by Rose Valland [nom.]
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Paul Scofield, Jeanne Moreau, Michel Simon and Suzanne Flon as Mademoiselle Villard

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1944. The Allies are closing in on Paris and Col. Franz von Waldheim (Scofield) has little time to evacuate the priceless art of France out to Berlin via the railroad; crossing French Resistance, sabotage and even his own military to achieve his obsession.

THOUGHTS: the film does require a bit of "suspension of disbelief" as the accents don't even try to align with the characters origins. Paul Scofield is British (supposed to be German), Burt Lancaster is American (supposed to be French), Michel Simon sounds dubbed; it's a mess. BUT once you accept that, the film has almost no other flaw. It's a beautifully told, almost intimate tale of the French resistance saving their national art from the Nazis during the liberation of France. The only other Frankenheimer films I've seen are the Manchurian Candidate (1962) and Ronin (1998). He is a master of tension and pace, even in intimate scenes he adds an urgency most directors forget can exist between people just talking. The final shots are powerful and the underlying idea of "what does art really mean?" is fantastic (but never overplayed). "Why not just make copies?" and "Pearls to an ape" are two lines that elevate this from an exciting thriller to something quite special. At the heart of this film is Paul Scofield, a monster driven to near madness; his obsession in claiming the art is a metaphor for the unflinching and brutal determination of "the Final Solution." Every scene he's in, no matter how brief, is better for it. Jeanne Moreau as Christine (a character based on France's own Rose Valland) was a gem; her forthright speeches about the reality of the war for the citizens of France highlighted the futility of war while also adding another layer to the question: what does art mean to a country. Visually the film has aged brilliantly, because all the train collisions were real. This is why CGI will never eclipse films that spend the time to build sets; every advancement in CGI makes previous films dominated by it obsolete, by real sets, real action... that lasts forever. If Spielberg was inspired by the train crash in the Greatest Show on Earth (1952), this must have BLOWN his mind (since this actually happened). Honestly, rent this film: it's just brilliant.

OVERALL
A fantastic film; simplistic but engrossing. Paul Scofield is incredible, truly one of the greatest actors ever born. A surprisingly tense film (considering it's ultimately about saving art) and a superior film to the Monuments Men (2014) in every possible way.
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A]

[Kieran_Frost]

THE ABYSS (1989)
writer & director. James Cameron
Starring: Ed Harris, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Michael Biehn and Kimberly Scott

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1994. Dr. Lindsey Brigman (Mastrantonio) leads a joint military and scientific team into the Caribbean, to record the missiles on the American submarine USS Montana; which sunk near the Cayman Trough after an encounter with an unidentified submerged object.

THOUGHTS: James Cameron’s dialogue SUCKS! I detected huge weakness in Aliens (1986) (which is why I eventually bumped it out of my “Top 100”) but so much of what is said between these characters is utterly generic; you never feel anything is special or unique about anyone. “The Suit, Mr. BMW” UGH! That’s just awful, it’s not only cliché but lazy. He couldn’t think of any other way to describe and discredit Lindsey’s new boyfriend than that? Thank god Cameron didn’t insert “he never made you laugh” because that would be- oh wait… HE DID!!! Lazy, lazy, lazy! “These guys are running on four hours sleep”/“going to go ape shit”/“why not cut them some slack?”/“Just like to see my wife one more time.”/ “Let’s go partner, I’ve not got all day.” AWFUL!!!! This is how a teenager thinks people talk, but regurgitating "witty" dialogue he's heard from other films. I expect better from a film with $70m as its budget (they couldn't have offered $100,000 to a script doctor?). Ed Harris does the best he can with his generic, pseudo-misogynistic character (as does Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio); but they are ultimately plot-divices for a spectacular show. And it IS spectacular. Yes the use of light to convey the mystery of the aliens is stolen from Close Encounter of the Third Kind (1977); but what Cameron lacks in screen-writing he more than makes up for in directing. It’s beautifully shot, tense, claustrophobic; from shots inside the scuba masks to the swinging electrical light during the fight; everything is ramped up to increase the energy. And while his dialogue is stomach churning, the plotting is great. He doesn't just go for one clear narrative, he is exploring at-least three plots, and he avoid progressing each one evenly across the board (which is a good thing). The confrontation with Lt. Coffey happens long before the final encounter with the aliens. Kudos. The last two grumbles: firstly why is everyone a near inconsolable wreck when Lindsey “dies”? They didn’t like her, we spent plenty of time seeing that, and half the crew (their friends, who they’ve worked with far longer) all died and no-one seemed to mind. LAZY! Secondly… ugh, CUNF! (completely unnecessary female nudity). Was it REALLY necessary to strip her top to administer the electric paddles? Did she have to be wearing no bra, so we saw her boobs? In a film about aliens, impossible depths and nuclear war fare; did we need to hold on to “realism” so unconditionally for that moment? She was also coated in water, as was everyone else, that didn’t seem to matter when it came to suspension of disbelief.

OVERALL
A solid sci-fi film, with enjoyable tangent; but ultimately it's a little too hippie and a little too lazy to ever be considered a great film. The actors do their best, but this if a movie about spectacle, not substance. A bold film, but sadly a disappointing one too.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FA YEUNG NIN WA (2000) ~ In the Mood For Love ~
#24 in Sight&Sounds “100 Greatest Films”
#42 in Empires “100 Best Films Of World Cinema”
writer & director. Kar Wai Wong
Starring: Tony Leung, Maggie Cheung

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Hong Kong, 1962. Neighbours Mr Chow (Leung) and Mrs Chan (Cheung) form an unlikely platonic friendship upon deducing their respective spouses are having an affair.

THOUGHTS: The story is fantastic. Mostly films concerning affairs focus on those having the affairs, the ones you leave behind becomes an after-thought. I loved that we saw how it effects the spouses not cheating, AND that we never saw the faces of the cheating partners (only the back of their heads); to emphasis the idea: this film isn’t about them. So much of the plot points evolved just as I hoped they would; from writing the newspaper serial together, to not ever having any physical affair themselves and finally whispering his secret "atop a mountain". I also relished the “playing out” of how their spouses might have started the affair; that was very clever. Often setting up a scene in a way you’re not sure if what is being discussed is true or make-believe; it keeps you on the edge and constantly active. Towards the end it overplayed it’s hands; if you’re going to jump several years later, to express the idea people part and lives go on without some dramatic conclusion, that could have happened sooner (though it was a bold choice and I respect the idea). There were a few minor flaws. The subtitle of this film should be “fade to black”; seriously is that the only way the director knew how to end a scene??? My previous review of Happy Together (1997) said the director’s pretentiousness (so prevalent in 2046 (2004)) was toned down and that is doubly true here. Yes there is an overuse of slow-motion while walking through hallways, and yes we do sometimes pan across a scene slowly that bares no relevance to the plot BUT this is a film about continuing to live life with this burden/struggle existing. We need the mundane and everyday to explore it, but since this is an entertainment medium, we need to “spice them up” too. So maybe his pretentions were less a case of toned down and more the situation that "it worked for this film". Maggie Cheung is stunning; I don’t know why Tony Leung won Best Actor at Cannes (he’s solid, don’t get me wrong, but nothing remarkable) where as Cheung is compelling in every moment. Whether she’s walking to get noodles, observing her boss’s tie choice or even just turning down a dinner invite from her landlady; I thought she was brilliant. She carries herself with such dignity, but isn’t afraid to let the vulnerability consume her (like an English rose). Marvelous. Finally the score, while beautiful, drastically over-plays Nat King Cole’s “Quizás, Quizás, Quizás”. The first time they used it, perfection. By the fifth time… a tad annoying.

OVERALL
An original film; unique and wonderful (if a bit long). Maggie Cheung is sensational, and the score captures the tone perfectly. A truly beautiful piece of cinema that I'd recommend to everyone.
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A]


FUN FACT: the film's original Chinese title, meaning "the age of blossoms" or "the flowery years" – Chinese metaphor for the fleeting time of youth, beauty and love.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975)
dir. Sydney Pollack
writer. adapted from the 1974 novel Six Days of the Condor by James Grady
Starring: Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Cliff Robertson and Max von Sydow

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: CIA analyst Joe Turner (Redford), codename: Condor, returns from lunch to find his entire team has been assassinated; and now someone inside the CIA has sent ex-operative G. Joubert (von Sydow) to take down Condor.

THOUGHTS: Between this and Topkai (1964) I really am starting to find Mission Impossible (1996) less impressive. After the murder of his entire team, the film does spend a little time getting going (the plot is a little thin) but once it hits its stride: fireworks. Faye Dunaway is BRILLIANT. Stripped of most make-up, not in glamourous clothes, and toning down her own natural charisma she is utterly convincing as "just a normal girl" (which many actresses can't do). She's tragic and complex and witty and playful and believable. Amazing! And this is again pairing her with Syndey Pollock (after her mesmerising performance in Pollack's They Shoot Horses, Don't They (1970)). Redford is a strong lead, but I've never been too in awe of him as an actor. I've never been "wow'd". Max von Sydow too is glorious, chilling, calculating, agreeable, kind; what a great role. What is most shocking is the conclusion, spelt out by Redford: this was all about oil in the Middle East, about starting a war over oil. OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, SNAP!!! Sh*t just got real! It actually elevates the film, suddenly making a cute little thriller from the 70s something shockingly current. Not too long, not too twisty (which many thrillers are nowadays); an excellent film.

OVERALL
A well crafted, well executed thriller; which is surprisingly more topical today than you would think. The entire cast is excellent, with Faye Dunaway stealing the show (as usual). Pollack always delivers; you don't go wrong with him at the helm.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]

[simbob4000]

Have you see Chungking Express?

[Kieran_Frost]

Have you see Chungking Express?

Nope. Is that by Kar Wai Wong???

[simbob4000]

Nope. Is that by Kar Wai Wong???

Yeah. Came out the same year as Ashes of Time, which is another of his movies; although I'm pretty sure I've never seen that one.

[Kieran_Frost]

Yeah. Came out the same year as Ashes of Time, which is another of his movies; although I'm pretty sure I've never seen that one.

I don't have time to waste watching Quentin, is there a reason you bring it up??? Or was it just a curious question? I just reviewed the Abyss, wanna ask if I've seen Avatar too?

[krazijoe]

Pfffttt...No Blazing Saddles...I thought this was going to be a serious list...

[Kieran_Frost]

Pfffttt...No Blazing Saddles...I thought this was going to be a serious list...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Truthfully I've never seen it, so I can't comment one way or another. I did enjoy Brook's the Producers (non-musical). But I'm not sure it's my kind of humour.

[simbob4000]

I don't have time to waste watching Quentin, is there a reason you bring it up??? Or was it just a curious question? I just reviewed the Abyss, wanna ask if I've seen Avatar too?

Just curious, it's another Kar Wai Wong film, and it's one of his more well known ones. Watch the video, you might hear about some other movie you haven't seen too.

I don't care if you've seen Avatar. But yes, it was REALLY necessary to put the electric paddles on skin while using them, that's how you use them.

[Kieran_Frost]

I also watched about 20 minutes of Bel Ami (2012). I just don’t get it; I don’t understand how people find Robert Pattison attractive; and without that believability the film cannot work. They may as well have had these beautiful, intelligent women throw themselves at Danny deVito (which would have actually been more convincing, since he has charm, where as Pattison does not). I could see Jude Law in this role, but with Pattison it’s just silly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APOCALYPTO (2006)
dir. Mel Gibson
writer. Mel Gibson & Farhad Safinia
Starring: Rudy Youngblood, Morris Birdyellowhead, Raoul Trujillo and Dalia Hernández

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: after his village is raided, Jaguar Paw (Youngblood) is captured by a rival tribe and taken to the city to be sacrificed to the god Kukulkan to end the famine.

THOUGHTS: I’m amazed how much I enjoyed this; what a treat. Visually the film cannot be challenged. The cinematography is beautiful, but subtle. It doesn’t involve numerous expansive camera shots, but maintains a quality and visual enrichment throughout. From the chalk clouds of the mines, the blue paint of the sacrifice, the black mud as Jaguar turns on his hunters... visually this film is glutinously good. Rudy Youngblood is a find; charismatic, beautiful (and sexy), excellent natural instincts; I hope he rises soon, because he's too good to lose. I'd happily watch any film with him in it. Zero Wolf makes an excellent villain, stern but human; sadly Middle Eye is a little too mwwwhahahahaha eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Not that it really matters, the film isn't about them; it's a thriller, a chase; they merely fill the role of hunter then prey. And for such a long film, it didn't feel lethargic or tedious. It flew by; and this is thanks to the directing of Mel Gibson. I know I should dislike him; but damn it I just can't. His work here is fantastic, and YES he should have been nominated for Best Director (though it was a very strong year, I don't actually know who'd I bump out - probably Paul Greengrass for United 93 (2006)). A.O. Scott in the New York Times wrote (about his directing): "say what you will about him – about his problem with booze or his problem with Jews – he is a serious filmmaker" and he's right. It's cinema's loss he hasn't directed since.

OVERALL
A fantastically directed thriller; visually stunning and engrossing through-out; which catapults you into the Mayan world. It’s uncompromising and unconventional; an absolutely gem.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWAKENINGS (1990) [nom.]
dir. Penny Marshall
writer. based on the 1973 memoir of the same title by Oliver Sacks [nom.]
Starring: Robin Williams, Robert deNiro [nom.], Julie Kavner, Ruth Nelson and Alice Drummond

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: the Bronx, 1969. Dr. Malcolm Sayer (Williams) cares for catatonic patients in a local hospital; but soon starts observing spontaneous reflexes across the board and a connection between all patients and the 1917-1928 epidemic of encephalitis lethargica.

THOUGHTS: this is not the standard formula of a “medical break-through” story; where the entire films builds to the big discovery. Here the revelation of how to cure them comes early on, and the film instead focuses on how they rehabilitate these patients back into the world. It’s an interesting concept, but one that doesn’t really have a finite ending or even a reasonably exciting path to travel. It stops being a plot and simply becomes a vignette of “stuff”. Maybe it was the lack of connection I felt with Leonard (played by deNiro); I never felt for his plight, instead became constantly distracted by deNiro “acting” the part of someone suffering from encephalitis lethargica. For me it felt forced, it felt disingenuous; he was doing the movements but not living the experience. The "scene stealer" in this case was Julie Kavner (future voice of Marge Simpson); she imbues warm and longing and intelligence; and it's the film's loss that the second half uses her less (due to the focus shifting from Williams to deNiro). As for the directing, the only other film by Penny Marshall I've seen is Big (1988), which I loved. This still had charm, but lacked the soul that made Big so much more than the gimmick it originally could have become. And YES she should have been nominated for Best Director for Big; that was a gross over-sight.

OVERALL
An interesting twist on a formulaic scenario, but one that never quite comes into its own. A likeable cast and unindulgent emotions elevate it above many of its competitors, just not enough to be anything fantastic.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS ENGLAND (2006)
writer & director. Shane Meadows
Starring: Thomas Turgosse, Joseph Filgun, Andrew Shim, Rosamund Hanson and Stephen Graham

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: England, 1983. Shaun Field (Turgosse) is a twelve year old struggling at school, taken under the wing by local skinhead Richard “Woody” Woodford (Gilgun) until Woody’s former partner Andrew “Combo” Gascoigne (Graham) shows up, taking over the skinheads and Shaun’s care.

THOUGHTS: this film belongs to Stephen Graham. The script is intelligent, the entire ensemble is excellent, the concept is hugely strong and ALL of it is dwarfed by Graham's performance. His charismatic, tragic, likeable, monstrous, brutal, pitiful, broken performance. It's fantastic, it steals every scene (until he enters Joseph Filgun was dynamite, but once "Combo" shows up he's eclipsed - much like in the story). The overall "message" of the film is where I become slightly miffed. It feels like it's meant to be "anti-Thatcher" BUT the main voice-box of these views is the film's biggest racist, biggest villain, biggest monster. It would be odd (if the overall concept is "anti-Thatcher") that the main "champion" of anti-Thatcher is someone we so instantly separate ourselves from. That's a bizarre choice. The film does help bring motive and concept to racism beyond "evil, evil, boogey, boogey" while never compromising the awfulness or ignorance of such views. I applaud that. I applaud the idea of making the skinheads "likeable" at the start, so we are wooed (like Shaun). The concept of Shaun looking for a father figure was so strong, so powerful; as was the divide in the skinheads with Woody vs Combo. It's a shame the director over-used montages, because it robbed the film's final scene of its power (that was montage number 6, and we'd had a very long montage not 10 minutes earlier). Less is more, Meadows. Also B*LLOCKS that kid listens to the news radio in the morning (I know you wanted to get anti-Thatcher ideas in but come on, B*LLOCKS!).

OVERALL
A bold and surprisingly film about racism and society, with some fantastic performances; though a little uneven comment on Thatcherism. It's brutal, it's real and it doesn't pull its punches. More films should be this brave.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]

[simbob4000]

Apocalypto is one of the best horror movies of the 2000s, hell, I would say it's up there as just one of the best movies of the 2000s too. The ending of that movie is just so brilliant, Jaguar Paw has escaped all those horrors, and now something even worse is about to come down on him.

Youngblood seems to have a lot of upcoming movies.

[Kieran_Frost]

Youngblood seems to have a lot of upcoming movies.

Very pleased by this news

[krazijoe]

Mask and World According to Garp are 2 movies to look into!

[Kieran_Frost]

Mask and World According to Garp are 2 movies to look into!

I've seen them both; both solid films (but, for me, nothing special). Cher and Glen Close are great in both.