rjsf96
Joined Aug 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.3K
rjsf96's rating
Reviews121
rjsf96's rating
Stanley Kubrick's Lolita will for many (over 50 years on from its original release) seem safe and quite possibly routine. This though is simply not the case. At the time it was seen to be racy and in poor taste, so much so that the MPAA demanded that Kubrick made cuts to the film, otherwise they would deny him releasing it to the public. However, even with these restrictions in place Lolita works astoundingly well and even on many more levels if you try to view it with the mind-set of the general public in the 60s. Then it's all too obvious that Lolita is a daring project, beautiful to look at and yet remains a wonder that it ever saw the light of day at all.
Humbert Humbert (James Mason) having recently entered America has moved into a house in Ramsdale residence of Mrs Haze. Originally only moving in so that he can become a college Professor - Humbert becomes undeniably infatuated by Mrs Haze's daughter; Lolita, oozing sexual confidence and spark. Who can blame him? Well other than the fact that he is in his fifties and she in this adaptation fourteen. So of course it is this area of the film that has sparked up controversy ever since 1962. The line "I'm going to take your Queen" possibly causing the most outrage – played over a game of chess.
Though, the controversy of Lolita unlike 1971's A Clockwork Orange is hard to believe. In this day and age its relatively tame when compared to 1999's American Beauty a film that shares certain similarities with Lolita to say the least. Lolita for one has no nudity unless you count an underage girl clad in a revealing bikini and I for one don't. Any sexual references are low key and any moment proceeding intercourse is cut short. So you really have to play it out in your mind more than anything else. Though for me this is beneficiary to the picture, characterising Lolita's innocence, deep insecurity and tendency to shy away at the more intimate moments.
Sue Lyon in her first role is positively enlightening. This is for sure a hard role to "get right". You have to know how to play the different characteristics of Lolita for a start and portray her vibrancy with the needed enthusiasm. But, Lyon handles it well, so well in fact that you'd swear she'd been in show business for a lifetime or at least a good handful of roles. James Mason on the other hand as Humbert Humbert is treading thin ice; yet, he manages to do the trick. The fact that we actually sympathise with a character this conniving and want to watch him on screen is a testament to Mason's staying power as an actor of rare talent, rarely seen nowadays, if at all.
Peter Sellers as Claire Quilty is a different matter entirely and yes, I mean that as a compliment. Sellers just goes for it! Wacky, brilliant, witty and insane all these adjectives actually apply. But even the use of mere words cannot describe how funny he is in each situation, that's because Sellers understands what makes humour work. Edging the line between camp and utter silliness, Sellers is definitely a key factor as to why I adore Lolita so so very much.
A picture like Lolita makes me look at films in an entirely different light. That wasn't a pun. Yet I must talk about the lighting. This is a film that is dazzling to view, and if you think that because its Black and White it cannot look this good, then I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken. Every shade of black and white is honestly a marvel and reminds me that splendid cinematography is about lighting, composition and framing, not different hues of a wide range of colours.
Lolita is the sort of film Hollywood does not make anymore; witty, campy, fun, interesting, daring and never self-serious. This is a film without the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, before the advent of CGI, where characters took centre stage, not action or flashy special effects. Watching Kubrick's Lolita is like watching a by- gone age of cinema where story and characters were key to a film's success, not flashes of colour and the rising sound of a fireball.
A+
Humbert Humbert (James Mason) having recently entered America has moved into a house in Ramsdale residence of Mrs Haze. Originally only moving in so that he can become a college Professor - Humbert becomes undeniably infatuated by Mrs Haze's daughter; Lolita, oozing sexual confidence and spark. Who can blame him? Well other than the fact that he is in his fifties and she in this adaptation fourteen. So of course it is this area of the film that has sparked up controversy ever since 1962. The line "I'm going to take your Queen" possibly causing the most outrage – played over a game of chess.
Though, the controversy of Lolita unlike 1971's A Clockwork Orange is hard to believe. In this day and age its relatively tame when compared to 1999's American Beauty a film that shares certain similarities with Lolita to say the least. Lolita for one has no nudity unless you count an underage girl clad in a revealing bikini and I for one don't. Any sexual references are low key and any moment proceeding intercourse is cut short. So you really have to play it out in your mind more than anything else. Though for me this is beneficiary to the picture, characterising Lolita's innocence, deep insecurity and tendency to shy away at the more intimate moments.
Sue Lyon in her first role is positively enlightening. This is for sure a hard role to "get right". You have to know how to play the different characteristics of Lolita for a start and portray her vibrancy with the needed enthusiasm. But, Lyon handles it well, so well in fact that you'd swear she'd been in show business for a lifetime or at least a good handful of roles. James Mason on the other hand as Humbert Humbert is treading thin ice; yet, he manages to do the trick. The fact that we actually sympathise with a character this conniving and want to watch him on screen is a testament to Mason's staying power as an actor of rare talent, rarely seen nowadays, if at all.
Peter Sellers as Claire Quilty is a different matter entirely and yes, I mean that as a compliment. Sellers just goes for it! Wacky, brilliant, witty and insane all these adjectives actually apply. But even the use of mere words cannot describe how funny he is in each situation, that's because Sellers understands what makes humour work. Edging the line between camp and utter silliness, Sellers is definitely a key factor as to why I adore Lolita so so very much.
A picture like Lolita makes me look at films in an entirely different light. That wasn't a pun. Yet I must talk about the lighting. This is a film that is dazzling to view, and if you think that because its Black and White it cannot look this good, then I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken. Every shade of black and white is honestly a marvel and reminds me that splendid cinematography is about lighting, composition and framing, not different hues of a wide range of colours.
Lolita is the sort of film Hollywood does not make anymore; witty, campy, fun, interesting, daring and never self-serious. This is a film without the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, before the advent of CGI, where characters took centre stage, not action or flashy special effects. Watching Kubrick's Lolita is like watching a by- gone age of cinema where story and characters were key to a film's success, not flashes of colour and the rising sound of a fireball.
A+
Nicolas Winding Refn has never been a filmmaker looking for the easy way out. If that was the case I doubt he would ever have committed his body of work to film in the first place. Refn is a Director whom pushes the boundaries at every available opportunity he gets, no matter if he alienates his target audience in the process. This is a person so determined to achieving a singular goal that it's almost frightening. With Drive, Only God Forgives and now The Neon Demon he has pushed the envelope of cinema.
Jesse is a reserved yet stunning 16 year old with big aspirations to make it in the LA fashion industry. Although we never know much about her life other than this facet it is more than enough, because that's the point. We are not told vivid or entirely intimate character details, at least not till the end. Like the characters and industry it represents The Neon Demon may at first glance appear superficial, but lurking underneath the surface is its dark blood red humour coursing through its veins and the twisted two faced personalities behind it. Being a newcomer to this entire way of life Jesse is guided by Ruby (Jena Malone) and models Sarah (Abbey Lee) and Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and as Jesse becomes a darker shade of her original self they use her to their advantage.
There's no point now denying that Nicolas Winding Refn is perhaps my favourite Director working today, because in essence he understands what makes cinema such an attractive medium and art form to utilise. Not just in his usage of colours to create an atmospheric mood and stunning visual palette, but in the way he presents his themes however brash they may be, you have to admire his skill and craft behind the camera and the undeniable talent in front of it.
Elle Fanning who showed promise in her limited screen time in Trumbo earlier this year, provides an even greater on screen presence as Jesse. The smallest subtleties of character progression are felt and are only accentuated when the shocking climax is revealed. There's posing to be sure and a hell of a load of it at that (this is about glamour after all), yet this is the bold uncompromising statement of Refn and a scathing reflection of the fashion industry as a whole.
If this sounds like your standard art film about the dangers of the glitz and glamour of the fashion industry take note. The Neon Demon is assuredly not for the faint of heart. With helpings aplenty of cannibalism, forced sexual encounters oh and necrophilia, in case you were wondering. The Neon Demon for all its superficial dressing is very much the work of an auteur and a take it or leave it film maker at that. If any criticism is directed towards the film none should shine on Refn. Uncompromising? Yes. Dramatic? Check. Flamboyant? For sure. I wouldn't have it any other way.
A
Jesse is a reserved yet stunning 16 year old with big aspirations to make it in the LA fashion industry. Although we never know much about her life other than this facet it is more than enough, because that's the point. We are not told vivid or entirely intimate character details, at least not till the end. Like the characters and industry it represents The Neon Demon may at first glance appear superficial, but lurking underneath the surface is its dark blood red humour coursing through its veins and the twisted two faced personalities behind it. Being a newcomer to this entire way of life Jesse is guided by Ruby (Jena Malone) and models Sarah (Abbey Lee) and Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and as Jesse becomes a darker shade of her original self they use her to their advantage.
There's no point now denying that Nicolas Winding Refn is perhaps my favourite Director working today, because in essence he understands what makes cinema such an attractive medium and art form to utilise. Not just in his usage of colours to create an atmospheric mood and stunning visual palette, but in the way he presents his themes however brash they may be, you have to admire his skill and craft behind the camera and the undeniable talent in front of it.
Elle Fanning who showed promise in her limited screen time in Trumbo earlier this year, provides an even greater on screen presence as Jesse. The smallest subtleties of character progression are felt and are only accentuated when the shocking climax is revealed. There's posing to be sure and a hell of a load of it at that (this is about glamour after all), yet this is the bold uncompromising statement of Refn and a scathing reflection of the fashion industry as a whole.
If this sounds like your standard art film about the dangers of the glitz and glamour of the fashion industry take note. The Neon Demon is assuredly not for the faint of heart. With helpings aplenty of cannibalism, forced sexual encounters oh and necrophilia, in case you were wondering. The Neon Demon for all its superficial dressing is very much the work of an auteur and a take it or leave it film maker at that. If any criticism is directed towards the film none should shine on Refn. Uncompromising? Yes. Dramatic? Check. Flamboyant? For sure. I wouldn't have it any other way.
A
Star Wars, Star Wars what have you become? You've always been there for me through the good (Revenge of the Sith), the bad (The Phantom Menace) the unintentional laughter (Attack of the Clones) and the highs (The Empire Strikes Back). But along the way something went wrong you're not the same franchise you used to be. Whilst never entirely reliable you were something I could rest easy with particularly when a certain George Lucas was not at the creative helm. But this is different, Lucas is out of the picture forever and now you present me with this garbage from the trash compactor? Why? Why now? Star Wars should be at new heights and The Force Awakens showed us what love, care and fan service (albeit too much) could do for a franchise that was thought to have had its day. Enter Gareth Edwards, that's no Director, that's a hack!
Rogue One is exactly how you would reasonably expect any Star Wars film to begin (minus the title crawl and John William's music) in Space! Jyn Erso is a rebel on a mission to grasp hold of the Death Star plans and bring the Empire crumbling down. Helpless and frail. It ends how we expect it to end, begins how we would assume it to begin. As for the middle, the plot beats can be neatly charted on a graph for sheer convenience, how kind of Edwards. It's certain that this is not your father's Star Wars, because well that would require a reasonable amount of thinking and thought processes to have taken place.
I will take this moment to bring up where this film excels. Don't worry this won't take me long. The music although it pales in comparison to John William's weakest scores is still admirable, although I do tend to think great things of Michael Giacchino and sadly this does not bolster his reputation so much as hinder it. The cinematography is gorgeous, not to the extent that the originals or Episode VII were, but better than the prequels all the same. Is that high praise? I doubt it. Mads Mikkelsen although given severely little to do is intriguing enough that we want to care about him, yet due to the scripts numerous shortcomings we never in fact do. Or feel any emotion for the main characters themselves, an irksome trend with Edwards's films to be sure. Remember 2014's Godzilla? Same treatment is given to the best characters here, they are put on a backseat whilst the endless CGI drivel is chucked at the screen hoping and praying that something does indeed stick with the audience to the very end. Here's a spoiler it doesn't.
That's the main gripe I have with Rogue One; not its story or its cringe inducing acting (minus the voice of James Earl Jones, thank the gods) but its characters. The group that Ersa becomes a part of is so ill defined that I thought George Lucas must have scrambled in, hijacked the script and completed rewrites. They don't even fit into specific character archetypes because quite simply they have ceased to be characters the moment they step on screen, utter some of the worst one liners in recent memory and stumble out of the frame, promptly leave the scene and try not to look too embarrassed or ashamed with themselves. At this point it's practically a panto. All glitz and glamour, forced heart and humour with no blood coursing through its veins, just dried up oil and a script that I would be surprised if they spent more than a good day on. Yeah, it's that much of a shambles. Because this is what Star Wars is under the watchful eye of the corporate giant that is Disney; manufactured by robots with fake emotion sprinkled throughout, the resemblance of some plot and a plethora of characters all of whom are the comic relief and serve one purpose. To sell more toys! This is what happens when you put the by-products of a film before the actual production itself. A mess, a disaster and something that even Yoda couldn't fix with his wide assortment of powers.
I'm not expecting for anyone to heed my advice and leave Rogue One to play out its life cycle in the cinema whilst you sit back at home and watch the originals in pristine high definition picture and quality. That would be the wisest thing to do, but believe me we both know that's never going to happen. So here's what to do, watch it as soon as possible so you can be spared further pain and then watch all the others minus I, II, III. (Delete where applicable). I'm saving you a world of pain. Who wants to try a Jedi Mind trick on Disney? Maybe we can stop them from causing this disaster that they so clearly want to make. Episode VIII is a mere zap away from becoming a reality and maybe this is the point of the sequel trilogy; to be our shining beacon of hope that will redeem the standalone projects when they inevitably fail and if we are lucky flop too. As for me I'm not holding my breath. You shouldn't either.
D+
Rogue One is exactly how you would reasonably expect any Star Wars film to begin (minus the title crawl and John William's music) in Space! Jyn Erso is a rebel on a mission to grasp hold of the Death Star plans and bring the Empire crumbling down. Helpless and frail. It ends how we expect it to end, begins how we would assume it to begin. As for the middle, the plot beats can be neatly charted on a graph for sheer convenience, how kind of Edwards. It's certain that this is not your father's Star Wars, because well that would require a reasonable amount of thinking and thought processes to have taken place.
I will take this moment to bring up where this film excels. Don't worry this won't take me long. The music although it pales in comparison to John William's weakest scores is still admirable, although I do tend to think great things of Michael Giacchino and sadly this does not bolster his reputation so much as hinder it. The cinematography is gorgeous, not to the extent that the originals or Episode VII were, but better than the prequels all the same. Is that high praise? I doubt it. Mads Mikkelsen although given severely little to do is intriguing enough that we want to care about him, yet due to the scripts numerous shortcomings we never in fact do. Or feel any emotion for the main characters themselves, an irksome trend with Edwards's films to be sure. Remember 2014's Godzilla? Same treatment is given to the best characters here, they are put on a backseat whilst the endless CGI drivel is chucked at the screen hoping and praying that something does indeed stick with the audience to the very end. Here's a spoiler it doesn't.
That's the main gripe I have with Rogue One; not its story or its cringe inducing acting (minus the voice of James Earl Jones, thank the gods) but its characters. The group that Ersa becomes a part of is so ill defined that I thought George Lucas must have scrambled in, hijacked the script and completed rewrites. They don't even fit into specific character archetypes because quite simply they have ceased to be characters the moment they step on screen, utter some of the worst one liners in recent memory and stumble out of the frame, promptly leave the scene and try not to look too embarrassed or ashamed with themselves. At this point it's practically a panto. All glitz and glamour, forced heart and humour with no blood coursing through its veins, just dried up oil and a script that I would be surprised if they spent more than a good day on. Yeah, it's that much of a shambles. Because this is what Star Wars is under the watchful eye of the corporate giant that is Disney; manufactured by robots with fake emotion sprinkled throughout, the resemblance of some plot and a plethora of characters all of whom are the comic relief and serve one purpose. To sell more toys! This is what happens when you put the by-products of a film before the actual production itself. A mess, a disaster and something that even Yoda couldn't fix with his wide assortment of powers.
I'm not expecting for anyone to heed my advice and leave Rogue One to play out its life cycle in the cinema whilst you sit back at home and watch the originals in pristine high definition picture and quality. That would be the wisest thing to do, but believe me we both know that's never going to happen. So here's what to do, watch it as soon as possible so you can be spared further pain and then watch all the others minus I, II, III. (Delete where applicable). I'm saving you a world of pain. Who wants to try a Jedi Mind trick on Disney? Maybe we can stop them from causing this disaster that they so clearly want to make. Episode VIII is a mere zap away from becoming a reality and maybe this is the point of the sequel trilogy; to be our shining beacon of hope that will redeem the standalone projects when they inevitably fail and if we are lucky flop too. As for me I'm not holding my breath. You shouldn't either.
D+