Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Panic]

It's been at least a decade since I watched The Third Man. I keep hearing how great it is but I just didn't really appreciate it at the time. At the moment the Blu-Ray is sitting in my Amazon wish list, but I'm kind of hoping it'll pop up on tv so I can see if I like it enough to want to own it.

[Derek Metaltron]

Awesome list. Mine would look something like this:

1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
2. Reservoir Dogs
3. Almost Famous
4. City Lights
5. The Great Escape
6. Band of Outsiders
7. Dr. Strangelove (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)
8. Dazed and Confused
9. M
10. 2001: A Space Odyssey
11. The Godfather Part II
12. 12 Angry Men
13. Inglourious Basterds
14. Taxi Driver
15. Alien
16. The 400 Blows
17. The Empire Strikes Back
18. Goodfellas
19. The Godfather
20. Lost in Translation
21. To Live and Die in L.A.
22. The Seventh Seal
23. 8 1/2
24. His Girl Friday
25. Citizen Kane
26. The Shining
27. Rio Bravo
28. Rear Window
29. The Third Man
30. Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion
31. Once Upon a Time in the West
32. Stalker
33. Blade Runner
34. The Fisher King
35. The Thin Red Line
36. Apocalypse Now
37. The Night of the Hunter
38. The French Connection
39. Jaws
40. Vertigo
41. Raiders of the Lost Ark
42. The Seven Samurai
43. Inside Llewyn Davis
44. Synecdoche, New York
45. Breathless
46. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
47. Pulp Fiction
48. Badlands
49. Mulholland Drive
50. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
51. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg
52. Aliens
53. Star Wars
54. The General
55. The Maltese Falcon
56. Wild Strawberries
57. Shane
58. Red River
59. Mad Max: Fury Road
60. Ben-Hur
61. Pyscho
62. Yojimbo
63. Lawrence of Arabia
64. Frances Ha
65. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
66. Annie Hall
67. The Thing
68. The Untouchables
69. The Shawshank Redemption
70. Jackie Brown
71. Godzilla (1954)
72. Persona
73. Red River
74. Modern Times
75. It Happened One Night
76. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
77. Tokyo Drifter
78. Vanishing Point
79. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul
80. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
81. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
82. Chinatown
83. Boogie Nights
84. The Silence of the Lambs
85. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
86. It Happened One Night
87. Unforgiven
88. The Exorcist
89. Cinema Paradiso
90. The Warriors
91. Eraserhead
92. Raging Bull
93. The Terminator
94. All That Jazz
95. The Driver
96. Nosferatu
97. King Kong (1933)
98. The Magnificent Seven (1960)
99. The Exorcist
100. Fargo

It's a very flexible order and this is more of a personal list. I also have a lot of blind spots.

Seen nineteen of those. I think it's common to focus on movies of your rough era of life more sometimes, bar a few of the classics. I also think your tastes change over time. My Dad's favorite movie is apparently Duel, and as a kid when I saw it I couldn't get the appeal and thought the ending was silly. Now though I think it's a pretty good flick.

[Za Waldo]

Kieran has compiled a list of his favourite films from the "worthy" lists of several sources. Of course there will be only be worthy, well regarded films in the list as only they were taken into consideration. Kieran isn't trying to be objective, he's taken what others consider objectively great movies, then he's come up with his own (subjective) favourites from that group. You've got a personal, subjective list from an impersonal, supposedly objective list. It is what it is. I can see why he has done this, though a list 100 names long in some ways is less interesting than a list of say 10 favourite films out of "the greats", which is I guess why he's included presumably his top 10 at the top of the page in poll form (Lord of the Rings appears to be his favourite of "the best" movies).

The original post doesn't say his Top 100 was only made of movies from other list. It only says that in a concerted effort to watch all the "greatest films" he went through a number of 100 Greatest Films list to help that along. The original post also talks about the ways in which they're trying to be objective, no more than five films can be on the list with the same actor or director (which seems like a very weird rule, but a rule I've seen others on the internet say they have; not a lot, but I've seen people bring that up in movie list threads before) because he believes that just means you're too in love with whoever to be impartial, and that they're trying to gauge their appreciation and enjoyment of a film to make objective choices about what gets in and where it goes. That latter one seems like a normal list making thing anyways.

I'm not trying to get on your nerves or anything, but...

Look at the list. The whole list. Notice any sort of pattern?

Kieran has listed the films in alphabetical order, not order of merit. The African Queen is third because alphabetically it comes third. I don't know why he bothered numbering them, it is a little confusing, but there it is. Look at his poll at the top of the page to see his favourites in order (I'm assuming).

I wasn't looking at the list at the moment I was writing that. I'd just given it a scan the day before because it happened to be on that last page too. I wasn't thinking about it being in alphabetical order when replying to you in the morning.

[AndrewCrossett]

Every so often I want to put together "100 best" lists, but then I wonder how I would justify what makes #77 better than #78. I might be able to get a top 10 in approximate order, but after that it would be "the other 90." And I would agonize so much over what I had to leave off that I would probably just give up.

I own 24 of the titles in the above list on DVD.

My list of "100 favorite movies" would probably look a lot different than my list of "100 greatest movies."

[Za Waldo]

Seen nineteen of those. I think it's common to focus on movies of your rough era of life more sometimes, bar a few of the classics. I also think your tastes change over time. My Dad's favorite movie is apparently Duel, and as a kid when I saw it I couldn't get the appeal and thought the ending was silly. Now though I think it's a pretty good flick.

It all depends I guess. I loved Duel when I was little, would come on either Sci-Fi Channel or HBO a lot when I was younger and I'd watch it every time I came across it. Although there is some stuff I watched when I was younger that I couldn't believe I liked when I got a little older, or in some cases a lot older.

[Za Waldo]

Every so often I want to put together "100 best" lists, but then I wonder how I would justify what makes #77 better than #78. I might be able to get a top 10 in approximate order, but after that it would be "the other 90." And I would agonize so much over what I had to leave off that I would probably just give up.

I own 24 of the titles in the above list on DVD.

My list of "100 favorite movies" would probably look a lot different than my list of "100 greatest movies."

There's always some point when you're trying to draw up a list like that where it starts feeling unwieldy. Where you've got this giant pool of movies and you start wondering why this would go over that. You ever see that list of Edgar Wright's 1000 Favorite Movie?

Just saw this when I googled it.

[Panic]

There are a whole bunch of films I didn't enjoy when I first saw them but came to appreciate later, sometimes after several rewatches: Blade Runner, Yojimbo, On Her Majesty's Secret Service... what you are looking for in a film when you are 16 is not always what you're looking for at 26, or 36, or 46. And sometimes you've just had a bad experience with your first exposure to the film, maybe because of the version you watched was not so good (tv edits can be very bad).

[AndrewCrossett]

There's always some point when you're trying to draw up a list like that where it starts feeling unwieldy. Where you've got this giant pool of movies and you start wondering why this would go over that. You ever see that list of Edgar Wright's 1000 Favorite Movie?

Yeah, and I was kind of amazed at how how many of his choices aligned with mine, as far as those I've seen. Even some of the pretty obscure ones.

IIRC he had his list chronologically, from earliest film to most recent. You probably couldn't get a better movie education than by watching his list all the way through, if you had the time and resources.

[Za Waldo]

There are a whole bunch of films I didn't enjoy when I first saw them but came to appreciate later, sometimes after several rewatches: Blade Runner, Yojimbo, On Her Majesty's Secret Service... what you are looking for in a film when you are 16 is not always what you're looking for at 26, or 36, or 46. And sometimes you've just had a bad experience with your first exposure to the film, maybe because of the version you watched was not so good (tv edits can be very bad).

Maybe for some. I've had more of the opposite. There's really not anything I saw when I was younger that I didn't like but then did in my 20s or whatever. I watched Clockwork Orange in elementary, fell in love with it, and still love it; although I haven't watched it in a few years now, which is probably the longest I've ever went without watching it. But then there's stuff I'll watch now that maybe I was really into when I was like six or seven, and it's like, six and seven year old me was crazy, this is not good at all.

Yeah, and I was kind of amazed at how how many of his
choices aligned with mine, as far as those I've seen. Even some of the pretty obscure ones.

IIRC he had his list chronologically, from earliest film to most recent. You probably couldn't get a better movie education than by watching his list all the way through, if you had the time and resources.

Yeah, it's all chronological. I've been wanting to watch that Wild Zero movie, it's something I totally forgot even existed until I saw that list, and it looks really cool.

[Kieran_Frost]

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (2010) [nom.]
dir. Lisa Cholodenko
writers. Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg [nom.]
Starring: Annette Bening [nom.], Julianne Moore, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson and Mark Ruffalo [nom.]

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Joni (Wasikowska) has just turned 18, and her younger brother (Hutcherson) asks her (as she is now an adult) to contact the sperm bank and find out who their donor is... unknown to their mothers...

THOUGHTS: I was briefly worried that this film would rub me the wrong way; the intro is very try-hard. Drugs, loud music, eye rolling; an exceedingly unoriginal way to quickly convey strife within teenagers BUT luckily that was merely a poor choice for a 'flashy' opening, because the rest of the film is lovely. It's not an easy subject to explore, but that actually makes it quite exciting. In many ways it's a standard film about an affair, it's a simple, tried-and-tested plot. What makes it unique is the (often) unspoken psychology behind the characters, and I love that in any film. We don't get simple conclusions or answers, we don't have everything perfectly resolved. We're left with questions and allowed to form our own conclusions, which is always the bolder (and therefore braver) choice. Now I know there was some controversy at the time of this release, around the idea a lesbian enjoying heterosexual sex, but I feel the film explores this concept well. It's not str8-washing; merely working on the idea of some people's sexuality being more fluid. Was she bisexual? Was she a 5 rather than a 6 on the Kinsey scale? It isn't confirmed, and in truth it doesn't matter too much because she is not the heart of the story: Nic is! And Annette Bening DE-LIV-ERS!!! Much like Sean Penn in Milk (2008) it's not easy to embody that... hmmmm, how to say this tactfully... more "conventional" aspects of a gay man, without letting it slip into caricature, or stereotype. It's a tightrope walk, and Penn masterfully managed it; and so does Bening. She sits legs spread, she holds the fork from above, she leans back with her hand near the crotch, she holds her jaw tight, she is just such a convincing... butch lesbian. And I know, it's akin to stereotypes, maybe you have to see the film to understand but the difference is in the nuances. It's believable. It's well researched. And it is just... TRUE! Stereotypes are based on some truth, Sean Penn had a lisp, he had limp wrists, but the performance is so much more than that, and the same is true here. Bening isn't "just" playing butch lesbian, but she also doesn't forget who her character is, she doesn't drop the strong detail when she has to cry, shout, silently judge. It's a difficult, beautiful performance and she absolutely deserved to win the Oscar over Natalie Portman in Black Swan (2010) (and the fact Bening didn't win was a major misstep by the Academy). And in general I would say the entire ensemble is very impressive. The only other time I've come across Cholodenko's work was the HBO mini-series Olive Kitteridge; which also displayed strong ensemble performances; so credit where it's due: Cholodenko delivers when it comes to teasing out the layers in her cast. Initially I was... surprised... that Ruffalo was nominated. But the more I thought about it, the more I realised how incredibly difficult his role was; he had to be charismatic and likeable in the first half AND THEN (WITHOUT CHANGING DRASTICALLY) be unsympathetic and even a little pathetic. That is not easy to do, without carting out some last minute douchebag attitude (which would have been false for the character). So I applaud his work. I don't know if I'd rank this as quintessential LGBT+ viewing; it's certainly challenging (and remains one of the few LGBT+ films to be up for Best Picture), but ultimately take away the sexuality of the characters and it's a little... tepid. Outside of the performances, nothing stands out. Brokeback Mountain (2005) had (on-top of amazing performances) gorgeous cinematography, evocative directing and that sombre, old-time score that made it truly special. The Kids Are All Right... just has Annette Bening.

OVERALL
Not a ground-breaking drama on the surface, but a very curious subject, championed by an excellent ensemble (lead by a truly exquisite performance from Annett Bening). I didn't find exploration of the subject offensive in-of-itself, partly because it was so respectfully handled (partly because of HOW the story concluded). A very worthy film, but strip everything away it's just a family drama dealing with an affair. Next.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HōHOKEKYO TONARI NO YAMADA-KUN (1999) ~ My Neighbors the Yamadas ~
written & directed. Isao Takahata
Voice Talent: James Belushi, Molly Shannon, Tress MacNeille and David Ogden Stiers

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: the daily lives of the Yamada family; tackling life's little idiosyncrasies, warts and all...

THOUGHTS: I'm so excited for Studio Pocco, the quasi-"relaunch" of Studio Ghibli and their first feature film Mary and the Witch's Flower (2017). But before that happens I'll endevour to watch everything Studo Ghibli has to offer; with only three films left I sat down to watch My Neighbours the Yamadas (no relation to My Neighbour Totoro (1988)). And... yes I have to compliment the imagination of the directing by Isoa Takahata. The style and ideas are very creative, the choice of when to go "uber caricature", when to get heightened in style, etc... but it's all... so... eh. One of the things I look forward to with Studio Ghibli is the gorgeous visuals, and fantastical elements: this film had neither. The art was... serviceable. It told the story. I often felt there were echoes of A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965) in the style and characterization. It was all very twee... and I don't look to Studio Ghibli for TWEE!!! Sure, it's a cute film about family life, but it lacked any gravitas. The vignettes, the haiku after each segment; it all served the story but I just... didn't care. AT ALL. Had this calm set-up ended in something truly tragic, something therefore powerful... well then it would have been a masterpiece. But it lacked importance; why do this film? What possible motivation was there in telling this story; what was Isao trying to convey beyond "yeah... life... huh... tell me about it." YAWN! The only note-worthy praise I can give is the voice acting of Tress MacNeille (Agnes Skinner from the Simpsons/Mom from Futurama). Even in this tepid film, her comedy shined. Ultimately Isao Takahata's films never excite me. It's not a lack of imagination, it's purely an absence of creativity meeting excitement. His work is technically good, that is all. The only one of his films I really enjoyed to any significant degree was Pom Poko (1995), and even then the racoon balls traumatized me so much it's the main thing I remember about the movie. *shudder* Which doesn't bode well because Only Yesterday (1991) and the Red Turtle (2016) are the two Ghibli films that I haven't seen... and he directed the former. Le sigh!

OVERALL
Possibly my LEAST favourite Studio Ghibli film to date!!! Even though Ocean Waves (1993) boiled my blood, at-least it made me feel something. This film... is... just... so... boring. I barely had enough interest to write this tiny ass review. When you look up "eh" in the dictionary, there is a family photo of the Yamadas.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: D+]

[Kieran_Frost]

I'd rate Youth and The Assassination of Jesse... above Zootropolis , Youth taking the top spot between the 3 of them.

I think sometimes my ratings are based (in part) on what the film was trying to achieve, and did it deliver that. Each genre and movie has it's own demons to overcome, and what is "problematic" for one genre, isn't an issue for another, so comparing like-to-like doesn't always work (hence why my "100 Greatest Movies..." list is alphabetical; it's impossible to compare/contrast/evaluate which is better, when they have such different criteria to meet (if that makes sense?).

Zootropolis (2016) set a high bar and delivered. Where as both Youth (2015) and TAOJJBTCRF (2007) failed to hit their own personal markers. While I agree the latter two are (in theory) more worthy, they succeeded LESS than Zootropolis on their goals. Hence the difference in ratings.

I've seen about a fifth of these, not sure whether that's bad or just a reflection of my interests in film.

It's not bad at all; goodness there are so many classics I've still yet to see. I have a list of films to get through, I've never seen (to name a few): City Lights (1931), the Great Dictator (1940), Modern Times (1936), Amores Perros (2000), the Blues Brothers (1980), Sunrise (1927), the Best Years of Our Lives (1946), the Battle of Algiers (1966), 8 1/2 (1963), Persona (1966), la Strada (1954), Avatar (2009), Tokyo Story (1953), Dead Poets Society (1989), Ghost in the Shell (1995), Witness for the Prosecution (1957), Talk to Her (2002), the Wages of Fear (1953), Sherlock Jr (1924), the Gold Rush (1925), Three Colours: Red (1994), Ikira (1952), Bicycle Thieves (1948). I could go on. The list is huge. No-one can see them all, as long as we slowly tick off many of the greats, we can consider ourselves versed in cinema. Plus finding some of them is HARD (unless you want to spend a fortune).

I think Twelve Angry Men is on Netflix though so I might try and give that a watch some time.

Oh do, it's wonderful. Or if you ever get to catch it on stage, the play is GORGEOUS too!

You totally skimmed the opening post where Kieran explained the nature of the list, didn't you?

Ding ding ding ding

Awesome list.

Cheers buddy. As a pet project/hobby goes, I'm very happy with it. Plus it's good for my job to be versed in this stuff.

Mine would look something like this:
6. Band of Outsiders
30. Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion
64. Frances Ha

Ohhhh, I don't know those three, what are they about? Which is your favourite to recommend?

4. City Lights
6. Band of Outsiders
8. Dazed and Confused
21. To Live and Die in L.A.
23. 8 1/2
24. His Girl Friday
27. Rio Bravo
30. Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion
32. Stalker
43. Inside Llewyn Davis
44. Synecdoche, New York
45. Breathless
48. Badlands
51. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg
54. The General
56. Wild Strawberries
58. Red River
64. Frances Ha
71. Godzilla (1954)
72. Persona
73. Red River
74. Modern Times
77. Tokyo Drifter
78. Vanishing Point
79. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul
89. Cinema Paradiso
90. The Warriors
91. Eraserhead
94. All That Jazz
95. The Driver
96. Nosferatu
97. King Kong (1933)

I've not seen these ones. Which was the point I was making to Derek, I consider myself well versed in cinema AND YET despite all the films I know and have seen, there are still so many classics left to enjoy. YEY!
P.S. Also, couldn't help but notice you have Red River twice (58 and 73)

11. The Godfather Part II
14. Taxi Driver
16. The 400 Blows
18. Goodfellas
35. The Thin Red Line
49. Mulholland Drive
66. Annie Hall
92. Raging Bull
98. The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Sorry to say good sir, I REALLY don't like these ones. Some at-least I can appreciate the artistic merit, even though I don't like them. Mulholland Drive (2000)... GOD I hate that film. 95% of the time David Lynch and I do not see eye-to-eye on what is credible art (though I love the Elephant Man (1980)), HA! And I consider Scorcese (arguably) the most over-rated director in history...
#sorryboutit

[Za Waldo]

I don't know, I'd say The Kids Are All Right stands out as being a pretty top rate family comedy. Like a comedy revolving around a family, not one for the family. Although City Island came out right around the same time as The Kids Are All Right and I'd say it's a somewhat similar movie done better. Then again it ain't a bad thing when two good movies of a similar type come out.

What is "quintessential LGBT+ viewing"? You mean some lame shit like "issues movies" which deal with the LGBT+ experience or something boring like that, or just really good movies that happen to have characters that are gay and transsexual in them?

Get a little comic book thing in there, god damn Yaya DaCosta should have played Misty Knight.

[Vegan Daddy]

I can only get to 20 before I feel like I'm just arbitrarily naming movies.

1. Modern Times (1936)
2. Tokyo Story (1953)
3. The Night of the Hunter (1955)
4. Harakiri (1962)
5. The Sword of Doom (1966) - favorite
6. Marketa Lazarova (1967)
7. Kuroneko (1968) - second favorite
8. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9. Once Upon a Time in the West (1969)
10. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
11. Cries and Whispers (1972)
12. The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)
13. Come and See (1985)
14. My Beautiful Laundrette(1985)
15. Ran (1985)
16. Mona Lisa (1986)
17. Twelve Monkeys (1995)
18. To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar (1995)
19. The Straight Story (1999)
20. Earthlings (2005)

[Kieran_Frost]

SPOTLIGHT (2015) [OSCAR]
#88th greatest film since 2000 by BBC critics
dir. Tom McCarthy [nom.]
writers. Tom McCarthy & Josh Singer [OSCAR]
Starring: Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo [nom.], Rachel McAdams [nom.], Liev Schreiber and Stanley Tucci

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Walter "Robby" Robinson (Keaton) runs the Boston Globe's celebrated "Spotlight" division, currently looking for a new investigation to sink their teeth into; enter editor Marty Baron (Schreiber) who urges the team to look into an old Globe article about Father John Geoghan...

THOUGHTS: it was... hmmmm. I wanted to like it far more than I did. It's a powerful story, it's a great cast, it's well made; it has all the elements needed to make a great piece of cinema; but it oddly lacked any urgency. Howard Shore's score added more intensity than anything else, it was instantly important, powerful yet small. But the rest? I don't know, it's hard to explain, or put my finger on where the blame lies. Maybe it was the director that dropped the ball? Pace and energy is often down to directing (and editing). While the film happens over a long period of time, it came off more as lethargic than anything else. The phrase "spinning their wheels" comes to mind (SIDE NOTE: story wise, it was odd to see a film treat 9/11 as an inconvenience). Maybe it's the story? Yes it's based on real life events, so you can only tailor it so much; but everything was signposted. Who on Spotlight was themselves abused, the "mysterious" list that went missing back in the 90s; and the fact the story obviously broke. I had no surprises to excite me; and that's not to say a film needs shock twists (I dislike this modern trend to have "SHOCK TWISTS" in the last 3rd of a film); but a film needs SOMETHING! I need surprise character choices, I need nuggets of directing to bounce along with, I need SOMETHING to take me from point A to B to C without walking in a straight line. Does that make sense? Or maybe it was the performances? Maybe that is where the energy and excitement was lacking? I thought they were decent, but no-one really stood out to me (mayyybe Stanley Tucci shined, but he's an acting god in everything). Mark Ruffalo was solid, but he also had the meatiest role, the showiest moments, and I saw nothing that stretched him as an actor. For all the moments to shine, he merely impressed. And then we come to Rachel McAdams... I don't get it? Why was she nominated? Literally I saw nothing to her performance that warranted it. It wasn't bad, but it was just... decent, like everyone else. It's such a shame, because I love journalist films. All the President's Men (1976), Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), Broadcast News (1987) and the Paper (1994) (amusingly, that also stars Keaton), they all fill me with joy. Hell, I even like I Love Trouble (1994), THAT'S HOW MUCH films about reporters excite me. How did this film fail to ignite that fire within me? Seriously, I'd rather watch I Love Trouble again over Spotlight. Ultimately a "worthy" story, but that's about all I can say. If it was a fictional story rather than based on true events, I'd have read it to filth, because it was boring as hell. And yes I'd have given Best Picture to the Martian (2015); and I refuse to apologies for it. Ha!

OVERALL
An important story, worth telling... but not as gripping or emotionally upsetting as it should have been (or could have been). Oddly quite a gently told tale, very juxtaposition to the subject matter. A long time frame doesn't need to correlate to lack of urgency; and it's bizarre to me that the Social Network (2010), a film about a nerd making a website, had more intensity and drama than a film about the church's cover-up of mass abuse.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: A]


FUN FACT: Spotlight is the first Best Picture to win only two Oscars since The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUICIDE SQUAD (2016)
dir. David Ayer
writer. based on the DC comic books of the same name
Starring: Viola Davis, Will Smith, Margot Robbie, Jai Courtney, Cara Delevingne and Jared Leto

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: intelligence officer Amanda Waller (Davis) is putting together a black ops team to tackle the truly worst scenarios the world has to offer... and she's doing it using super-powered criminals, with no option but to comply with her.

THOUGHTS: I will say... it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be; but it certainly wasn't good. The entire film is very lazy. It's a paint-by-numbers introduction to characters (from their own trending-on-iTunes song, to a cliché -- and brief -- flashback, while heavy music roars and they effortlessly do something smashy smashy killy stabby). It's all designed to batter the audience over the head with one concept: KEWL!!!!!! [insert bro fist-bump] You need to instantly show someone is badass? No problem, add lots of tattoos. Not enough. Throw in a grill. Then have them get in someone's face, that's how badass mother f*ckers talk to one another, right? Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat. Not since the Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) have a felt a superhero film spent so much time telling me how amazing it is, rather than evoking that feeling within me using things like: plot, character beats, originality and intelligence. Add into the mix a director whose idea of cinema is being a carbon copy of Zack Snyder's OTT style; it was never going to be good. THAT SAID it's still fun, to a degree. Viola Davis is giving me life; her character is an unapologetic bitch with a mission, and I loved it. Will Smith is always serviceable and makes it work, House of Cards Joel Kinnaman adds some much needed depth to a character who could very easily be a tedious, 2D soldier and Jai Courtney's comic timing pleased me. But they are all blown away by Margo Robbie. I am SUCH a Margo Robbie fan; she takes lemons and creates a lemonade industry. She carved out a career from a boringly written, substance-less role in Wolf of Wall Street (2013), making it a million times more interesting that pretty T&A; and here she took Harlequin (who could SO EASILY have been a very unnecessarily sexualized goth) and made her this nuanced, bold and fabulous nutcase. Yes her Harlequin oozed sex BUT it was creepy sex. It wasn't attractive, it was terrifying and of all the characters she was at once the funniest, the darkest, the most sympathetic and yet the most messed up. Everything about Margo Robbie screams brilliance. She WILL have an Oscar one day, she's dynamite. And if she doesn't get a solo film for Harlequin out of this I'd be AMAZED. Her male counterpart... was less impressive. Upon release the critics were divided on Jared Leto's Joker. Personally I thought it was awful. The worst Joker I've seen on screen. To take the most iconic villain of comics and make him some grilled, petty, empty vessel... very disappointing. And everything else in the film... just falls flat. I didn't like that the team existed to stop the problem they themselves created. It doesn't allow the complexity that could encompass this concept; how far do you go for security? How much evil can you do in the name of good? I'd have liked the team to take-on the Enchantress separate from the team's formation (then again I'd have ALSO liked a villain not played by a model who can't act). Now I don't know the source material itself (I'm a Marvel boy); but I do love the Thunderbolts. I adore villains, I always have; my dream role in life is to play a Bond villain. And... I... did not care for almost the entire cast of characters. And when someone who has a perchance for villains isn't impressed: dayuuuuuum! That's a misfire. Which is the word to summarize this film: misfire. So for the sequel they need to literal fire David Ayer, explore the real moral quandary of what this team can do, and what that means for the world. And not hire models for acting roles.

OVERALL
It's not wholly offensive as a film, but it's not good either. Any positivity in performance is ruined by generic story beats and an uninspiring showdown; it's so much less exciting than it should have been. Margot Robbie is an all star, and steals every scene; but even she can't rescue this "cliched list of bad ass stuff". The only thing worse than Zack Snyder film is a Zack Snyder imitation.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C-]

[Kieran_Frost]

Every so often I want to put together "100 best" lists, but then I wonder how I would justify what makes #77 better than #78. I might be able to get a top 10 in approximate order, but after that it would be "the other 90." And I would agonize so much over what I had to leave off that I would probably just give up.

I agree it is almost impossible to make a 100 list in order, some films just can't be fairly compared. Which is why my "Top 10" is in order, but my "100 Greatest Films" is alphabetical. It's the fairest way to do it.

My list of "100 favorite movies" would probably look a lot different than my list of "100 greatest movies."

I get what you mean, but I think too often "Greatest" is misunderstood. One of the things I wanted to do with this list is challenge traditional "100 Greatest Films..." lists by critics and film buffs... too often I think they ignore enjoyment. I agree "greatest" doen't mean "favourite" BUT on that same logic "greatest" ALSO does not mean "important." And often "100 Greatest Films" feels like "100 Important Films". Being groundbreaking or a trail-blazer doesn't mean you're the greatest, it just means you were revolutionary. And critics often ignore (in my mind) "fatal flaws" (be it performance, plot, ending, etc) in celebrated films, because it was 'groundbreaking'.

There are a whole bunch of films I didn't enjoy when I first saw them but came to appreciate later, sometimes after several rewatches: Blade Runner, Yojimbo, On Her Majesty's Secret Service... what you are looking for in a film when you are 16 is not always what you're looking for at 26, or 36, or 46. And sometimes you've just had a bad experience with your first exposure to the film, maybe because of the version you watched was not so good (tv edits can be very bad).

Agreed. It took me 3 times watching the Godfather (1972) to finally love it. And 3 times watching Citizen Kane (1942) to just not hate it, ha! Though I do still consider it the most over-rated film in cinema history.