Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[simbob4000]

It's easily one of the best movies Marvels put out, if not their best one. Don't know how anyone could think Guardians of the Galaxy is their weakest movie.

[Kieran_Frost]

Don't know how anyone could think Guardians of the Galaxy is their weakest movie.

I think my review above states pretty clearly WHY I think it is the weakest (or at the very least why it failed so spectacularly as a piece of cinema). It's fine to disagree and say you enjoy it.

[simbob4000]

I think my review above states pretty clearly WHY I think it is the weakest (or at the very least why it failed so spectacularly as a piece of cinema). It's fine to disagree and say you enjoy it.

Even if what you said was true, it's still got less problems than almost all the other Marvel movies.

[PretenderNX01]

Even if what you said was true, it's still got less problems than almost all the other Marvel movies.

Well, that's the thing. The more one really considers the Marvel movies, the less they seem to be. They're events and with the exception of Cap they don't really improve with sequels.

But I will say, I think GotG never set out to be more than a throwback to 80s action genre. It's accomplishes it's goal and people had a good time so I wouldn't call it a failure by any means.

[Kieran_Frost]

I also saw the Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (1989); which was atrocious. I ended up fast-forwarding most of it. Such a terrible, worthless, stupid film. Thank GOD for Dame Helen Mirren and Sir Michael Gambon, elevating this "erotic" film beyond the artistic masturbation it aspired to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHUN GWONG CHA SIT (1997) ~ Happy Together ~
writer&director. Wong Kar-Wai
Starring: Tony Leung, Leslie Cheung and Chang Chen

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Buenos Aries, Argentina. Lai Yiu-fai (Leung) and Ho Po-Wing (Cheung), lovers from Hong Kong, come to visit the Iguazu Falls; only to break-up before they ever get there. Unable to escape the destructive cycle of their relationship; the two must find a way to exist apart, or be ruined forever.

THOUGHTS: The only other Kar-Wai film I've seen is 2046 (2004), which I found quite pretentious (long camera shots for little reason, silent moments of nothing really important, etc). This is a more controlled/toned down version, but it still have those same faults (just less often). I will watch In the Mood For Love (2000) because it's his masterpiece (supposedly); but currently I'm not finding him a director I sync with. My biggest problem with the film is the relationship between the two leads. Cheung is just so annoying; such an unlikable character that I found myself rooting for Lai to dump him (maybe even give him the slap he so richly deserved). Which is a shame. Unlike in Casablanca (1942), where their relationship is nonetheless doomed, you still champion them being together. You hope the inevitable won't happen and they find happiness with one another. Doomed doesn't have to mean ill-fated. I understand the director's philosophy of "happy together" doesn't necessarily mean as a couple, but a state of being where they are better off apart. Man... that's a sad view to take of an LGBT couple (esp. when most gay couples of cinema are doomed). I liked the multi-cultural aspect of the film; though at times some of the depictions of latinos was a tad depthless.

OVERALL
Not an exciting film; which brings in the romance too late in the game to make the audience care. Tony Leung is beautifully controlled in the lead; elevating his performance above the mediocre movie.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: C+]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1939)
dir. Sidney Lanfield
writer. based on the novel of the same name by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Richard Greene, Wendy Barrie and Lionel Atwill,

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: famed detective Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) is hired by Dr. Mortimer (Atwill) to protect the life of the new Baron of Baskerville, Sir Henry (Green); who he believes life is in imminent danger from the curse on his family.

THOUGHTS: it's so nice to see a faithful adaptation of a Sherlock Holmes film. Between Sherlock and Elementary TV series, the Downey Jr films... Sherlock has become something actors feel they need to ham-up and overplay. Don't get me wrong, LOVE Benedict Cumberbatch's performance, but I enjoy a "low key" Sherlock (more akin to Conan Doyle's Holmes). Basil Rathbone had the right amount of superiority and allofness, without overplaying or letting it dominate too many of his moments. And Dr. Watson was adorable too; the right amount of "whoopsie silliness" with skilled practitioner. The film is, of course, very old; without a glamourous Hollywood budget to support it. Some of the performances are more "theatrical" than modern cinema allows, and most shots have the grainy black sphere. BUT it's still wonderful. What they achieve is excellent, the fight with the famed "monster hound" is brilliant (Buffy the Vampire Slayer certainly had far less realistic combat against some monsters) and the plot it satisfying and well presented. The director captures the true eeriness of the Moors (I'm sure that style helped later when he directed episodes of the classic live-action TV series the Addams Family).

OVERALL
Possibly the best Sherlock Holmes film of all time. A dedicated, loyal adaptation; without the need of glamour or showmanship. An excellent, exciting piece of cinema.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]

[simbob4000]

You also don't think The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is good at all? Is it because some people were naked in it or something?

Well, that's the thing. The more one really considers the Marvel movies, the less they seem to be. They're events and with the exception of Cap they don't really improve with sequels.

But I will say, I think GotG never set out to be more than a throwback to 80s action genre. It's accomplishes it's goal and people had a good time so I wouldn't call it a failure by any means.

I don't think they really need much consideration to see their problems. They're basically action comedies, and most of them don't really deliver on the action very well.

[Kieran_Frost]

You also don't think The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is good at all? Is it because some people were naked in it or something?

I have no problem with nudity if it's justified; and several moments seem important that they were naked (such as climbing into the meat-locker to escape; their bare flesh vulnerable against exposed carcases = powerful contrast). The film's just bad. It's pretentious and bad; and what was the point of it? Makes me imagine what a product would look like directed by Terry Gillam on speed; every fault exasperated to the nth degree. The ONLY redeeming part of the film was the actors; and even they couldn't polish that turd (which is... ironic ).

[Kieran_Frost]

CARAVAGGIO (1986)
dir. Derek Jarman
writer. Nicholas Ward Jackson 7 Derek Jarman
Starring: Nigel Terry, Dexter Fletcher, Tilda Swinton, Sean Bean, Robbie Coltrane and Michael Gough

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: a fictionalised re-telling of the life of Baroque painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (Fletcher/Terry); surrounding his relationship to his patron Cardinal Del Monte (Michael Gough) and his infatuation with young street fighter Ranuccio (Sean Bean).

THOUGHTS: I can't believe this is rated "18"! Romancing the Stone (1984) had more nudity and violence in it (though far less swearing). Yes there is plenty of "sexuality" and "sensuality" in the film; but in terms of what you actually SEE? Very little. Even if, for the time, it was given such a harsh rating, nowhere-days it should be downgraded to a 15 at best. But regardless of the prejudice against gay cinema; this film is a triumph. One of the boldest choices is the intertwining of the modern world in Renaissance Rome. Similar to Sophie Coppela's Marie Antoinette (2006) (though far more successfully executed); Jarman has the modern world infuse into his film; contrasting Caravaggio's own use of "contemporary" (for the time) dress in his Bibical depictions. The art critic sitting in his bath-tube, using a type-writer; the Cardinal asking for more funds while working out the cost on his calculator, etc. It's all very subtle, and never intrusive; but gives an almost timelessness or otherworldly quality to the story. The striking visuals (from costumes to cinematography) aid this concept; with sparse rooms and bold colours mirroring Caravaggio's only mercilessly use of light and dark in his work. I love how the film takes care to express how an artist works; how more time is spent seeking inspiration and creativity than it ever is on the "tedious" part of painting. The entire ensemble is excellent; I can't really single out any one person (for their performance); because everyone delivered. I will note this is Tilda Swinton's first film role; and MY GOD no wonder she went on to win an Oscar; she's dynamite. Loved seeing Michael Gough (who I only really know as Alfred Pennyworth) get a role he can seek his teeth into. Nigel Terry is a chameleon (and like me, from Bristol - YEY!!!). From the oafish Prince John in the Lion in Winter (1968) to the broken King Arthur in Excalibur (1981); he's different every-time I witness his work.

OVERALL
An exhilarating and bold film; daring to challenge the convention of what it means to make a "historic" biography. A fantastic ensemble, and concise storytelling make it a pleasure to behold. It's masterpiece, everyone should see it!
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A]

[Kieran_Frost]

JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961) [nom.]
AFI's #10th greatest courtroom drama
#156 IMDB#s "Top 250"
dir. Stanley Kramer [nom.]
writer. adapted from the transcripts of the Judges Trial of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials [OSCAR]
Starring: Spencer Tracey [nom.], Maximilian Schell [OSCAR], Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster, William Shatner, Richard Widmark, Judy Garland [nom.] and Montgomery Clift [nom.]

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1947, Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Tracey) is flown to Nuremberg, Germany; to preside over the trial of four German judges, accused of non-combatant war crimes; including the forced sterilization of Rudolph Peterson (Clift) and the false imprisonment of Irene Wallner (Garland)

THOUGHTS: This film is one you must give your full attention to; it's not light viewing nor one that requires you to be passive in your thoughts. You must be constantly deliberating both the prosecutions and the defenses arguements. The film treads a very skillful line of giving you every possible side; there is no "easy" answer, nor is there easy judgement. From comparing the American's actions of Hiroshima, the Pope's pact with the Nazis, the Supreme Court's support of eugenics, to exploring the political ramifications (both for the German people and for the necessary support of the Allies against the coming Cold War). All of this is well conveyed, leaving so many "shadows of a doubt" in your mind about what is "justice" vs what is "right". Which is why the ending is such a sharp (and disappointing) contrast; offering an "easy" answer to a question the film has spent nearly 3 hours successfully analyzing as incredibly complex. Much like Downfall (2004); this is a film all children should be shown in history class. And kudos to the fantastic way the film handled the varying languages at the trial. For the first 10 minutes of the trial we have a "tedious" back and forth; where an English statement is translating to German, the German response, then translated into English... at which point (halfway through Maximilian Schell's monologue in German) the film switched into English BUT still showed the necessity of headphones for translation and pauses. A simple yet brilliant concept (again ruined by the final scene, where suddenly Dr. Ernst Janning miraculously has learnt English). The film was nominated for 11 Oscars (4 for acting) and deserved every single one. The entire ensemble shines; Schell and Tracey are mesmerising, and it's the most realistic performance I've ever seen Judy Garland give. Though the unsung performance goes to Marlene Dietrich's low-key delivery; measured and effortless. The film also features a young William Shatner (ironically playing a Captain in the army). I wasn't sure how I was meant to feel about Col. Lawson (played by Widmark); at times I felt he was intentionally dislikeable in his self-righteousness (mirroring the American's own hypocrisy on many subjects, including the shameful treatment of gay people in the concentration camps post-"liberation"). But that could just be me transferring my feelings for his villainous child murderer Cassetti in Murder on the Orient Express (1974). Lastly, the movie contains a segment where real footage of concentration camps is shown; powerfully silent; where every horror is conveyed brutally on film.

OVERALL
One of the most intelligent and complex examinations of Nazi Germany in cinema; a beautifully shot, wonderfully acted triumph (criminally let down by an ending both illogical and lazy). One of the finest courtroom dramas in cinema; right along with 12 Angry Men (1957) and To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A]

[Kieran_Frost]

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014) [nom.]
#185 IMDB's "Top 250"
dir. Wes Anderson [nom.]
writer. inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig [nom.]
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Toni Revolori, Saoirse Ronan, Adrian Brody, William Dafoe and F. Murray Abraham

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: The fictional republic of Zubrowka, 1932. The Grand Budapest's devoted concierge Monsieur Gustave H. (Fiennes) has been accused of murdering one of his (many) aged lovers, the fabulously rich "Madame D" (Tilda Swinton); and it's up to his newly devoted lobby boy Zero (Revolori) to prove Gustave's innocence... or die trying.

THOUGHTS: I'm not a die hard Andersite. I enjoy his style (and LOVE Fantastic Mr Fox (2009)), but the prospect of a new film by him never has me eager for opening night. So I was incredibly surprised how much joy I took from thus. It's just delightful; almost like one of Agatha's perfectly made desserts: it's rich, it's satisfying, and beautiful to look at. I was particularly happy the story didn't following the intermingling lives of the hotel's guest, a formula made famous by the Oscar Winning Grant Hotel (1933); instead the film focuses nearly exclusively on Ralph Fiennes. And this, I suspect, is why I enjoyed this movie so much. Not since Gene Hackman in the Royal Tenenbaums (2001) has an actor so perfectly encompassed the humour, darkness and whimsy of Wes Anderson's world. Ralph Fiennes has never been more likeable; both pompous and caring, honourable yet cowardly. A seemingless forgettable man, imbued with a presence that capitavates everyone who come into his world. The fact it's a performance that shines though shouldn't be news to anyone; because all Anderson films feature an ensemble that glows bright; William Dafoe particularly chilling as Jopling (leading to one INCREDIBLE sequence of Jopling stalking Jeff Goldbloom's Kovacs through the museum; kudos Wes, that was A+ directing). Also (as with all Anderson films) the visuals dominate in the best possible way (EDIT - justly nominated for Best Cinematography, Costume Design, Production Design and Make-up) . Exuberant colours, smoothless linear scenery; everything is just a feast for the eyes. Our ears gorge too; Alexander Desplat's score is almost never-ending. At times it seems every scene/every moment has an underscore; balanced perfectly between pace and mood. I was initially shocked to find Desplat wasn't nominated at the Golden Globes; until I realise he was up for Best Score for the Imitation Game (2014)) - EDIT - Desplat has been nominated for the Oscar for his score). As for awards; the film has already been nominated at the Golden Globes for Best Picture - Comedy, Best Actor (Fiennes), Best Director and Best Writing (both Anderson); and Best Ensemble at the SAG. Really the film has but three flaws: a) Jude Law and Tom Wilkinson look nothing alike; I can't believe that a mere 17 years apart morphs one into the other b) on the subject of double-ups; F. Murray Abraham is of Syrian-Assyrian descent, where as Toni Revolori is Guatemalan. That's Middle East vs. Central America for the geographically inept; two actors with two vastly different skin tones... it just felt so unbelievable that they were the same character c) the ending dragged (which I find with all Anderson films); and could have been trimmed a touch. I do feel more complexity could have been added to the revolutionary undertones of an Eastern European country on the brink of war (since it's a very topical and "now" issue) but that's not the world Anderson lives in; his films aren't about scathing social commentary, they are about the joy of the ludicrousness of people. And who could fail to love that?

OVERALL
A beautifully whimsical (if somewhat depthless) film; with a fantastic ensemble lead by Ralph Fiennes (in one of his finest performances to date). Playful, engaging and a score that deserves endless praise. Excellent pacing leading to a tad anti-climatic finale; it's still a real treat on every level.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]

[Kieran_Frost]

MCCABE & MRS MILLER (1971)
dir. Robert Altman
writer. adapted from Edmund Naughton's 1959 novel McCabe
Starring: Warren Beatty, Julie Christie [nom.], Rene Auberjonois, Keith Carradine and Hugh Millais

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1902, Washington state. John McCabe (Beatty) a gambler and gunslinger is establishing his own town in the West; equipped with saloon, barber, church and whorehouse. Enter enterprising brothel madam: Mrs Constance Miller (Christie).

THOUGHTS: the vast majority of the first two-thirds bares an uncanny resemblance to the TV series Deadwood; which is a good thing. The negotiating and establishing of a second chance in the frontier, having strange bedfellows; with drinking, swearing and whores… even Keith Carradine shows up (albeit much younger). It was delightful (if more fascinating than exciting). The star of the film is cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond (the Oscar wining cinematographer for Close Encounter of the Third Kind (1977); as well as Deliverance (1972), the Deer Hunter (1978) , Altman’s own the Long Goodbye (1973) and the TV miniseries the Mists of Avalon). From the sweeping shots of waterlogged Washington State, to the crisp, cool air in winter; he crafts the world we see in stunning realism. The final "cat-and-mouse" in the snow-drenched town is magnificent thanks to him (and Altman... and nature for changing from rain to snow before shooting commenced). I have a great respect for Robert Altman, he throwing himself into whatever genre he explores; and it’s always worthy (if not necessarily exciting, RE: Nashville (1975)). The detail of this film is excellent, from character establishment to historical mentalities BUT… it’s just a bit slow. All westerns build slowly to a dramatic showdown (that’s a staple of the genre and I except that); but here the leaps in time (while effective) take the story where it so obviously is going (the establishment of the settlement, the success of McCabe’s gamble due to the business savvy of Mrs Miller’s whorehouse, etc). If you’re going to be obvious, do it quickly; don’t spend half your film being slow in your predictability. But maybe I'm being too harsh? Maybe it's only predicable NOW thanks to pioneers like Altman deconstructing what a Western is and who dominates it? For me the surprises come towards the final third, with the introduction of the three bounty hunters: the Butler (played with a glee as a British gentleman by Hugh Millais), Breed and the Kid; and McCabe’s less than gallant attempts to avoid them. I enjoyed seeing the "heroic" lead actually be a coward, hiding behind lawyers and women; shooting his enemy in the back from the shadows where he was hiding like a scared child. As for performances: everyone is solid, but no-one really stood out. I’ve never been a massive fan of young Julie Christie; a young Julie Christie reminds me of Kiera Knightly: someone who is incredibly pretty but who’s talents are (somewhat) limited. Her arrival in camp is built upon how she’s uncouth and yes, quite ugly. Great, love it; THEN WHY spend the rest of the film putting her in flattering light and speaking gently (disguising the brashness of her effected accent)? Similarly I adored the introduction; with Leanard Cohen's "the Stranger Song" dominating the setting; but repetition of his voice (in repetitive songs that I didn't even realise were different lyrics until the credits) didn't gel. What works for the opening titles doesn't always translate to mid-film-hiatus.

OVERALL
An extremely well made film; but lacks the inevitable fire of some of Altman’s better work. Not really a ‘great’ Western, but an important one in deconstruction of the genre; with likeable lead performances and a fantastic final act.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE IRON GIANT (1999)
dir. Brad Bird
writer. adapted from Ted Hughes’ 1968 novel the Iron Man: A Children’s Story in Five Nights
Voice Talents of: Eli Marienthal, Jennifer Aniston, Harry Connick Jr, Christopher McDonald and Vin Diesel

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1957, Rockwell; Maine. Hogarth Hughes (Marienthal), an excitable but lonely nine year old witnesses a "falling star" which he tracks deep into the forst; only to discover it's actually a massive metal creature; alone, scared and with the mentality of a child.

THOUGHTS: My overriding thought is how annoying it is rebranding "the Iron Giant" because in America "Iron Man" was now synonymous with Tony Stark! This is cute! Before he was winning Oscars for the Incredibles (2004) and Ratatouille (2007) director Brad Bird introduced us to this quaint little gem. It's not brilliant; it's solid, beautifully animated and fun. Brad Bird (like the legendary Hayao Miyazaki) is very skilled at adding playful irrelevances to his shots. I love that! The animation is so crisp and encompassing, I love that too. The story... the dialogue... I'm loving that less. The giant heel-turn of Kent Mansley into full-blown evil nuclear bomb detonating mad-man came out of no-where; and "stock character" doesn't even begin to describe most of the cast. But visually it's a treat. This is the film that beat Tarzan (1999), the Prince of Egypt (1998) A Bug’s Life (1998), South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (1998) and Antz (1998) to “Best Picture” at the Annie Awards (the highest accolade available at the time for animated feature films). Also: WOW! What a good year for animated films that was!!!! The story is undestamdable altered from Hughes original concept. All references to the “Space Bat Angel Dragon” are gone; though the overriding theme of warmongering remains which was ultimately the point. I felt the cheap resolution to end tragedy wasn't needed; and dampened the climax. Only Eli Marienthal stood out when it came to voice acting; the rest were servicable but mediocre.

OVERALL
It’s cute. It’s a touch basic in plot and ideas; compared to the complexity many animated films achieve these days (including Bird himselff). This very much feels like a movie “for kids” story, in an animated world rich in detail and cleverness which adults can enjoy. A way to pass the time, but nothing special.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B-]

[Kieran_Frost]

I watched about 45 minutes of Mike Leigh's Naked (1993) before switching it off; a worthless film! A man harasses his masseuses into a date, despite her repeatedly saying no... BUT SHE THEN GOES ON ONE WITH HIM!!! A man bites a woman's lip hard (during what she thought was a romantic kiss). She laughs and stays (where as any other woman would leave at that point). David Thwelis shows up on the doorstep of his ex-girlfriends house (total stranger to her housemate... AND SHE LET'S HIM IN because he smiled at her -- because women are a) that stupid, and b) that shallow... apparently). Then, when the ex-girlfriend comes back Thwelis spends the entire time insulting her and making it clear he hates her. Does she tell him to leave? Of course not, she goes to her room and PINES for him while he then f*ck's her housemate. Having met for all of one day, the housemate naturally falls madly in love with him despite that fact he belittles her, insults her in the street; and then, when she says she likes him, he pulls her arm behind her, grabs her throat... does she scream, tell him to f*ck off? No, she says "I love you." So he pulls harder, nearly breaking her arm... so naturally then they have sex (where he violently rapes her). A whole two days later; during which time no-one tells him to leave, despite how horrible he is to everyone, he's going out without the housemate so naturally she cries and pines and weeps (this is a man who she's met for two days, and spent half of it assaulting her physically and emotionally). This film is an insult to women. If ONE female was like this, fine. It's tackling a serious issue. But all four women in the film show absolutely no backbone, no personality, and it comes across as almost "justifying" the men behaving like this, because CLEARLY all women find it acceptable and reward them for doing it. Misogynistic bullsh*t; easily his worst film (and a shamefully offensive one at that!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAPER MOON (1973)
dir. Peter Bogdanovich
writer. based on Joe David Brown's 1971 novel Addie Pray [nom.]
Starring: Ryan O'Neal, Tatum O'Neal [OSCAR], Madeline Kahn [nom.] and P.J. Johnson

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Alabama, during the Great Depression. Eight year old Addie Loggins (Tatum) is now orphaned, and at the funeral of her mother is handed over to con man Moses Pray (Ryan); who will take Addie to her aunt's house in St. Joseph, Missouri.

THOUGHTS: the beginning was annoying, then creeeeeeepy! Firstly you have weird text-style for the credits (making some names impossible to read); but the worst part was when an 8 year old girl is handed over to a complete stranger (they do not even know his name, and met him for less than two minutes) to travel alone with him to another state because he's "going in that direction." Amber alert, anyone??? BUT; once the awfulness of the premise was over... it turned into an awesome film! Real life father/daughter Ryan and Tatum are a dream combination. Both have perfect comic timing, the right amount of wit and intelligence to make their characters believable yet likeable. From the diner scene onwards, it sparkled with charm. What I love is this wasn't a sugar-coated story about how the innocence of a young girl inspires him to change his ways; oh no! Addie smokes, curses and helps him in his cons, actually making them better at deceiving people as a double act. The film is right to show (under Addie's guidance) they don't con those who can't afford it; nor are they heartless. The power of the film comes from the underlining motivations of Addie. Ultimately she's just a lonely little girl, who misses her mother and longs for a father. The scene where she tries on her mother's pearls and sprays herself with her mother's perfume = damn, that made me well up. Tatum proves that children can act, she's PERFECT! With all the coaching in the world, one shot scenes that long can't be done if the talent lies with the director, rather than the actor. That said credit must go to the director, because the pacing is great and all the actors impress. The wonderful J.P. Johnson as Miss Trixie Delight's truth-telling, put upon maid was a delight; it's a shame she didn't do more movies (and a shame she was only in this one for a little bit). Lastly, they were right to never really confirm whether he was her father or not; it wasn't needed. It was about bonds and loneliness, which was captured perfectly amid a sea of mirth and humour.

OVERALL
After a very clunky set-up; the film barrels along. Heart-warming without being sickly, hilarious without lacking truth. A gem of a double-act, and a delightful tale all round. Had me laughing out loud at numerous moments; I'd definitely recommend.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]



FUN FACT: At age 10 Tatum O'Neal became (and remains) the youngest person to win a competitive Oscar (she was awarded Best Supporting Actress for this film).

[America / Bucky / Russia]

Judgement at Nuremberg was a surprisingly good film, and I don't even like biopics.

[Kieran_Frost]

Judgement at Nuremberg was a surprisingly good film, and I don't even like biopics.

Me neither. It's interesting you call it a biopic, I never thought of it in those terms, but when it was made (about events barely 10 years old) I suppose calling it "a historical film" would be wrong. That's a great point.

"Top 5" Favouirte Biopics
1. • the • Elephant • Man • (1980)
2. Андрей Рублёв (1966) ~ Andrei Rublev ~
3. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
4. Judgement at Nuremberg (1961)
5. Carravaggio (1986)
RUNNER-UP: Quiz Show (1994)

What about you?

[Conch22]

On the subject of Guardians, my main issue, and I feel this is very true of the marvel cinematic universe in general, is they seem to be afraid of too much depth (thematically or emotionally). I read a trollCritics review citing the overwrought melodrama as being bad with DoFP, which differing opinions. But Marvel has really wooed the fanbase (through a sense of manifest destiny concerning the properties, some exceptionally well cast actors, serializing event movies and fanservice of the main audiences childhood).

Despite this, they follow a very clear and calculated formula (everything is romcomed for solo's (or voyeuristically so in Winter Soldier), cheap jokes are used to detract from more serious moments. When Rocket described the torture he'd endured, you'd expect that to be an emotionally resonant moment. Nope, factoid blurted, eyeblink quick awkwardness, then dropped. Too dark, emotional beat thats not cheery enough. The opening with young Peter Quill was surprisingly sombre and surprised me. Was then glossed over mostly (the music being a last link of sorts was a nice touch) and then emotional puppy dog eyes, a 26 year delayed grief reaction sandwiched between jokes about murder being bad and quips about what plucky outlaws they are. It is a formula, very calculated, despite the leeway that may be allowed for specific properties.
Did not intend to rant that long. I actually did enjoy the movie alot though it is overhyped in my opinion.