Kieran Frost's "100 Greatest Films"

[Kieran_Frost]

ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS (1969) [nom.]
dir. Charles Jarrott
writer. adapted from Maxwell Anderson's 1948 play of the same name [nom.]
Starring: Richard Burton [nom.], Geneviève Bujold [nom.], Irene Papas, John Colicos, William Squire and Anthony Quayle [nom.]

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1527. Henry III (Burton) is now long (unhappily married to the Spanish princess Catherine of Aragon (Papas), when at a court ball he spies across the room a new face in court, freshly return from France: the beautiful Anne Boleyn (Bujold).

THOUGHTS: initially, I was worried this would be one of those awful period melodramas, very style > substance; and I was delightfully wrong. Admittedly my trepidation was somewhat justified, the first scene has all the subtlety of an ACME anvil falling on Wile E. Coyote. Burton starring mournfully into the camera repeating nonsensical dialogue akin to "Anne. My Anne. Her name was Anne. Anne. I remember... ANNE." To the surprise of no-one that scene was not in the original play. But once Geneviève Bujold appeared... my goodness; she is DYNAMITE! Eerily similar in appearance to Judy Garland (though a better actress, and I feel like a bad homosexual saying that). She brings such determination and guts to Anne, truthfully I've never fully understood Anne Boleyn until this film (and more specifically Bujold's performance). Her scenes with Henry crackle, and I knew I was in for a treat after she doesn't flinch delivering the line "I'd ask him how his wife likes it, your grace." OHHHHH, SNAP!!! Come trough Boleyn! It's a shame she was in a very competative year for actresses (rightfully losing to Dame Maggie Smith for the Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969), followed closely by Jane Fonda's brilliant performance in They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969)). Fascinatingly the first half is almost a revenge piece; akin to the Duchess of Malfi or the Revenger's Tragedy. It's about Anne vs. Cardinal Wolsey; and she is going for blood. Anthony Quayle is excellent, treading the fine line between Machiavellian intend and steadfast loyalist to the crown. His downfall at Anne's hands is truly pitiable (though I wish the writing hadn't given Anne an 'out' for this plot; I wanted her to look Wosley in the eye as he limped and and told him where to stick his Rosary beads). And Irene Papas (who I so adored in the Guns of Navarone (1961) was perfect as the unfairly cast aside queen. She threaded that fine line between jilted wife and fierce queen. I rooted for AND ANNE, which is credit to the film, they didn't need to tear down one woman to elevate the other. The beautiful mirroring of Catherine to Anne, later mirrored in Anne to Jane Seymour was a nice touch, and there were several little (I'd say pro-feminist) nuggets in the film to enjoy. The laughter and applause when Henry publicly forces himself on a clearly unwilling Anne was very uncomfortable (and an excellent comment on the true nature of our monarch). I wish I had enough time to praise each performer, because it really is in the acting that this film shines. John Colicos' layered Cromwell, William Squire (Gandalf!!!) as the noble and shrewd Sir Thomas More, theatre god Michael Hordern's understated gravitas as Anne's father; even the young Nicola Pagett (of Upstairs, Downstairs fame) shined in her brief scene as the future queen Mary. It was a masterclass in acting across the board. The film was nominated for ten Academy Awards, right winning Best Costumes (gorgeous colours, not just "stock" Tudor silhouettes and those masks = GORGEOUS!). The only nomination it did not deserve was Best Sound. The mixing of dialogue vs music and effects was horrible, but that is my only criticism.

OVERALL
A fascinatingly layered and evocative look at Henry VIII's most shocking decision, with an absolutely stellar cast from British theatre. Geneviève Bujold is the definitive Anne Boleyn (and the only actress ever nominated for playing her). A masterclass in acting; though it could have benefited from a little more spice to the score and the overall collectiveness of the piece. Think of it as the Other Man for All Wolfhall
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


FUN FACT: Rex Harrison won a Tony award for playing Henry VIII in the Broadway play of the same name
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD (1965)
dir. Martin Ritt
writer. adapted from John le Carré 1963 novel of the same name
Starring: Richard Burton [nom.], Claire Bloom, Oskar Werner, Cyril Cusack and Peter van Eyck

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: British agent Alec Leamas (Burton) has been recalled to "the Circus" by Control (Cusack) after the death of one of his operatives, to aid in a snare against an East German intelligence officer Mundt (van Eyck)

THOUGHTS: initially I wanted to watch this because like my review above, both films star Richard Burton in the lead and the criminally overlooked theatre god Michael Hordern; and then I discovered it was based on work by John le Carré and I was sold. And the opening is very reminiscent of the TV series Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The term "slow burner" is an understatement, and after half an hour I almost turned it off forever. Luckily the next day I restarted it, and enjoyed it a lot more once I felt more comfortable with the plot. As a story is is excellent, and like the play True West, requires an almost muted first half to justify the snowball effect of the second half. I applaud the plot twists (Carré is the master, after all), and enjoyed the layered comments on cultures (be it capitalist or communist), ideals of purpose and post-war German society. This is a film you watch for enjoyment of the narrative. At first I found the placement of Leamas' girlfriend a little superfluous (I assumed it was a Hollywood addition) but I was too quick to jump the gun. In fact without her the impact of the end would be somewhat muted. Performance wise the film is very stoic, in a good way. I adored Oskar Werner's Fiedler (and he deservedly won the Golden Globe for his work). He was witty and charming, and purposeful and that underlying subtext that this is not just about patriotism but also that understandable hatred for what Mundt did during the war. It occurs to me in my review of Anna of the Thousand Days (1969), I never once commented on Burton's performance. And here... I still don't understand why he's lorded. Was he bad? No. But while Alec Guinness was compelling as the silent, reserved and controlled Smiley; Burton was just... false. His non-blinking meeting with Control, he sombre tones, hell I misinterpreted his stare down with Mundt after the trial (the only emotive moment I enjoyed) as pure hatred, not a man realising he's been played by his own side. I'm going to have be honest, I'm not sure he's deserving of 7 Oscar nominations.

OVERALL
A slow burning, merciless attack on the underlying politics and deception of the Cold War (on all sides). Once Oskar Werner enters, the film barrels along at a good pace, and the pay-off more than justifies the space and tedium of the first half. Not a patch on Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, but superior the Constant Gardener and the Tailor of Panama (which are still really good, for the record).
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: B+]

[Za Waldo]

No answer on what "quintessential LGBT+ viewing" even is? It kind of just sounds like some meaningless platitude, but what exactly would you view as such a thing? Also, how exactly would something be quintessential for those vary different groups that all get grouped under that umbrella.

[Kieran_Frost]

I 'sort of' watched Hacksaw Ridge (2016) and I have to say I was very disappointed. The first half hour is consumed by an exceptionally tedious (and insipid) romance and a very cliche father/son relationship; neither of which involve any interplay chemistry between the stars. Thankfully once we get into the actual training (and later war), Andrew Garfield's natural talent (and pretty, pretty looks) make it watchable... just... but a film isn't made by great make-up and performance alone. It's not a patch on Mel Gibson's greatest directorial effort: Apocalypto (2006) (better pacing, more action, more tension; VASTLY better use of slow-motion). Compared to Apocalypto, this was just... eh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI (2017) [nom.]
dir. Martin McDonagh
writer. Martin McDonagh [nom.]
Starring: Frances McDormand [OSCAR], Woody Harrelson [nom.], Željko Ivanek, Sam Rockwell [OSCAR], Clarke Peters and Peter Dinklage

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Mildred Hayes (McDormand) is angered that seven months have passed since her daughter's brutal murder, yet no progress has been made on the case... so she rents three abandoned billboards near her home, which in sequence read "RAPED WHILE DYING", "AND STILL NO ARRESTS?", "HOW COME, CHIEF WILLOUGHBY?" Chief Willoughby (Harrelson) is not amused...

THOUGHTS: nominated for 7 academy awards, this was the one to beat at the 90th Academy Awards... and sadly it got beat. And it shouldn't have, it's a masterpiece. It's the best film I've seen since Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014). Maybe I'm biased? As a theatre actor, I naturally adore Martin McDonagh. Add to that In Bruges (2007) is already in my "Top 100" and this latest film is (arguably) his finest work to-date (on screen or stage). It's genius; a story that is truly unique (and that is not easy), that not only has a finite end but leaves us with questions, while covering a tremendous amount of ground and character work for a host of people (not just a lead). I cannot praise it enough; McDonagh was robbed at the Oscars (robbed of nomination for director, robbed of Best Picture and utterly dragged through the mud, filth, HOODWINK'D for Best Original Screenplay). It was almost a crime that he didn't win for writing, because this is a film about words. Careful, choice words. A film often has that "staple feel" of a director, but (much like with Aaron Sorkin) a McDonagh film is driven and branded by the script. An utterly hilarious screenplay, that perfectly treads between amusement and heartbreak, almost effortlessly. That's such an incredibly difficult tightrope to walk, and McDonagh knows exactly when to tickle your funnybone or mercilessly suckerpunk you. Sometimes doing it at the same time. STUNNING. And encasing this world of language is a powerhouse central performance by Francis McDormand. Her Mildred is... pure rage. Not that she screams or even shouts a lot (that's a weak actor's choice), but in every moment and look, you feel this utter pain and unbridled (and sometimes uncontrollable) tornado of suffering. It's at once captivating, yet intrinsically sad. This film, for all its (wonderful) humour is just so upsetting, and Mildred breaks your heart with a glance. With a sigh. With her stillness. I never thought McDormand would better Marge Gunderson (for which she won her first Best Actress Oscar)... I was wrong. Quentin Tarantino once said he doubts he'll ever write a better character than Dr. King Schultz. I doubt McDormand will ever better Mildred Hayes. She perfectly encapsulates the black humour and layered complexity of McDonagh's style. It's Hackman's Royal Tenenbaum for Anderson. Spader's Alan Shore for David E. Kelley. Everything McDonagh feels a character should be (driven, chaotic, tough to love, strong, full of pathos), McDormand embodies all these traits in one performance. It was written with her in mind, yes, but on every level the performance is astounding. Without crying very much at all, without shouting very much at all, without visually doing very much at all... she BREAKS MY HEART. I'm actually welling up thinking about it, her monumental inner rage is haunting. And this frozen anger is mirrored so beautifully by Sam Rockwell's explosive Officer Dixon (Lee Marvin to McDormand's John Wayne). I've seen Rockwell on Broadway in McDonagh's A Behanding at Spokane, and he is just perfect for McDonagh's work. He carries this open vulnerability, this loveable pitifulness (which is such a stock character in McDonagh's scripts). Dixon is not an easy character to do well, to not shy away from his darkness, while still retaining enough humanity that we can still root for the possibility he'll better himself one day. I've loved Sam Rockwell's work for years (personally I think he should have been nominated for both Moon (2009) and the Way, Way Back (2013), but he was not). And despite Woody Harrelson's flawless comic delivery as the Sheriff, Rockwell deserved that Oscar win, and he got it, KUDOS! I could dissect each character, they are all so wonderful (Peter Dinklage was excellent); the entire cast is skillfully directed into excellence by McDonagh. And Woody Harrelson's day will come, I know it, but sadly Rockwell had him beat. On every level, Dixon is just funnier, more tragic, more hateful, more heroic; it's the showier role and it won out. And speaking of missing out, HOW was Ben Davis not up for Best Cinematography? It's not easy (obviously) to make a beautiful shot, but I would argue it's even harder creating something gorgeous using nothing "classically beautiful". There were not sunsets across lakes, no slow motion leaves falling from trees, but this film was captivating in it's stripped bare cinematography. The desolate shots, the uncomfortable silence of the morning. It was excellent work. Really the film has only two faults in my eyes: a CGI deer (and even then, it wasn't as offensively bad as, say the CGI cats in Let the Right One In (2008)) and Harrelson's wife felt a little... shaped for plot convenience, rather than her own character. I've liked Abbie Cornish ever since seeing her in Elizabeth: the Golden Age (2006), and she wasn't bad by any means; but when the rest of the cast are a 10... a 7 looks noticeably out-of-kilter.

OVERALL
A simple but compelling plot, allowing countless room to explore one of the most interesting casts of recent years. Every character in the town of Ebbing, Missouri is a gem. A steady, experienced hand guides every element of the film and Frances McDormand delivers one of the finest performances of recent years. It's EVERYTHING you could want in a film; a genuine treat. Original, funny, subtle, tragic, clever, daring. There was no better film at this year's Oscars. It's a masterpiece.
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A++]


N.B. added to my "Top 100"

FUN FACT: McDonagh was inspired to write Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri after seeing billboards about an unsolved crime while traveling "somewhere down in the Georgia, Florida, Alabama corner. The rage that put a bunch of billboards like that up was palpable and stayed with me". Eventually he was inspired to create a fictional scenario around such a situation, noting, "Once I decided, in my head, that it was a mother, everything fell into place."

[Powerboy]

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.

I heartily agree. Most people draw no distinction between what they like and dislike and what is good or bad. All you have to do is read some of the "audience reviews" on Rotten Tomatoes to see that.

I had not seen this thread before and I'll look at what you've listed. Just wanted to thank you for the effort and agree with the sentiment.

[Soubhagya]

Its a really cool thread!

I like it that you are giving a review as you update the list.

I remember when i was a kid, (Kid meaning teenager here), and there was this book on general knowledge. Something like an encyclopedia where there was a Top 300 films section. I simply loved reading that section over and over. It had films from around the world and had a paragraph or two about them. I remembered Rashomon from there. That's why it was the second Kurosawa film i watched.

I like reading such lists about greatest films of all time. When i couldn't watch them, i would read the summary of those films. I remember reading 2001:A Space Odyssey and Apocalypse Now! like that when i was in college. It was only a couple of years ago when i really started watching them. There are so many such films i have not watched yet.

What is that poll? I think its your old list. From the options of the poll i have not watched the following:

-One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
-Singin' in The Rain
- C’era una volta il West
-The Third Man
-Ben Hur

From the rest i enjoy Apocalypse Now! the most. It is a spectacular film. After watching Paths of Glory i am not sure if its my favorite war film anymore. I absolutely loved 'Paths of Glory' in my second viewing. And i have watched 'Apocalyspe Now' only once. Then again i have not seen the likes of Saving Private Ryan, Deer Hunter, Platoon, even the other Kubrick war film 'Full Metal Jacket'.

Anyway do you know why Apocalypse Now! 's name is like this? There was no apocalypse there. It was a slow burn taking away all vestiges of civilization and sanity with both the progress upriver and the film. The only time the name is mentioned is on the wall of Colonel Kurtz's compound as a graffiti.

I am yet to watch a lot of films. So, i can't make a Top 100. But i have an idea for some of my favorites. For my #1, i am hard pressed to choose between Godfather, Godfather 2 and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bring in a couple of films like Lawrence of Arabia, Taxi Driver, The Shining, Seven Samurai, etc. and i think i can make a personal top 10 for now. Maybe a top 20. But when i have not watched so many, i am not making a top 10. Maybe by the end of this year i will have a top 10. Since the beginning of the year i am in a roll. I have watched close to 40 films including the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, On The Waterfront and more.

And i must congratulate and thank you for your efforts.

[Kieran_Frost]

I heartily agree. Most people draw no distinction between what they like and dislike and what is good or bad. All you have to do is read some of the "audience reviews" on Rotten Tomatoes to see that.

Very true. It's always disappointing seeing how more people will give a 1 star (or 10 star) than a 2 or 3 or 8 and 9 (out of 10) on (say) IMDB. Too many people take the attitude "if I don't like it, it's worthless" or "if I love it, it's flawless". Which is absurd, you can respect something, and not enjoy it. You can love something, and know it's still pretty void of any artistic merit. You can dislike something, and still see some talent. Even bad films have good performances, or beautiful costumes. Very, very, VERY few movies genuinely deserve 1 out of 10. Almost none, even. I only rate out of 5, but I also give a grade. I don't think I've given any film an F. Maybe not even a D- (I'd have to check)... possibly Lolita (1962)...

Just wanted to thank you for the effort and agree with the sentiment.

I like it that you are giving a review as you update the list.

Part of me thinks I need to go back and review the films that were already in the list before I started this thread. I'd love to read my thoughts from when I first watched the Silence of the Lambs (1991) or the Godfather (1972). That would be fascinating to see if (at the time) I realised how much I'd come to love those films.

I remember when i was a kid, (Kid meaning teenager here), and there was this book on general knowledge. Something like an encyclopedia where there was a Top 300 films section. I simply loved reading that section over and over. It had films from around the world and had a paragraph or two about them. I remembered Rashomon from there. That's why it was the second Kurosawa film i watched.

I like reading such lists about greatest films of all time. When i couldn't watch them, i would read the summary of those films. I remember reading 2001:A Space Odyssey and Apocalypse Now! like that when i was in college. It was only a couple of years ago when i really started watching them. There are so many such films i have not watched yet.

For me, it all started because I was tired of directors referencing films to explain to me character beats or motivation, and me having no clue about the classics. So I did exactly the same thing, I trawled through numerous lists, compiled the "general consensus" and started working through them. I've still got tons to see, of course, but I've mostly seen all of IMDB's Top 250, the AFI's Top 100, etc.

What is that poll? I think its your old list. From the options of the poll i have not watched the following:
-One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
-Singin' in The Rain
- C’era una volta il West
-The Third Man
-Ben Hur

The poll is my "Top 10"; which is in order. When it comes to 10 films, I can decide which I want in which placement. 100 it becomes impossible. I'd obviously recommend all the ones you've not seen, they are my ten favourite films for a reason. FUN FACT: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) is one of only three films to win "the top 5" at the Oscars (picture, director, actor, actress and writing); and Ben Hur (1959) is one of only three films to win 11 Oscars.

From the rest i enjoy Apocalypse Now! the most. It is a spectacular film. After watching Paths of Glory i am not sure if its my favorite war film anymore. I absolutely loved 'Paths of Glory' in my second viewing. And i have watched 'Apocalyspe Now' only once. Then again i have not seen the likes of Saving Private Ryan, Deer Hunter, Platoon, even the other Kubrick war film 'Full Metal Jacket'.

I like Paths of Glory (1957) (in fact I think it's reviewed in this thread, probably near the beginning) and Full Metal Jacket (1987) is in my "Top 100" (so obviously I love it). The other three, I'm not such a fan of; but in general war films aren't my favourite genre of cinema. I often find them very "str8 guy movies"; where the idea of 'what a man is' becomes the stimulus of enjoyment for the audience.

I am yet to watch a lot of films. So, i can't make a Top 100. But i have an idea for some of my favorites. For my #1, i am hard pressed to choose between Godfather, Godfather 2 and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bring in a couple of films like Lawrence of Arabia, Taxi Driver, The Shining, Seven Samurai, etc. and i think i can make a personal top 10 for now. Maybe a top 20. But when i have not watched so many, i am not making a top 10. Maybe by the end of this year i will have a top 10. Since the beginning of the year i am in a roll. I have watched close to 40 films including the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, On The Waterfront and more.

I love helping people make a "Top 10". Generally I think it should have a variety of genres, so you have a good spread, and a variety of time periods and concepts. And a variety of actors (which is why, as I said in the OP, no director can have more than 5 films in my "Top 100", because obviously personal bias is now clouding my critical eye). For example I think both Taxi Driver (1976) and Raging Bull (1980) are too similar to have in a Top 10. So compare both, and decide which you think is ultimately the better film.

And i must congratulate and thank you for your efforts.

[Kieran_Frost]

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (2017)
dir. Sir Kenneth Branagh
writer. adapted from Agatha Christie's 1934 novel of the same name
Starring: Sir Kenneth Branagh, Johnny Depp, Penélope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Dame Judi Dench, Sir Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Daisy Ridley

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: 1934, Jerusalem. Famed detectice Hercule Piorot (Branagh) is urgently called back to London, and quickly books a place on the Orient Express from Istanbul, where he meets the unscrupulous businessman Edward Ratchett (Depp)... who belives his life in in danger...

THOUGHTS: the fourth outing of Christie's magnum opus, and you can't really go wrong with such a flawless story... though they almost do. Adapted by Michael Green, the Academy Award nominated writer of Logan (2017); I both like and dislike the tweeks to the story. As a big fan of the 1974 Albert Finney film of the same name, I thought it was a smart choice to drastically change the breakdown of Greta (Ingrid Bergman won her third Oscar for that role, so any attempt to compete would be a failure)... but it resulted in Penélope Cruz basically having little to do; and for a very talented actress it feels like a waste. And that is an overriding theme with this film: many skilled performers were wasted, as we moved further and further from the ensemble story to a more Poirot centered exploration. Now I'm not against reworking a classic, but if you are going to do that: COMMIT!!! If you want to make it about Poirot do that, if you want to focus more on Daisy Ridley over the other actor, fine, go there. But you have to embrace ALL the changes that emerge from those decisions; because like an tapestry, pulling one thread will unravel far more than want you initially wanted. Of all the murder mysteries in the world, this is arguably the most iconic, and the revelation of the murderer was groundbreaking. Maybe by modern standards it's less shocking, but when it was first written no-one had ever thought to do that. There is a reason it's an ensemble film. There is a reason time with each suspect is evenly distributed. And if you're going to unravel that by focusing on Poirot and Mary (which is fine) then you needed to change the ending. A tepid re-imagining won't cut it; because you've damaged the ending. So as a film it doesn't work. That said it's still very enjoyable, with Branagh at the helm and that cast it was always going to be enjoyable. We get some beautiful set-pieces and evocative moments emerged (like tea on an open carriage with the stunning snow clad vista or the showdown in the tunnel outside the train); and of the cast Daisy Ridley was the most interesting character after Poirot (partly because she got the most screen time). It's not a failure, it just... sadly unraveled the impact by changing the plot. Pity.

OVERALL
An enjoyable film, but the twist is unintentionally dismantled by focusing more on Piorot and Mary than the ensemble. Visually it's gorgeous, and Branagh is an astute director, but this just didn't deliver. I do look forward to his Death on the Nile adaptation in 2019. I think that story will handle re-imagining better.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B-]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS (2015)
dir. J. J. Abrams
writer. inspired by the characters and universe created by George Lucas
Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver with Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: Thirty years after the Galactic Civil War, the First Order (risen from the Galatic Empire) and the New Republic (birthed from the Resistance) both seek out pilot Poe Dameron (Isaac) who is carrying the most sacred treasure of all: an exact planetary location of the lost Jedi master, Luke Skywalker...

THOUGHTS: Forgive me for being late to the party. I've put off watching this because of the complete absence of LGBT+ characters in the Star Wars film franchise (and with JJ Abrams at the helm, that's sadly unlikely to change). BUT as my friend had the DVD, I can now watch it guilt free knowing I've not financially supported a franchise that excludes LGBT+ characters. White knight rant over, now onto the film... I'd not necessarily call myself a "fan boy" of Star Wars (that seems like a very specific idolization), though I do adore Star Wars: Episode V - the Empire Strikes Back (1980) (and have incredibly fond childhood memories of the original trilogy, and the "special edition" re-release in cinemas when I was a teenager). So while being well versed in the lore, I'm not too bothered about continuity, nor fussed about contradicting the novel canon (RE: Chewbacca's death). My main gripe with this 7th installment... was nothing felt original (quelle surprise). Everyone's forgotten AGAIN about what happened, despite it being what? Only 20 years? Another spherical planet destroyer, another cloaked Sith, another black robed apprentice with a red lightsaber, another genius warrior orphan on a desert planet, another cute short robot who creates the catalyst of the story, another... it just all felt like bad nostalgia. Don't get me wrong, I love harking back to the past and adding little Easter eggs for fans, but NOTHING about the plot or ideas felt original. There is nostalgia and then there's shameless re branding with the original brush strokes. Unlike Star Trek (2009) where JJ Abrams cleverly took the nostalgia and flipped it by diverging the timelines (and characters), here it just felt like a poor imitation of Star Wars (1977). Central to the overall "meh" feeling is Daisy Ridley. Now I've just watched Murder on the Orient Express (2017) (SEE: above), and was surprised. I thought she was good in that, where as originally (because of this film) I wrote her off as "just a weak actress". She reminded me a lot of Emma Watson's Hermione Granger, far too try hard, putting excessive importance into each line or word. She'll run for ages, then come to a stop and isn't breathing heavily or looking tired; there's no detail to her performance. She isn't helped by the writers pulling a Michael Burnham on her (though, alas, absent of Sonequa Martin-Green incredible nature charm), by shoving the characters "awesomeness" in our faces, and showing her to outshine/outsmart every other character she comes across. Of course she teaches Han how to operate his own ship, because that a) makes sense, b) isn't completely off putting to viewers. Of course she can take on AND DEFEAT a trained Sith having never wielded a lightsaber in her life. Of course Leia goes to hug her over Chewbacca after Han's death, because it's Rei that needs a cuddle, because she loved Han the most (having spent all of three days with him). Kewl, right? Ugh. Writers need to learn that you can make a character impressive, without it being at the expense of others. You can show a character is a wunderkind, without them unrealistically winning at everything. And it's ironic that they give Rei so much, then have poor John Boyega barely able to defeat a Stormtropper. A STORMTROOPER!!! LOL!!! Talk about night and day in their mindset on character feats. Thankfully the film has two saving graces: Carrie Fisher (*sniff*) is simply perfect as General Leia Organa and Oscar Isaac is a force to be reckoned with; he always shines. Poe is easily the most interesting and complex character of the film, and I give Isaac the credit for that. More Poe, more Poe, MORE POE! Ugh, and one last complaint: that ending. Holding out the lightsaber and just staring for ages... it looked silly. Not since that arse shot at the end of Australia (2008) have I felt a film ended on such a poor cinematic visual.

OVERALL
It's not the worst Star Wars film (Revenge of the Sith (2005) will - probably - forever hold that title), but it's not good either. A rather predicable and uninspiring continuation of a story that was already wrapped up. Unlike the prequels, these really did NOT need to be made in anyway, shape or form.
~ rating: 2 out of 5 [grade: C+]

[Confuzzled]

Geneviève Bujold is the definitive Anne Boleyn (and the only actress ever nominated for playing her).

My personal favorite Anne Boleyn is Natalie Dormer from TV's The Tudors, a painfully overlooked performance. Dormer's portrayal of Anne's metamorphosis from a cunning and calculating seductress climbing through the ranks to an emotionally desperate and paranoid queen losing her accumulated power was fascinating to watch. Genevieve Bujold is a solid second, but Dormer's role is exactly how I imagined AB to be IRL.

[Kieran_Frost]

As a side note: I bumped out All the President's Men (1976) for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

My personal favorite Anne Boleyn is Natalie Dormer from TV's The Tudors, a painfully overlooked performance. Dormer's portrayal of Anne's metamorphosis from a cunning and calculating seductress climbing through the ranks to an emotionally desperate and paranoid queen losing her accumulated power was fascinating to watch. Genevieve Bujold is a solid second, but Dormer's role is exactly how I imagined AB to be IRL.

Like many others I adore her from GoT; I can easily imagine she'd add such shine to Anne Boleyn. I never saw the series (while I'd happily stare at JRM naked, I have little respect for his acting); but I have heard others rave about her in it.

Very true. It's always disappointing seeing how more people will give a 1 star (or 10 star) than a 2 or 3 or 8 and 9 (out of 10) on (say) IMDB. Too many people take the attitude "if I don't like it, it's worthless" or "if I love it, it's flawless". Which is absurd, you can respect something, and not enjoy it. You can love something, and know it's still pretty void of any artistic merit. You can dislike something, and still see some talent. Even bad films have good performances, or beautiful costumes. Very, very, VERY few movies genuinely deserve 1 out of 10. Almost none, even. I only rate out of 5, but I also give a grade. I don't think I've given any film an F. Maybe not even a D- (I'd have to check)... possibly Lolita (1962)...

To answer my own question: NO, I DIDN'T. I checked. The only 1 star films are below, and I didn't give any of them D-. And I HATED Lolita, and I didn't even give it a D-. Clearly I'm far more rational with my grading that I realised, HA!
ELYSIUM (2013) ★☆☆☆☆ D
LOLITA (1962) ★☆☆☆☆ D
THE HOBBIT: BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES (2014) ★☆☆☆☆ D
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (2011) ★☆☆☆☆ D+
SHAME (2011) ★☆☆☆☆ D

[Confuzzled]

Like many others I adore her from GoT; I can easily imagine she'd add such shine to Anne Boleyn. I never saw the series (while I'd happily stare at JRM naked, I have little respect for his acting); but I have heard others rave about her in it.

Haha JRM is okay but has great chemistry with Nat Dormer (though with her, who doesn't?). I highly recommend watching the show as long as Anne is alive. After her execution it loses a lot of its spark for good reason (AB was the only wife who truly challenged Henry VIII and the others pale in comparison). Then the series finale has Anne visit Henry on his deathbed along with the other dead wives in Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future fashion

Btw you using these Ghibli movie GIF's is giving me life. More Ghibli movie reviews please! And if you are interested, hopefully some other top notch Japanese anime films like Satoshi Kon's works, Your Name, Wolf Children etc.? I promise you these films won't be a waste of your time.

[Soubhagya]

I think we can't agree with Force Awakens (nor do we need to). I loved the film. I wonder what would you say about the latest one if you ever get to see it. 'The Last Jedi'. I absolutely loved the film. It received excellent critical reception, but the online film community is sharply divided.

[Kieran_Frost]

PARIS IS BURNING (1990)
dir. Jennie Livingston

"She bring it to you every ball, why you gagging?"

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: New York 1987. The "golden age" of New York drag, centred around the iconic Harlem ball of Paris Dupree

THOUGHTS: for any fan of RuPaul's Drag Race this is a MUST SEE; every reference you can think of comes from here... but it's also quintessential LGBT+ cinema. In fact quintessential is almost an understatement, it's possibly A PILLAR of LGBT+ cinema. It's that huge (so I'm shamed to say I've only recently seen it). This was from a time where being gay truly was ostracizing; where is was shocking and terrifying (and then you add drag on top of that... it becomes an exceptionally hard life). Where the only community, sense of belong and kindness you found was with other gay people. And this New York, this was brutal. Now I lived in New York, but I was there many years after "Zero Tolerance", I didn't know this New York. Where it's cheaper to get mugged than get a taxi (and you WOULD get mugged). The New York of the Fisher King (1991) is beyond my knowledge, it's otherworldly in a way I cannot truly comprehend. And it's not just about drag, the documentary also tackles the issue of poverty, a class society and race. People who don't have two dimes to rub together, who'll never be an "executive" for a big company, because they are not white, or too feminine... so they have an Executive Category, where they walk in suits and ties with briefcases. Or a Realness Category ("realness" is passing, where you have to serve a look that cannot be clocked as gay; where your masculinity is not questioned). Walking in a Ball was, for them, the highlight of their month, their year; it was a single moment of freedom in an oppressive world. As a massive Drag Race fan, I adored learning where so many catchphrases and challenges come from. To name but few: "It do take nerve", "Shake the dice and steal the rice", "I look at her there and I see style, I look at her here and i see wicked beauty", "it is a known fact a lady DO carry a purse." It was also great to learn the history of things like reading, shade, houses and vogueing. As far as I understand now: Shade comes from Reading, Reading came first. Houses are like street gangs, and Shade is akin to fighting, so rather than warring on the streets, they bring that aggression and rivalry to the Ball, and fight... through Vogueing (Vogueing came out of Shade; it's a physical embodiment of Shade, it's how queens fight). Now I'm not a massive fan of documentaries, they can be fascinating, they can be powerful, but ultimately I find they are "vignettes". The truly evocative moments happen, and it's amazing, but then you're just listening to unscripted thoughts in-between; and therefore it's a little meandering. A little unfinished, or irregular. Between witnessing Willi Ninja's vogueing epicness, or Octavia St. Laurent's modelling or any moment Pepper laBeija spoke... we just had... stuff. And it wasn't bad, but it doesn't excite me. It was interesting learning that is wasn't all about wearing female clothes, it was interesting (and sad) hearing the reality of their lives; but (for me) that doesn't haunt me the way a film can. Documentaries are just not for me. Sorry 'bout it.

OVERALL
Not just a slice of history, but an iconic documentary that was as groundbreaking as it was shocking. Quintessential viewing for LGBT+ cinema, and just a fascinating exploration of New York City and a time when being gay was already so ostracizing, to add being a drag queen on top of that... it do take nerve. They were heroes. Trailblazing heroes.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


FUN FACT: the title is a delightful enigma. I think I've managed to trace the possible origin: Recorded in the Histories by Tito Livius in 219BC Dum Romae consulitur, Saguntum expugnatur ("While Rome is debating, Saguntum is burning"); this was later adapted in an 1871 editorial protesting to Marxist rules Paris "But while the Clubs fiddle, Paris is burning, and will soon have no moments to even laugh at good intentions out of place."

Btw you using these Ghibli movie GIF's is giving me life. More Ghibli movie reviews please!

I'm afraid I've seen nearly all of them, so have almost none left to review. The only ones I've not seen are Only Yesterday (1991), the Red Turtle (2016) and (sort of counting it) Mary and the Witch's Flower (2017).

The ones I've reviewed in this thread are as follows:
MAJO NO TAKKŪIBIN (1989) ~ Kiki's Delivery Service ~ ★★★★☆ B+
HEISEI TANUKI GASSEN PONOKO (2006) ~ Pom Poko ~ ★★☆☆☆ C-
MIMI WO SUMASEBA (1995) ~ Whisper of the Heart ~ ★★★☆☆ C+
KAGUYAHIME NO MONOGATARI (2013) ~ the Tale of Princess Kaguya ~ ★★★☆☆ B
KOKURIKO-ZAKA KARA (2011) ~From Up On Poppy Hill ~ ★★★★☆ B+
MI GA KIKOERU (1993) ~ Ocean Waves ~ ★★☆☆☆ D+
GEDO SENKI (2016) ~ Tales From Earthsea ~ ★★★☆☆ B
WHEN MARNIE WAS THERE (2014) ★★★☆☆ C+
HōHOKEKYO TONARI NO YAMADA-KUN (1999) ~ My Neighbors the Yamadas ~ ★★☆☆☆ D+

I don't think this gives a fair representation of my love of them; just looking at the grades. Firstly, nearly all of Miyizaki's would be 5 stars. Secondly, I grade Studio Ghibli films against one another, so while many of these are still better than 95% of all other animated films, the bar was raised so high by Miyizaki, that being very good is not enough. If that makes sense? Even at their worst, Studio Ghibli is better than most.

And if you are interested, hopefully some other top notch Japanese anime films like Satoshi Kon's works, Your Name, Wolf Children etc.? I promise you these films won't be a waste of your time.

I'd love that; any recommendations on films is welcome.

I think we can't agree with Force Awakens (nor do we need to). I loved the film. I wonder what would you say about the latest one if you ever get to see it. 'The Last Jedi'. I absolutely loved the film. It received excellent critical reception, but the online film community is sharply divided.

Haven't see the latest, as there is no LGBT+ characters still, I'll again wait till a friend has it on DVD. While you disagree, do you think some of my observations were at-least fair (even if they didn't bother you as much as me)?

[Soubhagya]

Haven't see the latest, as there is no LGBT+ characters still, I'll again wait till a friend has it on DVD. While you disagree, do you think some of my observations were fair (even if they didn't bother you as much as me)?

Yes some of your observations are fair. I was annoyed by two things you have mentioned. Rey teaching Solo to operate his own ship. And Leia hugging Rey over Chewbacca. Both of this annoyed me. I explained the first one to myself as Han getting old. But second one has no explanation whatsoever. As you said they may have bothered me less than you. But they did.

If you allow me i will speak my mind where i disagree. I think your criticisms are broadly speaking correct. But they aren't really problems to me. You are right that there are a lot of similarities to New Hope. But i am all for nostalgia if it works well. And it really worked for me. Ever since the Return of The Jedi i had not enjoyed Star Wars this much. Maybe one part is because it was similar. The prequels were really boring to me. They had good visuals and i liked some parts of it. But overall it was meh. But to finally see Star Wars which felt like Star Wars is one reason i hold it in high regard. Other reason is it being a really enjoyable film. I had a great time.

I loved Rey's character. See was quite like Luke Skywalker. (And cute. lol). What works for me is that she was like the audience surrogate. She is a Star Wars fan. She lives in a Star Wars bed. She knows Star Wars as a story like us. Only difference being that for her that's actual history. She would be filled with wonder on seeing Han Solo. Or when she would hear about Luke Skywalker. And i loved her interactions with Finn. I have no problems with her beating Kylo Ren. Kylo Ren was injured by Chewbaca's blaster. That thing was so powerful that it was throwing away people across rooms. On top of that its shown that Rey is not the average guy as Luke Skywalker was in New Hope. She had survived by herself on a planet like Jakku. She's tough. She knows how to fight. (In an earlier scene she easily beat up two guys sent by Unkar, who tried to kidnap BB-8 by using her staff in seconds. She knows how to use a staff). And she actually beat Kylo after she tapped into the Force. Before that she was barely able to hold herself against an injured Kylo Ren. The character of Rey really worked for me. Her backstory was also intriguing But then i loved Hermione Granger too.

And i actually loved the last shot. For the first time i have heard a criticism like this. Its like Rey who on part of us fans want Luke Skywalker back. We want him back and be a hero as he once was. I can see why you disliked it. But for me it had the opposite effect. The best way to end the film.

Finn being beaten up by a stormtrooper is not really surprising. Stormtroopers aren't known as really good fighters. And even then Poe looked like someone new. Rey has learnt a lot of stuff by surviving on that planet by herself since childhood. On top of that she has force abilities. This explanation works for me.

I did not find Poe to be a deep character like you. But i loved his character. He lightened up the screen every time he was present. My favorite part being him and Finn escaping at the beginning. Loved Finn too. Enjoyed the characters of Maz Kanata and BB-8. Liked Kylo Ren a lot. But my favorite has to be Han Solo. He is my favorite Star Wars character and Harrison Ford was a joy to watch. Agree about Leia being really good.

Apart from 'The Last Jedi', keep an eye upon 'Rogue One'. I thought it was great. And that one is free from the criticisms you have made here about Force Awakens. Especially your main gripe about Force Awakens being same to Star Wars.

[Confuzzled]

I'd love that; any recommendations on films is welcome.

Satoshi Kon's four films: Tokyo Godfathers, Millennium Actress, Perfect Blue and Paprika are definite musts then. Perfect Blue served as the primary inspiration for Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan and some sequences in Requiem for a Dream while Paprika inspired Christopher Nolan's Inception. A word of caution though. Both Perfect Blue and Paprika veer on the disturbing side.

And have you watched The Perks of Being a Wallflower?

[Kieran_Frost]

THE COLLECTOR (1965)
dir. William Wyler [nom.]
writer. adapted from John Fowles' 1963 novel of the same name [nom.]
Starring: Terence Stamp, Samantha Eggar [nom.] and Maurice Dallimore

"I'll tell you something. There'd be a blooming lot more of this if more people had the time and the money!" ~ Fredrick

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: wealthy loner Fredrick Clegg (Stamp) stumbles across an abandoned manor house in the country while out searching for butterflies; and upon discovering the cellar attached to the house... starts to plan the kidnapping of beautiful art scholar Miranda (Eggar).

THOUGHTS: I stumbled upon this quite by accident on Netflix, I saw it starred Terence Stamp; now to me Stamp will always be Bernadette in the Adventures of Priscilla; Queen of the Desert (1994); but much like Lord Attenborough in Brighton Rock (1948) I enjoy immersing myself in their early work, when they were merely "bright young things". And joyously, upon the credits rolling I was delighted to see William Wyler's name pop-up as director. This is his 12th (and final) nomination as Best Director (having previously won for Mrs Miniver (1942), the Best Years of Our Lives (1946) and Ben Hur (1959); two of which are in my "Top 100"). So I had high expectations... and it delivered. This is not an easy topic to explore; it cannot be one note, it cannot maintain any semblance of interest if all they deliver is "she wants to escape." And so it's the peeling of layer upon layer of complexity that makes it fascinating and unusual. This film would make a wonderful stage play. About 80% of it takes place within Miranda's cellar prison; giving great scope for the two actors to dual it out (metaphorically, and occasionally literally) with words, wit and weapons. William Wyler has directed 14 people into acting Oscars, he knows how to tease every drop of talent from his actors, and in his hands it's magical. The tension never drops, thanks to Wyler; and that scene in the bathtube is 20 minutes of pure old school Hollywood suspense, echoing the very best of Hitchcock. Imagery too is very strong, the choice of black and white for the flashback, and him carrying her in the dress into the bedroom, echoing carrying a bride across the threshold, but in a far more sinister context. Kudos. Scripturaly it's excellent too, from the author behind the Magus and the French Lieutenant's Woman; the development of class war within the story was a delightful addition; again creating more context and nuance to Fredrick. Fueling his motivation beyond "just" a sadist into almost a revenge piece of his allotment in life. And I greatly enjoyed learning of the Tempest connection, the idea he's akin to Caliban holding Miranda in his rocky lair. And this neatly brings us to Fredrick himself. Terence Stamp is EXCELLENT. It's flavoured with a little bit of Billy Liar, a little Asperger, even a little Norman Bates (before his conception, of course). Playing someone who is both believable as a determined, methodical kidnapper and yet (through necessity) still keep him interesting, with enough innocence behind the eyes that the possibility of some (bizarre) simpatico might exist. That glimmer must exist, otherwise Miranda is put in a near impossible task of convincing us of her reasons for some of her actions. And that moves us to Samatha Eggar; who delivers possibly the stronger of the two performances. Both are challenging in their complexity, but she has even less scope of flexibility and motive, as the victim. And in this confined box of a character (beautifully mirroring the enclosure of her cell), she must use every tactic available to carve out some sort of life. I found her utterly compelling. It's such a shame Samantha Eggar didn't flourish to greater heights after this, because her talent is undeniable. I did SQUEAL when I realised she played Picard's sister-in-law in Star Trek: the Next Generation, only because I always thought that actress did a bloody good job in the role. So very happy to have seen her best work. And she voiced Hera in Disney's Hercules (1997), a minor bit of voice work, but memorable and impressive nonetheless. My only pause was the music, at times I thought Maurice Jarre did a fantastic job adding to the atmosphere; building to the scream and that eerie silence afterwards was brilliant... but at other moments it felt... disjointed. Almost merry, or nonchalant; such juxtaposition can work, but here it just came off as out of place.

OVERALL
A surprising, unknown gem of a film. Not an easy subject to add complexity and layers to, but William Wyler skillfully draws out depth and believablity to this cat-and-mouse situation. Both stars deliver excellent performances, with Samantha Eggar shining brightest as the captured victim. A bold, daring film that delivers right to the very end.
~ rating: 4 out of 5 [grade: A-]


FUN FACT: William Wyler is the only director of three Best Picture wins

Satoshi Kon's four films: Tokyo Godfathers, Millennium Actress, Perfect Blue and Paprika are definite musts then. Perfect Blue served as the primary inspiration for Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan and some sequences in Requiem for a Dream while Paprika inspired Christopher Nolan's Inception. A word of caution though. Both Perfect Blue and Paprika veer on the disturbing side.

Added to my list, thankyou. Disturbing as in mind-f*ck like Polanski's the Tenant (1976) or disturbing like torture-porn films like the Hostel series?

And have you watched The Perks of Being a Wallflower?

I don't watch anything with Emma Watson in, I'm afraid. She ruins films. Literally drags good films into mediocre by destroying any realism or focus with the cardboard characters she "develops" and broken delivery of lines.
#that'stheT