Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Hellion]

Hahaha you're too kind!

[Da Boat]

LOLITA (1962)
dir. Stanley Kubrick
writer. adapted by Vladimir Nabokov from his novel of the same name [nom.]
Starring: James Mason, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyons and Peter Sellers

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: British Prof. Humbert Humbert (Mason) has found summer lodging with an overbearing widow Charlotte Haze (Winters) before his job starts in the Fall; and is going to decline the offer until he spies her teenager daughter, Dolores (Lyons) sunbathing in the garden... and agrees to rent the room.

THOUGHTS: the film starts incredibly strong. A fantastic showdown between James Mason and Peter Sellers, in the trashed eccentric's house; where the viewer has absolutely no idea why they are at odds; both dramatic and comedic in equal parts. Everything after that is just... wrong. Oh, where to begin? Well, first of all I wish to emphatically highlight the moment where Quilty (Sellers) shows up "disguised" as Dr. Zempf is when I knew this was pretty much a worthless script. So much was 'on-the-nose': Lolita is sent to "Camp Climax", Quilty's silent female companion is "Miss Darkbloom", the hospital receptionist is "Miss Fromkiss". UGH! I just don't know what I'm supposed to take from this film??? Humbert (partially due to James Mason) is probably the most likeable character in the film. Is that intentional? Didn't Kubrick realise he'd crafted the performances that way? And what kind of messages does that send? From the pathetically loathsome Shelley Winters (a woman willing to cast aside her daughter in seconds for a man who shows her nothing but indifference), to the bizarre neighbour both flirting shamelessly with Humbert while ALSO telling him some neighbours think his relationship with his "daughter" is scandalous. REALLY, love? So... he's possibly a pedo, but you'd still shag him??? Honestly, I just don't know what I was expecting. I knew the rough idea of the story, but assumed it was much more about his psychological lusting and how that affects someone rather than actual achievement of his goals. Are we meant to like Lolita? Feel sorry for her mother? I mean you can make the point that not all predators are the clearly socially creepy outsiders like in M (1931); that they can be charming, can be "normal" in their outward demeanour but still be predators nonetheless. But why is everyone so horrible? What message does that send? At times during Humbert's arguments with Lolita it feels the 'concept' is "relationships with under-age people don't work because they are unreasonable and childish" when obviously far more pressing issues should be explored. We never really know what Lolita thinks of it all. We never even know how Humbert feels about his new found feelings. Has this happened before? Does he not find his sudden attraction for a minor concerning (beyond his "oh how deliciously mischievous this makes me feel")? I just... ugh! Horrible, horrible film. Mason and Sellers are both "good" in what the script gives, and James Bond's Lois Maxwell is very good in her minor role. But ultimately I think this is a worthless film; not worth anyone's time. Horrible, horrible, horrible!!!

OVERALL
Unlikeable characters, bizarre plot shifts and a confusing "message"; this just is not for me. My least favourite Kubrick film by a long way; absent of his usual flare and surprisingly lacking in underlying psychology. A huge disappointment; and just horribly unsettling to boot.
~ rating: 1 out of 5 [grade: D]

Lolita is a Masterpiece and yea those people are horrible. As a movie critic you should be able not take what you see so personally, not trying to find a good person either to take you by the hand. I know as Americans we are brainwashed to have flicks with people who have black hats and white hats but this isn't that kind of movie. It's an ugly work of art.

[Kieran_Frost]

Ok, so I thought I’d post my list. As Kieran said, cinema is subjective and there is no “right” opinion. I’ve seen hundreds of movies and those that made this list are favorites of mine for a variety of reasons. However, I should note that most of the films I’ve seen are from the 90s onward. I have only seen a handful of “older” films and almost no foreign films, despite working at an art house theater (I have a really difficult time focusing on films where I have to read subtitles, so because it’s hard for me, I shy away from foreign films).

LOVE that you did this; and very cool list. Now (and this is personal preference) I don't believe in including a film series in a list (with the rare exception of when it's filmed all together but released separately, like the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) or Kill Bill (2003, 2004)). So I disagree about counting all Bonds or all Godzillas.

The films in my list may not necessarily be high-quality cinema, but if it’s on my list, it’s there because some aspect of it genuinely captivated me. For example, I give Titanic as much shit as the next person, but it’s on my list solely because of the musical score James Horner composed for it. Since I don’t really have time to write out why each film made it onto the list, if anyone is curious about one, you can just ask me.

Don't apologies, and I'll tell you why: this is when the magic happens!!! Okay, so you've got your list of 100... NOW whenever you see a film you know must go into your 100, you must bump something out. And it really makes you start to dissect and analyse what about it you love, what works, what doesn't, and why you (ultimately) feel it's less worthy to be in the list over what you bump in. The magic starts here.

Anna Karenina (Joe Wright version)
Attack the Block
“Before” Trilogy (Richard Linklater’s Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight)
Blue Valentine
Boyhood
Calvary
Flashbacks of a Fool
Fruitvale Station
Glorious 39
In The Loop
It’s Kind of a Funny Story
The Kids Are All Right
Killing Them Softly
Kill Your Darlings
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Like Crazy
Pirate Radio
The Place Beyond the Pines
Primal Fear
The Spectacular Now
State of Play
The Strangers
Super
The Tailor of Panama
The Wackness
Warrior
The Wolfman (original 1930s film)

Awesome, I haven't seen any of these (and a few I've never even heard of). Which 5 would you recommend most as "must see". I've highlighted in black the ones I (oddly) do own, just never got round to seeing.

28 Days Later
Alien
Casablanca
Fargo
Gladiator
Heat
In Bruges
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Seven
The Silence of the Lambs
There Will Be Blood

SNAP!

Elizabeth
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confidential
The Remains of the Day

These all used to be in my "Top 100"; but alas got bumped out (they are still all awesome though). If you like Good Will Hunting (1997) I'd recommend looking up Ordinary People (1980). It's very similar in plot (minus the maths genius part), and won Best Picture (and Best Director for Robert Redford). And the Remains of the Day (1993) I bumped out for Gosford Park (2001). It's also about upstairs/downstairs BUT there is a murder mystery to it; which makes it even more fun. If you love Thompson/Hopkins pairing (and GOD YES, I do) have you seen Howard's End (1992)? Emma Thompson won Best Actress for it (and it's also Merchant Ivory).

The Cabin in the Woods
Dragonheart

Okay... these are the only two I need to ask why (because I thought Cabin in the Woods was awful), and Dragonheart (while fun) is so, so silly.

As a movie critic you should be able not take what you see so personally, not trying to find a good person either to take you by the hand.

I'd disagree. I consider "greatest" film where artistic appreciation AND ENJOYMENT meet an apex. Surely personal preference and bias is hugely important to how a film effects you and whether you enjoy it? (good) Cinema is trying to draw emotions from you or plant a concept or idea in your mind; make you emote, believe, weep, rejoice, whatever. They want you to be personal invested, so it's perfectly valid to observe it doesn't please you. Now I agree you need a level of objectivity about your biases, to recognize you are enjoying/not enjoying something based on outside factors. Sometimes a film strikes a chord (be it good or bad) due to personal life events, and YES in those situations you need to disengage bias or at-least acknowledge and compensate for that in your review. But Lolita has no chord with my life; I merely dislike the film due to pacing, performances, choices made and, yes, concept (or more specifically the execution of said concept). How else does someone judge a film? It's not all about camera angles and sound editing bravado.

I know as Americans we are brainwashed to have flicks with people who have black hats and white hats but this isn't that kind of movie. It's an ugly work of art.

I'm not American; nor do I need clear cut "good people"/"bad people", far from it. But when you make everyone in your film unlikeable: that is a choice. And when one of the characters is a child molester, and you've made him the most likeable: that is a choice. For me, that choice didn't convert into a clear concept, and therefore failed. I love me shades of grey (Thunderbolt for life), but this didn't work for me.

[Da Boat]

LOVE that you did this; and very cool list. Now (and this is personal preference) I don't believe in including a film series in a list (with the rare exception of when it's filmed all together but released separately, like the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) or Kill Bill (2003, 2004)). So I disagree about counting all Bonds or all Godzillas.


Don't apologies, and I'll tell you why: this is when the magic happens!!! Okay, so you've got your list of 100... NOW whenever you see a film you know must go into your 100, you must bump something out. And it really makes you start to dissect and analyse what about it you love, what works, what doesn't, and why you (ultimately) feel it's less worthy to be in the list over what you bump in. The magic starts here.


Awesome, I haven't seen any of these (and a few I've never even heard of). Which 5 would you recommend most as "must see". I've highlighted in black the ones I (oddly) do own, just never got round to seeing.


SNAP!


These all used to be in my "Top 100"; but alas got bumped out (they are still all awesome though). If you like Good Will Hunting (1997) I'd recommend looking up Ordinary People (1980). It's very similar in plot (minus the maths genius part), and won Best Picture (and Best Director for Robert Redford). And the Remains of the Day (1993) I bumped out for Gosford Park (2001). It's also about upstairs/downstairs BUT there is a murder mystery to it; which makes it even more fun. If you love Thompson/Hopkins pairing (and GOD YES, I do) have you seen Howard's End (1992)? Emma Thompson won Best Actress for it (and it's also Merchant Ivory).


Okay... these are the only two I need to ask why (because I thought Cabin in the Woods was awful), and Dragonheart (while fun) is so, so silly.


I'd disagree. I consider "greatest" film where artistic appreciation AND ENJOYMENT meet an apex. Surely personal preference and bias is hugely important to how a film effects you and whether you enjoy it? (good) Cinema is trying to draw emotions from you or plant a concept or idea in your mind; make you emote, believe, weep, rejoice, whatever. They want you to be personal invested, so it's perfectly valid to observe it doesn't please you. Now I agree you need a level of objectivity about your biases, to recognize you are enjoying/not enjoying something based on outside factors. Sometimes a film strikes a chord (be it good or bad) due to personal life events, and YES in those situations you need to disengage bias or at-least acknowledge and compensate for that in your review. But Lolita has no chord with my life; I merely dislike the film due to pacing, performances, choices made and, yes, concept (or more specifically the execution of said concept). How else does someone judge a film? It's not all about camera angles and sound editing bravado.


I'm not American; nor do I need clear cut "good people"/"bad people", far from it. But when you make everyone in your film unlikeable: that is a choice. And when one of the characters is a child molester, and you've made him the most likeable: that is a choice. For me, that choice didn't convert into a clear concept, and therefore failed. I love me shades of grey (Thunderbolt for life), but this didn't work for me.

But the fact that it's not "clear" is what makes it compelling. That's art.

[Kieran_Frost]

But the fact that it's not "clear" is what makes it compelling. That's art.

I think that's a little bit of a cop-out. While art can leave you with questions to consider or a situation to ponder; being completely vague or void of message feels more like a failure than a statement on art. Plenty of artistic films manage to both leave you with a message to contemplate while ALSO expressing the ideas succinctly. This is a failure, not a statement (or it's lazy). But that's just my opinion; I do know (in regards to this film) many film critics would disagree.

Bare in mind I dislike the idea a squiggly line on a canvas is "art" (so most of the Tate Modern is sh*t, in my eyes )

[PretenderNX01]

I think it depends on the creators intent. If his intent is to be a study of unlikable characters, then that can work for me. Some art can be the study of the grotesque and some just an experiment or an exploration.
But if they want me to like someone and I don't then I would say a film fails for me in it's intent.

Bare in mind I dislike the idea a squiggly line on a canvas is "art" (so most of the Tate Modern is sh*t, in my eyes )

*gasp* them's fighting words.

Actually again, it depends. Some people do a squiggle and it's just a squiggle.

[simbob4000]

The '80s

1. The Evil Dead (1981)
2. Creepshow (1982)
3. Blow Out (1981)
4. The Hitcher (1986)
5. Dead Ringers (1988)
6. Used Cars (1980)
7. A Fish Called Wanda (1988)
8. Ran (1985)
9. Ghostbusters (1984)
10. Rumble Fish (1983)
11. An American Werewolf in London (1981)
12. Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
13. The Untouchables (1987)
14. Flesh+Blood (1985)
15. Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
16. Nine to Five (1980)
17. This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
18. Prince of Darkness (1987)
19. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
20. Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)
21. Blue Velvet (1986)
22. Amadeus (1984)
23. The Professional: Golgo 13 (1983)
24. Blood Simple. (1984)
25. Come and See (1985)
26. Arthur (1981)
27. The Shining (1980)
28. The Boxer's Omen (1983)
29. C.H.U.D. (1984)
30. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)
31. The Thing (1982)
32. The King of Comedy (1982)
33. Videodrome (1983)
34. Out of Africa (1985)
35. Black Magic M-66 (1987)
36. The Meaning of Life (1983)
37. Gandhi (1982)
38. The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
39. RoboCop (1987)
40. Breathless (1983)
41. Dead & Buried (1981)
42. The Dogs of War (1980)
43. The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover (1989)
44. Demons (1985)
45. Raging Bull (1980)
46. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
47. The Terminator (1984)
48. Akira (1988)
49. Ginî piggu 2: Chiniku no hana (1985)
50. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

[Hellion]

LOVE that you did this; and very cool list. Now (and this is personal preference) I don't believe in including a film series in a list (with the rare exception of when it's filmed all together but released separately, like the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) or Kill Bill (2003, 2004)). So I disagree about counting all Bonds or all Godzillas.

Don't apologies, and I'll tell you why: this is when the magic happens!!! Okay, so you've got your list of 100... NOW whenever you see a film you know must go into your 100, you must bump something out. And it really makes you start to dissect and analyse what about it you love, what works, what doesn't, and why you (ultimately) feel it's less worthy to be in the list over what you bump in. The magic starts here.

Awesome, I haven't seen any of these (and a few I've never even heard of). Which 5 would you recommend most as "must see". I've highlighted in black the ones I (oddly) do own, just never got round to seeing.

SNAP!

These all used to be in my "Top 100"; but alas got bumped out (they are still all awesome though). If you like Good Will Hunting (1997) I'd recommend looking up Ordinary People (1980). It's very similar in plot (minus the maths genius part), and won Best Picture (and Best Director for Robert Redford). And the Remains of the Day (1993) I bumped out for Gosford Park (2001). It's also about upstairs/downstairs BUT there is a murder mystery to it; which makes it even more fun. If you love Thompson/Hopkins pairing (and GOD YES, I do) have you seen Howard's End (1992)? Emma Thompson won Best Actress for it (and it's also Merchant Ivory).

Okay... these are the only two I need to ask why (because I thought Cabin in the Woods was awful), and Dragonheart (while fun) is so, so silly.

Thank you. I'm still embarrassed about posting my list, because for a long time my movie preference was almost exclusively mindless action films and historical epics and only in the last 5 years have I started to lean to more artistic films (or Oscar bait, more often than not). In regards to the James Bond and Godzilla film series I made sure to list my favorite from each, but I only included them all together because, while I think some are better than others, there are none in either that I considered "terrible" and didn't enjoy. Also in regards to multiple-film entries, what is your opinion of me listing Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy or Linklater's Before trilogy? Neither were filmed together like Lord of the Rings, but I like to judge them together as a complete story rather than as individual segments.

Haha, my list isn't an even 100...I think it was somewhere in the 70s or 80s. I tried to make it an even hundred, but there were no other films that really deserved this highest echelon of my favoritism lol. It is where the magic starts, and I had to put a lot of thought into this, even if the result embarrasses me.

Oh lord, I could give a rundown for each of them, but a top 5? ...Well, I've already recommended Calvary, so I won't count that here, though it easily wins the "Top 1" position. I will recommend...

Anna Karenina (Joe Wright version). Critically, this seems to be a love it or hate it film. I am biased because it's a British film and I love Brits. It's a story of adultury, so I didn't have much sympathy for the main character, but the supporting roles make up for it. I have never read the Tolstoy novel and this film kept me engaged with its adaptation of the material. The reason it made my list is from a technical standpoint: most of the film is filmed in an old theater building that gets dressed up to fit the needs of multiple different "settings" and the camera/characters progress smoothly from one area to another (the actual theatre portion is the Russian court of nobility, the backstage area is filled with the impoverished commons, etc). I found this gimmick to be fascinating.

Warrior (2011) This is another film that may not be for everyone, but I defend it passionately. The premise is 2 estranged brothers both enter an MMA tournament, each hoping to win the cash prize for different reasons. At the same time, their estranged father (played by Nick Nolte in a performance that should have won him the Oscar that year, in my opinion) tries to reconnect with his sons, who hate him. I don't usually go for family dramas, but this one is superb. The MMA fights are entertaining as all hell, but the real substance is the story behind the 3 leads, and their performances are all top-notch, particularly Tom Hardy and Nick Nolte.

The Kids Are All Right. Since you own it, I probably don't need to tell you the premise. What I loved about this film was that it doesn't make a big deal out of the fact that this family is a lesbian couple raising 2 kids. Aside from some dramatic events put in for the sake of tension, it really shows the normalcy that is possible in a family dynamic in which a gay couple has kids. This is a big deal for me because in America, the political right still spouts out nonsense like "Gay couples can't have children or the children will turn out gay" or "Gay men can't raise boys because they'll try to molest them" or bullshit like that. This film proves that nonsense wrong. Acting-wise, the performances are all strong. The script could have easily gone over the top with it, but they adhered to normalcy and that makes this film a gem.

The Place Beyond the Pines. I can't really describe a premise to this film without giving away plot spoilers. Suffice it to say, it's an examination of fathers and sons, and the legacy of sins handed down from one generation to the next. The film is a triptych, and as a whole it feels like a modern version of a Greek tragedy. On the whole, it's a "quiet" film, but that made it more majestic in my eyes. The performances are fantastic. In terms of story, I thought the 3rd act suffered (it's the shortest of the 3 and I thought it required more time to better flesh out that part of the story), but it wasn't to the point where it detracted from the entirety of the film and the overall narrative still works.

In the Loop (2009) This is purely a biased recommendation on my part, as this film is a "spin-off/prequel-of-sorts" to the BBC political satire The Thick of It, which is my all-time favorite comedy TV show. This film is a fast-talking, profane, mockumentary-styled satire of the events that led to the U.S. and UK invading Iraq. As with the TV show, this film is all about the dialogue. Swearing and insults are elevated to high art, and you will likely need multiple viewings because you'll miss jokes from laughing so hard so constantly. Most of the cast from the TV show appear in the film (as completely different characters with the exceptions of Peter Capaldi and Paul Higgins). Newcomers Tom Hollander, James Gandolfini, and the rest of the American cast manage to hold their comedic own next to their Brit counterparts. Please see this, and please love it.

I would also mention Flashbacks of a Fool as an honorable mention, if you have spare time to kill. For me, this film had a lot of things I liked and a lot of things I didn't. It's almost an even split. It's only on my list because of how much I think about this confounding film (and I don't just think about it because blond Harry Eden bears an uncanny resemblance to my lover ). Really, I'm just eager to know what other people think of this film.

I will be sure to check out those recommendations, and will let you know what I think of them. Haha, I agree with you about Dragonheart, and that film doesn't really hold up well nowadays, but it was my absolute favorite as a kid. I was a dinosaur nut, and then I progressed to dragons! This is on the list for nostalgia value. I still enjoy Dragonheart. I recognize it as not that great of a film, but it's probably closer to my heart than any other film on my list. As for Cabin in the Woods, I thought it was a treat. I knew nothing about it when I was forced to watch it, I was expecting a typical horror movie. I hate modern horror movies because I think most of it is fixated on gore/violence and "sudden loud noises/freaky images" these days, and that doesn't actually scare me. Cabin in the Woods played those elements up, but the twist in the story with people in a control room making these things happen was so comedic for me that I ended up enjoying the film. They pulled it off and made a harsh horror critic like me enjoy it, so I threw it onto my list. The Strangers, on my list, holds the record of being the only horror film I've ever seen that genuinely frightened me (although a large part of that stems from my irrational fear of creepy masks).

[simbob4000]

Warrior is pretty great, and it's got some really good fight scenes. It's pretty emotionally manipulative, it's like a chick flick for guys...but I don't really care, it's a lot of fun.

The Kids Are All Right is good too, one of the better movies of 2010. But I would say City Island was a better movie, it's the funny comedy anyways.

Cabin in the Woods is pretty terrible, and the whole thing feels like a critique from someone that doesn't know anything about horror movies. It don't even work as a horror movie, it's more a comedy, but it's not even really funny. Cabin in the Wood would have been a more interesting statement on horror movies if it was actually a good horror movie. Instead, we get the cabin scenario...which is one of the worst versions of it I've ever seen, along with the most boring villains. The focus of that movie should have been on the guys in controls; movie may have still sucks, but at least it would have been somewhat interesting.

[Kieran_Frost]

SERPICO (1973)
dir. Sidney Lumet
writer. based on Peter Maas' biography of Frank Serpico [nom.]
Starring: Al Pacino [nom.], Jack Randolph, Jeff Kehoe and F. Murray Abraham

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: honest cop Frank Serpico (Pacino) goes undercover, attempting to blow the lid on the corruption riff in the NYPD in the 60s.

THOUGHTS: eh! I am very surprised I didn't enjoy this more; I adore the Lumet/Pacino pairing in Dog Day Afternoon (1975), but this just didn't work for me. It's slow. It's long. And outside of Pacino, nearly every other character almost blurs into one concept: bad cops. I get that you need to highlight the heroes plight by making him seem isolated and alone; but the idea 98% of the cops were corrupt or support corruption is just so implausible it makes you care less about the reality of the story. I don't get why so many people love this film? Is it the ideology of the "one good cop" concept? Or the macho chest pounding of giving it all up for the moral high-ground, while simultaneously silently respecting the "you don't nark on others" mentality? I have no idea. But the love I've seen some give this film is just bizarre. It's an excellent performance (yet by no means Pacino's best; hell it's not even in his "Top 5" best) and that's about all I can say on the film. I was very bored watching this; thank god for the excitement of Serpico's wardrobe, or I'd have had nothing to keep my mind going.

OVERALL
A well made, well acted, but ultimately "meh" film that is far too long. Pacino is fantastic (70s Pacino is always flawless); but the story isn't that gripping (nor that shocking or original). When the fashion choices of a character leave more of an impression... you know you're mind has had time to wander. Possibly another candidate for that illusive "straight man's movie" tag-line?
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]

[Kieran_Frost]

KICK ASS (2012)
dir. Matthew Vaughn
writer. based on the comic book by Mark Miller
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Chloë Grace Moretz, Mark Strong and Nicholas Cage

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: a young comic book fan (Johnson) decides to don his own costume (dubbed "Kick Ass") and fight crime for the betterment of society. First things first: set up a Kick Ass myspace page...

THOUGHTS: I dislike when people say "the book was better"; purely because YES 95% of the time it can go into thoughts and emotions, purpose and reason in far greater depth, and for far longer than any film script could. It's (in many ways) a given, so what's the point of saying it? And yet here we are with my next point: THE BOOK WAS BETTER!!! In my mind there are two ways to adapt something: a) faithfully, not only following the plotting (as best as a different media can allow) but also capturing the purpose and meaning behind a story, or b) making it your own. Taking the writer's work and twisting it, elevating even, so the purpose, reason and ideas are different, while still being the "basic" story. Here we have the first half dutifully copied, almost scene by scene, by the film. And then... they decide to change everything (for the worse). The "point" of Mark Miller's story ISN'T about masculine idealisation, far from it. The girl doesn't see past his lie and fall for the sweet guy behind, the dad doesn't have an actual grudge with the main villain, living out his vengeance, and some guy in a costume doesn't instantly make a great hero (and, because he's just a normal guy, he doesn't gleefully gun people down at the end with a rocket-powered uzi). By changing these things the film STOPS being a comment on "the male fantasy" and becomes... well... the male fantasy. It's wanted to BOTH be faithful AND make it their own. That's greedy, and it doesn't work; because so much of the set-up (which they faithfully copied) only works when you follow it to the natural conclusion; NOT when you veer off into your own fantasy world. Anyway, moving AWAY from the adaptive script... Aaron Johnson was awesome. Distractingly beautiful (am I the only one who noticed his bulge the whole time?), Ms. Biegelow is a lucky, lucky cougar. He makes such a good action hero, he has the body to be believable, with the charm and "everyman" quality to be likeable. Kudos! I remember everyone fawning over Nicholas Cage in the film; why? Was he good, sure. But just because he's not awful (which is a rarity these days) doesn't mean it's a performance worthy of praise. It's Ben Affleck in Hollywoodland (2006) all over again! Another forgettable actor is Mark Strong. He's really not a good actor. His "talent" is so tied up in whether the script is good or not; and when it gives him nothing of interest... he delivers nothing of interest (which is exactly what happened here).

OVERALL
A shockingly poor adaptation, which still results in a very enjoyable film. Aaron Johnson shines in the lead, and Matthew Vaughn has fun playing with the idea this was once a comic in his directing. Nothing too special about this film, nothing too offensive either.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: C]

[Kieran_Frost]

SOLARIS (1972)
#68 in Empire magazine's "100 Best Films of World Cinema"
dir. Andrei Tarkovsky
writer. based on the novel of the same name by Stanisław Lem
Starring: Donatas Banionisand, Jüri Järvet, Anatoli Solonitsyn and Natalya Bondarchuk

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Psychologist Dr. Kris Kelvin (Banionisand) travels to the Solaris space station to evaluate the mentality of the three remaining scientists, and discover the root of the mysterious communications the planet is emitting.

THOUGHTS: my word, this film is boring! Not in it's ideas; the storyline, visuals and performances are all solid. But the pacing... if it even deserves such a phrase; the "pacing" is horrendous. Every shot is too long. Every scene is too long, even moment is drawn out, every thought expanded on (yet delivered slowly), which is then followed by a slow pointless pan left, or a gentle focus on a stream, or... GOD!!! I got through 4 cups of coffee just trying to stay awake! This film deserved so much better than this self-indulgent nonsense (slow does not mean better). That is not to say it lacked any spark. The use of black and white for recordings and videos was clever and Natalya Bondarchuk was magnificent as Kelvin's suicidal wife, Hari. Her performance was genuinely moving (a shame her counterpart Banionisand seemed to only have one facial expression for every emotion). Visually the film is impressive BUT how much of this is copied from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)? A lot of the circular ideas, and colour pallets seems very similar. At times it felt as if you are in the Vault in Fallout 3 (which is very cool); but ultimately the rich cinematography and a star making performance cannot save this film. Every scene was a train wreck, because every scene was too long, too slow, too dull. A huge shame; after gushing over Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev (1966), I was eager to see his much lauded sci-fi film (since I do have a bit of a bias in favour of the genre). Such a disappoint. So f*cking slow...

OVERALL
As intellectually stimulating as it is tediously monotonous; this had all the capability of being a masterpiece, but every scene is utterly devastated by an excruciatingly slow pace. Monstrously slow, it robs the film of all other joys.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]

[PretenderNX01]

KISS ASS (2012)

Hee hee, you wrote Kiss Ass instead of Kick Ass.

THOUGHTS: my word, this film is boring! Not in it's ideas; the storyline, visuals and performances are all solid. But the pacing... if it even deserves such a phrase; the "pacing" is horrendous. Every shot is too long. Every scene is too long, even moment is drawn out, every thought expanded on (yet delivered slowly), which is then followed by a slow pointless pan left, or a gentle focus on a stream, or... GOD!!!

Is that the one that's like 3 hours long? It was on TCM a long time ago and I recorded it but never got around to it. I think it was on a VHS tape it was so long ago.

[Kieran_Frost]

Hee hee, you wrote Kiss Ass instead of Kick Ass.

LOL!! I will edit it, thank-you.

Is that the one that's like 3 hours long? It was on TCM a long time ago and I recorded it but never got around to it. I think it was on a VHS tape it was so long ago.

Yes, it's the long one. It felt much longer than 3 hours because of the bloody slowness. I swear it took up my entire Sunday.

[Kieran_Frost]

STATE OF THE UNION (1948)
dir. Frank Capra
writer. based on the Pulitzer prize winning play of the same name by Howard Lyndsey & Russel Crouse
Starring: Spencer Tracey, Katharine Hepburn, Van Johnson and Angela Lansbury

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Republican newspaper magnate Kay Thorndyke (Lansbury) is stacking the deck to get her lover, aircraft tycoon Grant Matthews (Tracey) the Republican nomination for President of the United States... only one thing stands in her way: the idealism and iron-hard resolve of Matthews wife, Mary (Hepburn)

THOUGHTS: on paper this was destined to be perfection. A master director, with a dynamite cinematic couple, based on a Pulitzer Prize winning play. How did it go wrong? There are many things I did like about it. I liked how it wasn't actually about the corruption of Grant Matthews (he starts the film having an affair, he's ALREADY corrupted). Yes it was still a "good person corrupted by the system" story, but the person in question is Mary, NOT Grant. I liked the showdown between Hepburn and Lansbury (though it wasn't as cathartic as I wanted). I liked that a film in 1948 has two strong female leads, and despair that some films in 2014 can still fail to meet that accolade. And because it's Capra, it's a wonderfully smooth ride. Well, almost. One major "bumpy segment" was the pointlessness of that 5 minute "amusing" p*ssing contest in the sky? GOD, that was painfully unfunny and dragged... and dragged. And for what? It didn't show Matthews as daring, because he'd already started to fold. This is Mary's story, not his. UGH! This kind of idiocy I'll never understand in man. Risk your lives, and waste time for what? Needless kudos? IDIOTS!!! Another reason that particular segment was cringe-worthy: Van Johnson. What a bad actor! He was annoying, hammy and delivering dialogue at a 10 that was destined to be a 3. He physically ruined scenes. On another sour note: I was disappointed when I found out this film was about getting the nomination. I assumed (due to my limited knowledge of American politics via Sorkin's the West Wing ) that "State of the Union" was a references to a President's State of the Union address. I did enjoy that the film explores "the state of the union" in terms of the average American's psyche, BUT it's still confusing. Like sitting down to watch the musical Gypsy, only to learn there are no gypsies in it. You feel cheated. Oh, and the Wicked Witch of the West (Margaret Hamilton) appears briefly as a horny secretary... that was (unintentionally) CREEEEEEEEEPY!!! But Van Johnson had already ruined that scene, so there was nothing left for one randy cinematic witch to torpedo.

OVERALL
A disappointing result, considering the pedigree involved; but Katharine Hepburn shines bright (as always). Her infallible performance makes this worth watching, though little else really excites. It's a solid film (minus Van Johnson), but it should have been so much more; it had potential to be breathtaking.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: C+]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UP IN THE AIR (2009) [nom.]
dir. Jason Reitman [nom.]
writer. based on the novel of the same name by Walter Kirn [nom.]
Starring: George Clooney [nom.], Anna Kendrick [nom.], Jason Bateman and Vera Farminga [nom.]

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Ryan Bingham (Clooney) travels all around America and the world firing people for a living, but when a new "hot-shot" in his agency (Kendrick) starts implementing "transitioning" via skype, Bingham feels his quest to earn ten-million frequent flyer miles slowly descending beneath the clouds.

THOUGHTS: I don't know if this will be everyone's cup of team. It's not "witty lines" like Juno (2007), it's humour is more akin to Young Adult (2011) where it's about the gentle comedy of the choices someone makes in life, rather than about a punch-line. In fact the film is void of punchline. Generally that annoys me, but in this instance it doesn't, because it mirrors what Bingham tells people. "Anyone who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you're sitting right now..." By the end you feel his life is at that moment, if not his career. He's been fired from life, and what comes next is what we are left with to ponder. The stand-out performance goes to Vera Farminga. She is simultaneously sensual, fierce, commanding, empathtic, ruthless, gentle; the list goes on. It's a brilliant performance; and (for my money) she should have won the Oscar over Mo'Nique for Precious (2009). Where Mo'Nique really only showed us one side of someone, until the very end; Vera gives depth and weight to everything. It's an incredibly accomplished performance, in a role that could have been (in the wrong hands) forgettable and cliché. I'm on the fence about Kendrick. She gets the best lines BUT they are the best lines. Is it the delivery, or the line? At times I didn't find her believable, or I felt she was trying to hard. BUT maybe that's the character? I don't know the actress's work enough to give a decisive opinion.

OVERALL
A beautifully crafted film, that delivers amusement and humour as brutally and skilfully as when exploring heartbreak; this is a wonderfully low-key treat. With a strong ensemble and a stellar performance from Farminga, this is a joy (though oddly -- intentionally -- won't give you that cathartic treat at the end).
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]


FUN FACT: USA Today called Reitman "a modern-day Frank Capra" for his work in this film. More "connections" between the two reviews.