Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Kieran_Frost]

I had Tuck Everlasting (2002) on in the background while I worked, and wasn’t very impressed. I loved the book as a child, but the film loses all the magic of the novel, and turns a fascinating exploration of what true immortality means into a rather tepid love story. YES, in the novel there is that underlying potential love between Winnie and Jesse but in the book she's 10. Their "love" is about a crush a young girl has on an older boy, and the boy recognising her soul is beautiful and when she's old enough she should drink the water. It's not about their romance; that is at-best the subplot. A solid cast wasted on pre-Twilight nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEISEI TANUKI GASSEN PONOKO (2006) ~ Pom Poko ~
written&directed. Isao Takahata
Voice Talent Of: Jonathan Taylor Thomas, JK Simmons, Tress MacNeille and Maurice leMarche

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1960s, Japan. The tanuki (racoon dogs) live in the Tama Hills, a beautiful forest outside New Tama; but an ambitious development project threatens their carefree lives and their ancient power of transformation.

THOUGHTS: RACCOON BALLS!!! Honestly, that is the image I’ll take with me: raccoon balls: big balls, small balls, balls used to smother car windows. Balls stretched to bursting, and then shaped into a giant vessel to transport raccoons into the afterlife. Balls to attack with, balls to defend with, balls to make you cringe. Balls, balls, balls. Upon research the tanuki are in Japanese folklore (as are their bizarre big, squishy balls) but so what? It's still weird, regardless of whether it's "traditional." YUKKY!!! Anyway... besides that, the film is far too long. The "depth" of the moral about man vs. nature consists of raccoons falling to the flaw going "WHY? WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO NATURE?!?!?!" Subtle is not the word I'd use to describe the script; and if you won't actually explore the idea beyond "wrong, wrong, wrong" then why make the film so long? Plus = they kill people!!! The raccoons kill at-least three men and ruin many others lives; and that is never really explored. And it's a shame, because there was much to love about it. The transformations, the middle battle, the awesome sly Fox (loved him); there was a lot of praise worthy ideas; but it was too long, too shallow and too full of balls. I'm sorry, I know it sounds like a silly reason to not enjoy a film but it was FREAKY!!!! A long time ago I saw Grave of the Fireflies (1988) and at the time found it dull and long (though I was young, maybe next time I see it I'll appreciate it more); other than that I've seen none of Takahata's work, so I have no basis of comparison. Any recommendations?

OVERALL
A brave undertaking, but one that never quite surpasses the high bar it set. Too long, too inconsistent… and too many raccoon balls. Possibly my least favourite Studio Ghibli film to date.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]


Balls to the left of me, Balls to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle of hell!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIMI WO SUMASEBA (1995) ~ Whisper of the Heart ~
dir. Yoshifumi Kondô
writer. based on Aoi Hiiragi's 1989 manga of the same name
Voice Talent Of: Brittany Snow, David Gallagher, Jean Smart, James Sikking and Cary Elwes

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Shizuku Tsukishima (Snow), a 14 year old dreaming of far away lands and magical experiences, spends her days studying for school, reading in the library and struggling to keep her family's chaotic world together... until she discovers Seiji Amasawa has checked out every book she loves... before she did.

THOUGHTS: I saw the Cat Returns (2002) (the somewhat "sequel" to this film) years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. While the Cat Returns is delightfully magical, here the wonderment is gently woven cleverly into reality. I loved the concept, it was so beautiful (a love story akin to the Wind Rises (2014); real, truthful, complex); and the sprinkling of magic came at just the right moments... BUT never really worked. The magical times weren't as enchanting as I feel they were written to be; even the fantasy world missed that sparkle. And it was too long. It was important to establish the mundane life Shizuku embodied, but from the moment she found the antique shop the story needed to rapidly escalate and power through. And what was the pay off? A completely inappropriate message of conforming. Don't follow your dreams kids, until you finish school and contribute to society in the way we teach you to. UGH! Really?

OVERALL
A beautifully rendered, but slow film; that never quite sparkles. A bizarre conformist ending damages the essence of the film and its characters; though a very noble effort (not as enjoyable as the Cat Returns, but more honest).
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: C+]

[Kieran_Frost]

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (2011) [nom.]
dir. Woody Allen [nom.]
writer. Woody Allen [OSCAR]
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Mario Cotillard, Michael Sheen and Léa Seydoux

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Hollywood screen writer Gil Pender (Wilson) is visiting Paris with his fiancée Inez (Adams); and discovers a time-portal back to 1920s Paris, which only actives at Midnight.

THOUGHTS: I will never understand people’s obsession with Woody Allen. His films are solid (they are always immaculately well made); as a writer he’s witty, and can come out with some cracking lines but as a director I never saw the fuss. He’s not good, he’s not bad, and it’s nearly all the same. Mainly his films just don’t “connect” with me; and the ones that do is mostly down to the actors in them. There are exceptions (September (1987) and Crimes and Misdemeanours (1989) are probably my “favourite” of his work); but by-and-large they don’t connect. From the excutiatingly (and unnecessarily long) opening segment, I knew this film was not for me. I think it’s here to appeal to those who’ve either never been to Paris, or those who think in idealism like the "intellectual" protagonist. I don’t know. But nothing about this film pleased me. I found all the character (save Marion Cotillard) to be rich, vapid, unlikeable; or just completely lacking in character at all. You can’t relate to that. I didn’t love the “bias” in how Owen Wilson’s affair was portrayed, compared to Rachel McAdams (the narrative certainly skewed to make her seem more unlikeable by her betrayal). The overall “concept” was sign-posted in the first five-minutes I’m amazed it even needed to be revealed (and shock horror he ended up with the oh-so-characterless blonde music store worker). All the female characters were bland, which is SHOCKING for Woody Allen, who (credit to him) generally writes great roles for women. I didn’t like the horrible overuse of that same bloody song and seemingly same piece of jazz music. All the celebrities were almost catchphrases than real people. And Hemingway. UGH! GOD! Is the way to write dialogue for Hemingway really as simple as shoving the words ‘true’ and ‘truth’ into every sentence; because I expect better from someone who’s won 3 Oscars for writing (including one for this film, incredibly!). Lastly, Woody Allen playing Woody Allen is hard enough to stomach; but Owen Wilson's insufferable characture of Woody Allen was just terrible! Completely insincere or lacking any real truth (because the entire this is nothing but an imitation).

OVERALL
Near worthless, save a fun performance from Adrian Brody as Dali. I know many will disagree, but this film was SH*T! Pointless, pretentious, depthless, worthless drivel. Awful! Visually it was beautiful though; so there's something.
~ rating: 1 out of 5 [grade: D+]

[Kieran_Frost]

CINDERELLA (2015)
dir. Sir Kenneth Branagh
writer. based on Disney’s animated smash-hit Cinderella (1950)
Starring: Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Richard Madden, Helena Bonham Carter and Sir Derek Jacobi

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Ella (James) lives with her beloved father (Ben Chaplin); who has recently remarried the widow Lady Tremaine (Blanchett); who reduces the aristocrat's daughter to little more than a servant to her and her two daughters upon his death.

THOUGHTS: It’s oddly refreshing to have a remake of a Disney film that doesn’t try and wedge in a change of ending; or “twist.” I don’t really have much to say on the film. It was solid. It was very fun. Visually a feast; with enough “nods” to the original animated classic to make the fans happy, without relying on its predecessor for enjoy it. Cate Blanchett is very good as the wicked step-mother; and bold enough to pull VERY unattractive faces to convey her b*tchy evilness (though I actually found Anjelica Houston’s performance of the same character more complex and therefore more interesting in Ever After (1998)). If you want a brilliant, no-holds-barred Blanchett villain, watch Hanna (2011) instead; she’s INCREDIBLE!!! This was Marissa-lite (though both wear FABULOUS green). The highest praise must go to the relationship between the Prince and his father. While Richard Madden has absolutely no chemistry with Lily James; the few scenes with his father (adding much needed depth and personality beyond “the handsome prince”) sparkle. Derek Jacobi is the true glass slipper of this film.

OVERALL
A very charming, very harmless film. It really is fun that all the family can enjoy; with Cate Blanchett's wardrobe stealing every scene (Blanchett's perfect scowl takes the silver medal). A enjoyable, but frivolous way to pass the time.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B-]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA (1954)
dir. Billy Wilder [nom.]
writer. based on Samuel A. Taylor's 1953 play Sabrina Fair [nom.]
Starring: Audrey Hepburn [nom.], Humphrey Bogart, William Holden and John Williams

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Sabrina Fairchild (Hepburn), the daughter of the Larrabee family's chauffeur, is leaving for Paris to study cooking for two years with a master chef, hoping she will finally be rid of her love for the youngest Larrabee heir, David (Holden)

THOUGHTS: this film made me lament the tragic loss of romantic comedies to the cesspool of commercialism. What happened? When did the great directors stop making romantic comedies, when did the great writers stop working on them? How did it come to what we have now: cliché, unoriginal, fluff? This film is a comedy, it is romantic; but it also tackles serious issues of suicide and genuine class snobbery (on all levels). It’s exciting and bold, and no character is perfect. Sabrina is foolhardy, David is a mess and Linus is emotionally ruthless. It’s complex, it’s exciting. I wish more films were so brave, while being seemingly so gentle. Even the “freeze frame” shot of the Larrabee family below their portrait is far more original and clever than most modern romantic comedies combined. Yes a little bit of the dialogue is a tad misogynistic, but this is a film of its time. And even then, the central female role is far more exciting than most modern romantic comedies (sadly) give their leading ladies. As for the female lead: Audrey Hepburn is stunningly beautiful here; possibly one of my favourite performances by her. I've never known her to be more playful; she keeps an earnest lightness to her desires (even her attempted suicide is through the eyes of an innocent mind). She’s utterly compelling; and bounces so perfectly off Bogart. I found Holden a little too good at being bad; if it wasn’t so obvious he was a bad-egg I’d have been happier. The scene where she is dancing alone in the tennis court, in that STUNNING dress = perfection. Think La Dolce Vita (1960)'s fountain scene; it's such a beautifully shot scene.

OVERALL
An utterly charming story of love and obsession; with Hepburn delivering one of her most endearing performances. A wonderfully directed film; oozing charisma. While some may find Sabrina's merciless adoration of David off-putting, the crux of the film is about a young girl growing up; not just visually but mentality and emotionally. A glorious film.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]

[Kieran_Frost]

I watched about two thirds of Fearless (1993) by Peter Weir. The opening shots were awesome, with the sound blurring (reflecting the ringing of the ears). But everything after that was garbage. A man who survives a plane crash, and ungratefully keeps trying to kill himself; but lectures a grieving mother about life and her faith. He’s utterly unsympathetic. And maybe that’s “true” to a certain post-traumatic stress situation, but I have no interest in it. Whether it’s “true” or not; it’s worthless to watch; people like that are not worth exploring. Seeing a young Benicio del Toro did make me smile, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2006)
dir. Joe Johnston
writer. based on the Marvel comics
Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Toby Jones and Stanley Tucci

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: March, 1942. Idealistic youth Steve Rogers (Evans) has tried (and failed due to health reasons) 6 times to enlist in the US Army; but a chance encounter with Dr. Abraham Erskine (Tucci) finds Rogers enrolled in a top secret "super soldier" program... that will change the course of the war...

THOUGHTS: I have somewhat of a bias coming into the film. I don’t like Steve Rogers as a character and I think the Red Skull is a laughably silly villain. On the latter I was very much proved right, Huge Weaving coasted through on auto-pilot, and the character never seemed to escape the stock clichés a “main villain” (too often) falls into. He wasn’t complex, he wasn’t compelling, and he wasn’t even that effective at what he did. Chris Evans was inspired casting; he nailed “super soldier” (love those bouncing pecs) BUT when he was “weedy” Rogers he should have changed his voice. It was too deep and firm, for someone so small. The entire ensemble was serviceable; Tommy Lee Jones was funny and Hayley Atwell breathed life into a rather stiltedly written character. That said, all scenes are stolen by Stanley Tucci; with warmth, humour and sadness he brings everything to the role, and the film rapidly decreases in quality once he is killed. One odd gripe: this film is overwhelming heterosexual. And that’s not a bad thing (of course); but it did unintentionally annoy me (only because of the BS we have to put up with whenever someone LGBT references their sexuality). People whine about “I don’t read comics for romance” or "stop shoving it down our throats" well HELLO this film seems to spend more time pointing out people’s sexuality than anything else. Even random one line characters seem to slot in sentences like “French ladies are prettier.” Overall I was just “meh” about everything. The action set-pieces weren’t that good, the fights weren’t that interesting; and Evans/Atwell have ZERO chemistry (that final 'romantic' radio exchange had not been earned); and the cinematography wasn't innovative. This film could have embraced its dated past and gone full Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004); such a waste. While Guardians of the Galaxy (2013) remains my least favourite MCU film; this is probably a close second.

OVERALL
A film annoyingly bursting with heterosexuality and clichés. It carves out little of interesting or uniqueness for the MCU, but it’s a somewhat enjoyable ride. Chris Evans is surprisingly perfect as Steve Rogers.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]

[simbob4000]

A film annoyingly bursting with heterosexuality, what? Is this a thing?

The whole bit where Captain America is being used as a propaganda tool is one of the more interesting things a MCU movie has done.

[PretenderNX01]

Yeah, I like Kieran a lot but his taste in Marvel movies isn't shared by me at all.

Captain America was done in the style of WWII era films and that made it for me, I disagree that it didn't do it as much as Sky Captain. Cap had a whole patriotic musical number in it.

The whole bit where Captain America is being used as a propaganda tool is one of the more interesting things a MCU movie has done.

I agree, the Cap films are Marvel's best IMO.

[simbob4000]

Thankfully is wasn't like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, because that movie sucked. But it does feel like a WW2 movie, and it does have outlandish tech, mad scientist, and name drops Indiana Jones. When First Avenger is working it reminded me somewhat of Inglourious Basterds, (for kids) which had come out two years before.

[Kieran_Frost]

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER (2014)
dir. Anthony & Joe Russo
writer. based on the Marvel comics
Starring: Chris Evans, Scarlet Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, Toby Jones and Samuel L. Jackson

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Present Day. A now rehabilitated Steve Rogers (Evans) must team up with Black Widow (Johansson) and Falcon (Mackie) to find out who murdered Nick Fury (Jackson).

THOUGHTS: I’ve now seen all the MCU movies bar Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015); and ultimately my thought is = meh. I’m not bowled over by any of them; none hold a candle to the underlying emotion of Bryan Singer’s X-verse. This one at-least is fun to watch; and first and foremost: James Young as fight choreographer and Chris Carnell as fight coordinator deserves all the praise for this film. The stand-out achievements of this movie are the fights; and I cannot applaud them enough. Cap vs. Bucky (round II, in the street) is one of the best fights of any superhero film; kudos, kudos, kudos. My second favourite part was the clever inclusion of Armin Zola. LOVED that! Obviously you can't do him identical to how he appears in the comics (that would look very silly); but it was excellent the way they gave a gentle nod to the comic idea, while also making it "believable" (I do use that term loosely in a superhero film). Apparently this script was inspired by conspiracy thrillers like Three Days of the Condor (1975); and I admire the lofty bar they set. The concept is fantastic; three heroes on the run to find out who killed Nick Fury and unravel a giant conspiracy at the heart of S.H.I.E.L.D. On paper, it's less exciting. I wish they had killed Nick, that would be bold. I wish Pierce wasn't so obviously the villain; that would have been bold. I wish Widow had been the traitor, THAT would have been truly bold (or even Sharon Carter). It just... didn't work. You want the big accolades, you take the big risks. And the film was just too safe. Also, the ending was no Xander with a yellow crayon; you know what I mean? And the fault for that lies with Chris Evans. He is at the heart of the film (and he is kind of a Mary Sue; which is annoying, but I'm not going to get into it; lots of action films do that; I'll except that comes with the territory). Now Evans is perfect as Cap... until he needs to act. ZERO emotional connection to Bucky. ZERO emotional connection... to anything. Damn he's pretty, but this script needed someone who could emote; not just bench lots of weights. I know he's trying to be "the every man" but real men cry, too, dammit. And on the subject of "real men": I don’t like pointless bravado, I have no time for it; and Cap throwing away his shield to take Batroc in hand-to-hand is stupid. It doesn’t make him “awesome” it makes him an arrogant fool (you don’t piss away your advantage, and waste time just because a stranger whose opinion you shouldn't value calls into question your manhood = grow a pair and don't get involved in empty victories; that’s what REAL MEN do).

Now one of my biggest gripes with the first film was (as I called it) a script “bursting with heterosexuality”. So I started to count the number of times heterosexuality was 'pinged' in this film. In the first three minutes of Falcon’s first appearance he name checked his love of women twice. Widow’s “shop talk” with Steve seems dominated by asking what women he wants to date. We have Peggy’s marriage and Steve’s love of her, we have Steve’s neighbour who flirts with him, Fury’s wife gets a 'ping', even the girls in the museum are romantically besotted with “the American Hero”; does no-one see this? We’re not even 40 minutes into the film (at which point I stopped writing the examples down). Now I don’t care that a film has heterosexuality, of course I don’t (that would be silly). I care (and it is a personal, biased bugbear) when gay people are told the reason we should never expect anyone’s sexuality (if they are LGBT) to appear in films or comics is: sexuality isn't shown. We are told how fans “don’t read comics for romance” or “straight characters don’t shove their heterosexuality down anyone's throat” and all these excuses 'justify' why we don't exist in these worlds… well, actually THEY DO shove heterosexuality down our throats. What films were they watching, where they thought this didn't happen? Both Captain America films are bursting with heterosexuality; and it’s a hypocrisy I dislike; it’s ignorance and it’s privilege. Now this film (lucky you) has an added gem of offence: "little man purse". Some thing to bare in mind: the MCU is nearly void of LGBT characters; to date a reveal of Justin Hammer in a video segment NOT even in any of the films or TV shows implies he's now "gay in jail". That's it. As representation goes it's pretty bloody awful. So how did this film think a comment like “little man purse” would be okay? When you stop pretending gay people don’t exist, when you start including LGBT characters in any significant way (frankly, I don’t even care if they are the villain; I'd just like to see us exist) then you can continue making emasculating jokes comparing someone’s lower status to an effeminate male. But that joke, considering the MCU’s joyous lack of gay people, just pisses me off. Now onto less personal gripes: I was really enjoying the old Senator lady kicking ass till it was revealed to be Widow. Old ladies should kick more ass in films. Such a waste (and a waste of Widow, frankly; what an anti-climatic use of her abilities). Agent 13 vs. Crossbones would have been much more enjoyable than Frank vs. Falcon (he had no issue with Sam, it was wasteful of a potentially emotionally charged fight). Widow's new haircut; oh no. No, no, no. Let's never put me through that again. And lastly, less a quibble more a question: how did they make the phone say “Alexander Pierce” calling???

OVERALL
An improvement on the first instalment, though that’s not very hard. Better villains and fantastic fight pieces more than distract from the heterosexual parade dominating the script. Evans is both perfect as Steve Rogers and yet drastically lacking in talent; and the story never quite allows itself to be as bold as I suspect it dreamed of being. Lots of flash, still little substance.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B-]


P.S. Stan Lee’s cameo is awful! God, that man couldn’t deliver a simple line if his life depended on it. I hate his cameos. His cameos are terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible.

P.P.S. Why do all HYDRA’s plans involve planes???

Yeah, I like Kieran a lot but his taste in Marvel movies isn't shared by me at all.

Love you too, babes xx

I agree, the Cap films are Marvel's best IMO.

I love my comics, and you'd think I'd adore the films; but none of them truly thrill me (Iron Man's trilogy comes closest, but the final third of all three films lets them down).

[Kieran_Frost]

FUNNY FACE (1957)
dir. Stanley Donen
writer. adapted from two Broadway musicals: Wedding Bells and Funny Face
Starring: Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Kay Thompson and Michael Auclair

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: amateur philosopher and bookshop keeper Jo Stockton (Hepburn) is hurled into the world of fashion by smittened photographer Dick Avery (Astaire)

THOUGHTS: Ohhhhhh, I did not likey. It was far too theatrical (in both directing and acting); creating a very fake atmosphere across most scenes. You can do a musical very successfully while still being sincere. And you would think the "phoney" atmosphere would gel well amongst the glamour of fashionistas (as it does with the shallowness of Hollywood in Singin' in the Rain (1952)); but either the actors aren't making it work or the director missed the mark. I don't know which, all I know is it failed. Firstly, it's a musical with few good songs; that's a major negative. The best number is “Clap Yo’ Hands”; all the others I found very bleh. I now see why Audrey Hepburn didn't get to sing in My Fair Lady (1964); it's not that her voice is 'bad' (it's very sweet) but she sounds akin to Alice's singing "Very Good Advice" in Disney's Alice in Wonderland (1961) (lots of emotion, yet little tone). Where Audrey does sparkle is the physical. Of course her stunning beauty in that wonderful photography segment is unsurpassed; it's her bohemian dance number that truly captivates the heart of this film. Nothing else here comes close to that serenity. I'm undecided on Jay Thompson; as fashion mogul Maggie Prescott. At times she's the very best of Kathleen Turner meets Julie Andrews, but often she just seems "false". How she holds a magazine, how she delivers a line; it all seems out of synch somehow. Ultimately though it's the script that torpedoes the film. Let's just ignore the laughable "plot" (based on the reality of no-where) and focus instead on a prevailing concept: philosophy vs. "real life" (RE: fashion). Out of the two, most wouldn't guess the script would imply philosophy is true step-child of shallow worthlessness. This film is basically the Devil Wears Prada (2006) (we even end up in Paris) meets Sabrina (1954) (but less awesome). Oh, and the man slapping the women, only to have her smile and kiss him passionately = REALLY dates the film. That may have seemed 'whimsical banter' back in the 50s, but it's just offensive by modern standards.

OVERALL
A disappointing, overly theatrical failure; with little to cheer or admire. Few of the songs are catchy; and only Hepburn shines in a very depthless story, so riff with plot holes and disbelief. Don't see this just because you love My Fair Lady; it sadly shares little in common.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: D+]

[PretenderNX01]

I love my comics, and you'd think I'd adore the films; but none of them truly thrill me (Iron Man's trilogy comes closest, but the final third of all three films lets them down).

I'm not blown away by the Marvel universe movies but I think Cap outranks the Iron Man series. Iron Man never matched his first movie.

Widow was used better in Winter Solider than anywhere else in the MCU, she lead Steve for part of the last mission without making a big deal of it.

We’re not even 40 minutes into the film (at which point I stopped writing the examples down). Now I don’t care that a film has heterosexuality, of course I don’t (that would be silly).

Uh, yeah you do. It's fine if you do but don't deny that you're keeping score wanting to get even. You brought it up with the first Cap film review and now again in the second.

Did your reviews of Iron Man keeps tabs of every Tony flirt? You've got an ax to grind today and so you're using these two films to do it since that's what your watching this week. Go back, re-watch and give us the Iron Man as a Competed Trilogy review.

And then tell us about how hetero the X-movies are what with their all-love-Jean movie and Rogue having Bobby and even Mags is wanting to "go blue". Yeah it's Just Cap with that problem...

I wish they had killed Nick, that would be bold. I wish Pierce wasn't so obviously the villain; that would have been bold. I wish Widow had been the traitor, THAT would have been truly bold (or even Sharon Carter). It just... didn't work. You want the big accolades, you take the big risks.

You completely throwaway the source material to get these supposed rewards? I can see why you're more of a Singer X-Verse fan

Love you too, babes xx

In case any mods think this is getting personal, we actually are friends on here.

[Kieran_Frost]

I'm not blown away by the Marvel universe movies but I think Cap outranks the Iron Man series. Iron Man never matched his first movie.

For me (when discussing film) it always comes down to the performance, and Chris Evans has nothing on Robert Downey Jr. While Evans may look the part, Downey IS the part. He embued so much in his performance. I don't feel the first one is the best, purely because the villain is so rubbish. The third's final showdown (of the three) is the most interesting, because it's not "iron thing smashing iron thing". Thor had the best villain, Cap the best fights, Iron Man the best performance and Avengers the best script.

Widow was used better in Winter Solider than anywhere else in the MCU, she lead Steve for part of the last mission without making a big deal of it.

I'd 100% disagree. In Avengers Assemble (2012) she fights and takes down Hawkeye (she was given no such foe in this film); she outsmarted Loki, she survived against the Hulk and she worked out how to stop the invasion while everyone else just "smashed". She was hands down the star of the Avengers (her performance could use some work, though).

Uh, yeah you do. It's fine if you do but don't deny that you're keeping score wanting to get even. You brought it up with the first Cap film review and now again in the second.

No, I really don't. Look at my "Top 10", look at my "Top 100"; I adore those films and (through the nature of cinema) a lot are void of gay characters. But they are nearly always stand alone; there is a difference between ONE film on it's own having poor female roles, or no LGBT characters, or no POC of note; and a collection of films having a lacking. I treat a collection of films like a director's credits; one time is fine, but three or four form a pattern. I don't lambast Ang Lee for Life of Pi (2012) over the lack of female roles of note; because he's created plenty of films where women kick ass. But when it comes to Scorcese, if his lead is male, if his cast is nearly all white, if none of the characters are LGBT; yeah I lambast him. Because his films don't each happen in their own little void, there is a connector. The same goes for the MCU.

Now to your point. Firstly it's not about "getting even"; I'm not delude to think cinema will ever be so respectful Secondly, it is unfair that I watched the Cap films AFTER seeing the reaction to Iceman coming out. Too bad. I'm not against hetrosexuality in the films (of course not) I'm against the absence (save "man purse") of LGBT people. You don't need to erase one to have the other. Though none of this changes the fact the film really goes out of its way to 'ping' hetrosexuality (more noticable than I remember in Iron Man, where Tony is a ladies man, but I don't remember random one-liners 'ping'). Come on we met Falcon for two minutes and already he's talking about the girls in his work place, and hits on Black Widow. a) Falcon is NOT a ladies man; it was not vital to establish that twice b) don't make me laugh, like this film would ever be brave enough to actually give him a romance c) we don't see him again for ages, good job they established he liked women... cos... you know... it's really important to the plot.

Did your reviews of Iron Man keeps tabs of every Tony flirt? You've got an ax to grind today and so you're using these two films to do it since that's what your watching this week. Go back, re-watch and give us the Iron Man as a Competed Trilogy review.

Tony's a ladies man, that's his character. Cap isn't. There's a difference.

And then tell us about how hetero the X-movies are what with their all-love-Jean movie and Rogue having Bobby and even Mags is wanting to "go blue". Yeah it's Just Cap with that problem...

Firstly, the X-verse has very clear gay parallells. It may not have gay characters, but the films don't pretend we don't exist. Also they have LGBT representation in other ways (the director, and several of the key actors are openly LGBT). It's representing, in it's own way. Do I wish they'd bring in Northstar? Of course I do; but if they don't the films still have LGBT support in them. The MCU does not.

You completely throwaway the source material to get these supposed rewards? I can see why you're more of a Singer X-Verse fan

I'm looking at how they could have made the best film possible; and any mystery of "who killed [insert]" is really cheapened when they don't die, UNLESS it's part of the conspiracy (i.e. Nick is the real villain) and in both cases I can think of the Third Man (1949) and the Long Goodbye (1973); both the "fake out" deaths end up dead in the end by the hero's hand. I don't like films that want their cake and eat it too.

In case any mods think this is getting personal, we actually are friends on here.

Quoted for truth.

[Kieran_Frost]

SECRETARY (2002)
writer&director. Steven Shainberg
Starring: Maggie Gyllenhaal, James Spader and Oz Perkins

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Lee Holloway (Gyllenhaal), a socially awkward and dangerous self-harmer begins working as secretary to eccentric attorney, E. Edward Grey (Spader); who's desires in domination bring Lee down a road she may not ever escape...

THOUGHTS: this film is tackling a very complex issue, and I applaud the effort; but I just didn't care. Firstly, let's just get out the INCREDIBLE similarities to 50 Shades of Grey. A woman, seemingly innocent, who delivers deep down the rabbit whole of sexual fetish, led by a man named Grey. I think E. L. James owes Shainberg some royalties. As for the film, it really does try to rationally explore why someone would become so submissive (and find release, not imprisonment in that role); it doesn't go for quick solutions or skips over necessary stepping stones. And sadly, as exploitative as this is; most characters becomes caricatures to fit the narrative (and most of them are unlikeable to boot). Outside of Holloway NO-ONE (not even Grey) gets any real development or backs-tory. We know next to nothing about Grey, and his motives (while the conflict is depicted) is irrational or even inconsistent with earlier moments. He reacts how the story needs to react to progress. James Spader, so perfectly seductive, goodly yet depraved as Alan Shore, or fascinating complex in his lust in sex, lies and videotape (1989) was wasted. They cast the perfect man for the job, and yet gave him nothing to play with (pardon the pun). Also, I didn't get the significance of the flowers in his office. Now almost none of this matters, because Maggie Gyllenhaal is so watchable. She commits, she doesn't shy away from her character's stupidity, yet her embracing of her sexuality, her boldness and fire. It's a treat to watch. She really is excellent; and in lesser hands this would be a car crash.

OVERALL
An interesting concept, but one that never quite manages to get pass the “idea phase.” Maggie Gyllenhaal breathes life into her shallow character, but ultimately she can’t save the film from mediocrity. If films were based purely on ideas and the lead performance, this would get far more praise.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAME (2011)
dir. Steve McQueen
writer. Steve McQueen & Abi Morgan
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan, James Badge Dale and Nicole Beharie

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: New York executive Brandon Sullivan (Fassbender) is obsessed with sex, either with strangers or on-line; but his "comfortable" world is thrown into chaos with the return of his unstable sister, Sissy (Mulligan)

THOUGHTS: the first time I heard about this film was all the hoopla about Michael Fassbender’s humongous penis (to be clear it’s big, but hardly freakishly large). I know what you’re thinking, and you’d be right: any film where THAT is the main focus can’t be that good. And it wasn’t. Ultimately these are the most unrealistic siblings I’ve seen in a long time; the Lannisters are more believable relations. What brother stands talking to his naked sister for ages, what sister walks around her brother’s place with a see-through top and with her top hanging off her shoulders (you see why I compared them to the Lannisters; is there an underlying issues of incest going on?). They have no chemistry together, that’s what ruins it; regardless of “what” their unspoken issues were about. This film is by Steve McQueen, director of 12 Years A Slave (2013). I've not seen his first film Hunger (2008); and I didn't like his directing in 12Years; so my "knowledge" of his directing is limited. This is far less pretentiously directed than 12Years (only one truly unnecessary moment sticks in my mind; and to be fair that moment could have been brilliant): when Brandon daydreams about Marianne, the camera pans over her bare body to the sound of an office overlapping. Fantastic idea; sadly the camera pan was so damn pretentious, intentionally being “artsy” when the idea alone didn’t need extra razzle-dazzle. McQueen’s style reminds me a lot of the French New Wave, which many would consider a compliment, but from me it is not. Considering this is a man who won the Turner prize, it seems quite logical his directing mirrors the French New Wave: unnecessarily long scenes, full of “realism” dialogue that doesn’t really go anywhere and is done in one-shot #pretentious. Even Michael Fassbender, a staple of McQueen’s films (who stole every scene in 12 Years A Slave) wasn’t that interesting. When he cried I didn’t believe him, when he talked to people it felt more like an impression of someone struggling with issues, rather than a believable person. And what did the film ultimately want to say? Was it about porn addiction, sex addiction, the destructive nature of sex, was it about incest? It's not clear; like the awful Black Swan (2010) it seemingly want to talk about a lot, while saying very little and contributing nothing complex or insightful. Why (when everyone is British) not just set this in Britain? Were we meant to find Carey Mulligan’s painfully drawn out song moving? Lastly, James Franco gave a very eloquent objection to how gay people were used in this film, and I full heartedly agree with him. If the only time you want to show gay people is to express the idea: rock bottom… probably best you don’t include them.

OVERALL
A film told by an idiot, full of cock and anger, signifying nothing. Well shot, and a beautiful score (though oddly not in synch with the actual style or tone of the film). Nicole Beharie shined in her all too brief role, but that’s about the only note-worthy performance. Completely disappointing.
~ rating: 1 out of 5 [grade: D]

[PretenderNX01]

For me (when discussing film) it always comes down to the performance, and Chris Evans has nothing on Robert Downey Jr. While Evans may look the part, Downey IS the part. He embued so much in his performance. I don't feel the first one is the best, purely because the villain is so rubbish. The third's final showdown (of the three) is the most interesting, because it's not "iron thing smashing iron thing". Thor had the best villain, Cap the best fights, Iron Man the best performance and Avengers the best script.

Iron Man has a great performance in a mediocre movie series, Thor coasts on Loki. I know you focus on one actor over everything else but I need the whole, the gestalt. The Cap movies have the better whole to me.

But they are nearly always stand alone; there is a difference between ONE film on it's own having poor female roles, or no LGBT characters, or no POC of note; and a collection of films having a lacking. I treat a collection of films like a director's credits; one time is fine, but three or four form a pattern. I don't lambast Ang Lee for Life of Pi (2012) over the lack of female roles of note; because he's created plenty of films where women kick ass. But when it comes to Scorcese, if his lead is male, if his cast is nearly all white, if none of the characters are LGBT; yeah I lambast him. Because his films don't each happen in their own little void, there is a connector. The same goes for the MCU.

Well the Cap series have two strong females in Carter and Widow, the first has an international team with Cap and the second has Falcon and Fury in larger roles. It's still white lead but more diverse than other MCU movies.

Though none of this changes the fact the film really goes out of its way to 'ping' hetrosexuality (more noticable than I remember in Iron Man, where Tony is a ladies man, but I don't remember random one-liners 'ping').

Then re-watch it. Gwenyth in introduced taking out Tony's "trash" and off the top of my head there's also Tony's backup dancers, I think we all grow immune to how heterosexuality permeates those movies.

Firstly, the X-verse has very clear gay parallells. It may not have gay characters, but the films don't pretend we don't exist. Also they have LGBT representation in other ways (the director, and several of the key actors are openly LGBT). It's representing, in it's own way.

Eh, that's an apologist view. If gay parallels count then how come you complain about Star Trek? TNG had a parallel with the genderless aliens, DS9 had the mirror universe lesbian Kira and Jax's last life wife whom she still had a thing for.

And as I've learned in the Minorty Thread there are people who don't even feel LGBT is the larger parallel compared to the racial minority parallels in X-Men. The X-films do pretend we don't exist. Then they hire LGBT actors to placate us.

#JustSaying

[Kieran_Frost]

THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES (1976)
dir. Clint Eastwood
writer. adapted from Forrest Carter's 1973 novel Gone to Texas
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Chief Dan George, Sondre Locke, Geraldine Keams and Paula Trueman

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Missouri farmer Josey Wales (Eastwood), joins the Confederate army to fight the pro-Union cowboys who murdered his wife and child; but once the war is over, he refuses to surrender till he's had revenge.

THOUGHTS: I don’t know much about American history, but I’ve always been lead to the idea the Confederates were the bad side, and the Union the good. Now while I understand that is far too basic a look at history, it was nonetheless very confusing to have “the hero” Josey Wales be from the Confederate. I was worried twinges of racism were going to sink in (and shocked to learn the book is written under an alias of a Klan leader). Thankfully the film is far from racist, and by half-time the main cast of this film were Eastwood, two Native Americans and two white women. How AWESOME!!!; and how sad most films nowadays fail to deliver such diversity. They were all strong characters, all independent and determined; saving Josey as often as he saved them. From the moment Chief Dan George appeared dressed as Lincoln, delivering such lines as “they call us the civilized tribe, easy to sneak up on” I knew this film would be wonderful. From the clever use of the opening montage to establish plot without wasting time showing his rise in the army, to the brutal rape of Laura Lee (where nudity was used effectively for once, showing only enough to highlight the horror, never more to titillate the viewer). It’s yet another example of why Eastwood is one of the greatest living directors in the world, and another jewel in his overflowing crown of directing achievements. This is a political film, but not how you would think: it's tackling the treatment of Native Americans, set in a world of war the one time peace is made is with the tribe lead by Ten Bears (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) "Chief"). The only civilised people in this film are the Native Americans. And kudos to the scene stealing Paula Trueman as Grandma Sarah; every line and look was acting gold; you deserved to have a far bigger career than you did.

OVERALL
A surprising Western; one unlike anything else I’ve seen. The anti-High Noon (1952); and all the building blocks that would one day lead Eastwood to make his magna opus Unforgiven (1992). Excellent cast, avoids cliché's and one of the best "final showdown" with a Western villain I've ever seen. Chilling.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009)
dir. Guy Richie
writer. based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong, Kelly Reilly and Eddie Marsan

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1891, London. Sherlock Holmes (Downey, Jr.) and his partner and flatmate Dr. John Watson (Law) must unravel the riddle of murders surrounding the recently executed Lord Blackwood (Strong); while Irene Adler (McAdams) reappears in Holmes' life, bringing danger of her own.

THOUGHTS: Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are the perfect double-act; their chemistry is undeniable. This film works because of them and while Robert Downey Jr may have won the Golden Globe for his efforts; it’s the combination of the two that succeeds at every junction. The banter, the affection, even the sexual the tension; it all works so brilliantly. I don’t know what it is about Sherlock/Watson that always throws off an incredible “gay vibe” (at-least in recent years). Regardless, there is a glorious amount of oozing desire between the two; makes so many scenes crackle. I mean what “completely 100% str8 couple” spends that much time lambasting the romantic choices of their friend? Not just Holmes, but Watson too over Irene Adler. Ah dear Irene. If the stars are Law and Downey, McAdams effortless walks off with the silver medal. So perfect as “the woman”; never giving up on her own personal agenda. She may need Sherlock, but she’s never a damsel to him. Sadly for all the originality of these three, I must lambaste Mark “s*dding” Strong. Dear Hollywood: MARK STRONG MAKES RUBBISH VILLAINS!!! Why, oh why do they keep casting him as villains, he doesn’t do it well. If he was producing villains as complex and delightful as Alan Rickman, fine; but he’s not. I can’t think of a single villain he’s played that had any layers, and interest, anything that makes them stand out from the crowd. From the moment he uttered “death is only the beginning” I knew we were in for a sh*t storm of poor villainy; and oh look I was right. UGH!!! Still could be worse, he could have been Moriarty. What I enjoyed so much about the film was the lack of set-up; one of the “perks” of using such famous characters is you don’t need to waste time doing the “how they met” scenes, and just dive right it. Hit the plot from the first moment and never look back; even Irene Adler was just “instantly established” rather than wasting anytime seeing them meet (so refreshing). Of course it takes liberties; and while this may not be the most faithful of recent Holmes adaptations, it’s certainly the most fun (then again it’s the only one set in Victorian England, so maybe it is the most faithful?). Guy Richie embraces the absurd, the whimsical and the down right silliness in equal measure; carving out an incredibly enjoyable for the cast to play in. At points it feels like a Wes Anderson film (and that’s a compliment). This is aided by Hans Zimmer’s glorious soundtrack, which encompasses all elements are just listed (earning him a well deserved Oscar and Grammy nomination for his efforts – and I swear the BBC Sherlock stole the tune; it’s so similar). Lastly, a dog called Gladstone. GOD I loved that!!!

OVERALL
Infectiously enjoyable fluff. You cannot deny the “perfection chemistry” between Downey and Law; one of the most enjoyable double-acts of recent cinema. Guy Richie imbued warmth and humour and his usual energetic razzle-dazzle into the film, elevated by a brilliant score by Hans Zimmer.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS (2011)
dir. Guy Richie
writer. based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Kelly Reilly, Stephen Fry, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris and Rachel McAdams

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1891, London. Irene Adler (McAdams) has been murdered, and to unravel this web Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr) and Dr. Watson (Law) must travel the world on the quest for the mysterious and murderous Moriarty (Harris)

THOUGHTS: I love brave films, films that take risk; so I was very happy they committed to killing Irene Adler (rather than “magically” bring her back, with some ludicrous “I was faking it, having drunk an antidote to the poison I know he’d use”). I was also very happy they DIDN’T try and make a romance between Holmes and Sim; because Irene Adler she ain’t. Where as Adler had her own agenda and often formed her own plans, Sim constantly looked to Holmes for help and plans; and that makes her nothing but a poor man’s Adler. While it was sad to lose the wonderful McAdams, we are treated to the even more wonderful Stephen Fry as Holmes brother Mycroft (could have done without seeing him naked, though). As for the stars of the show, while Downey seemed slightly less ripped than last time, the two spar perfectly once more. I also worked out why Holmes/Watson make such a perfect closet couple: we root for their friendship above all else. The affection and love they have for one another is more important to us, the audience, than any other relationships the two have; even on his wedding day we invest more in Watson’s longing look towards a departing Holmes than we do in his vows to Mary. Holmes interrupts their honeymoon, whisking Watson off to Paris for “a true adventure” and we smile and cheer and agree it was for the best. And THAT is why they will always be a sinfully fun, sexually tense coupling. My major “gripe” with the first film was the villain, and alas things didn’t much improve. On the one hand I liked the low-key Moriarty; it was an unusual choice. On the other hand: THAT was Sherlock Holmes’ unbeatable foe? How dull. Especially in a film exuding playful unnecessaries (the firing of “Little Hansel” was Guy Richie’s finest hour of both films – it was super flashy, super silly, super perfect).

OVERALL
Downey and Law still sizzle as the most perfect double act; but a surprisingly disappoint villain (and his tedious plan) never quite earn the right to be foiled by such an enjoyable duet. It’s possibly funnier than the original, but not as rich.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B]

[simbob4000]

I found A Game of Shadows to be a lot better than the first movie. It's a funnier movie and it doesn't have the problem of the first where it kind of loses it's momentum around the end. I forget exactly when it happens, but the first movie just kind of stops sometimes as they get more and more into the villains plot.