Nil By Mouth (1997)

Director: Gary Oldman
Stars: Ray Winstone, Kathy Burke, Charlie Creed-Miles
Runtime: 150 minutes

As I’m sure you’re aware, Gary Oldman can act. And here, he translates his cool and collected acting style to absolutely unflinching realism behind the camera. While this has more uses of “f*ck” and “c*nt” than almost any other film, they’re not even remotely gratuitous, considering their place in a harrowing portrait of a South London suburb Oldman might have grew up on. If you thought inner-city America was bad, the documentary-level intensity throughout will make you want to forget about council estates. Trainspotting this isn’t. It’s tough to pull through, but the payoff is worth it. (99 words/A PLUS)

The Master (2012)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Runtime: 144 minutes

This is one of those films that is intentionally meant to be divisive. I actually feel somewhat ostracized for liking it, and I think it fits the exact spot that Malick’s Tree of Life did in 2011. The gorgeous cinematography, shot on rare 70mm celluloid, gives the work a poetic beauty that underlies its shameless perversity and infamous parallels to Scientology. Add in Hoffman and Phoenix’s riveting performances, and it’s a sheer flash of brilliance. I highly doubt most will enjoy it as much as I did, but alas. (89 words/A PLUS)

Les Miserables (2012)

Director: Tom Hooper
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Russell Crowe
Runtime: 158 minutes

While this musical adaptation has great performances, production design and an overall feeling of quality, widely anchored by Anne Hathaway and Samantha Barks’ tragic turns as Fantine and Eponine, nitpicks abound. A moment in “Master of the House” goes too far, Russell Crowe’s Javert is mediocre, and Tom Hooper’s meticulous close-ups are hit and miss. Regardless, it’s better than most musicals. (61 words/B PLUS)

Welcome to Film, in 99 words or less.

Hello, everyone.

As many of you might imagine, there are tons of film review blogs that promise to offer their straight opinion about a film in 100 words. This site’s different. Film, as an art form, is like a minefield: very hard to navigate, with many duds and only a few precious explosions of greatness. (I know that seems like a morbid analogy, but…I couldn’t find anything else to think of.)

On this aptly titled site, I attempt to describe my own thoughts on a bunch of movies, both old and new, good and bad, in the confines of less than 99 words. Furthermore, to show you my precision, I end each review with a word count and letter grade, the latter on the scale described below.

A PLUS: Since all art is flawed in some way, these works may not necessarily be without flaws, but are perfect in any sense of the word. (Can be upgraded to A PLUS PLUS for a film that, in my personal opinion, can change the course of cinema. A PLUS PLUS PLUS, which is godlike perfection, is used extremely sparingly.  Four examples: American Beauty, Pulp FictionThe MasterOldboy

A: A film that might not be as intellectually thought-provoking as an A PLUS movie, but is still perfect, more or less. Four examples: The Lord of the Rings and Toy Story trilogies, The Avengers (2012)Jurassic Park

A MINUS: A film that has very minor flaws in such things as cinematography, length, screenwriting or heavy-handedness, but will still provide an amazing viewing experience for anyone. Four examples: Heaven’s GateTrue Romance, Oliver and CompanyGandhi

B PLUS: Mild flaws become more apparent in films that receive this grade, but they don’t drag them down enough to knock them further. Very much worth seeing. Four examples: Sucker Punch (extended cut)Les MiserablesFriday the 13th (1980), Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky

B: An A PLUS for effort, but the execution in a film that receives this grade might have elements that are left to be desired. Still worth seeing. Four examples: Out of AfricaBraveThe ReaderHappy Gilmore

B MINUS: An ambitious film that falters in more than a few areas, or might be saved from mediocrity in one or two bright spots. Enjoyable, and sometimes Oscar-worthy, but very flawed. Four examples: Forrest GumpKiller JoeDriving Miss DaisyPocahontas

C PLUS: Middling films, a good majority of which have style to spare, but not much substance to back them up. Enjoyable, but individual results may vary. Four examples: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire HunterThe ProposalThe SpiritThe Expendables

C: Films with at least one crucial flaw that completely drags it down. The script might be awful, the characters could be unlikable, the production quality may be downright mediocre, it could suffer some serious sequelitis, or there could be even more problems afoot. Four examples: Cars 2Pearl HarborMadagascarStar Wars: Episode I and II (III gets a B)

C MINUSFilms that, while not completely horrendous, are quite bad in many areas. Should certainly be avoided, if at all possible. Four examples: Transformers: Revenge of the FallenEvitaProject X (2012)Psycho (1998)

F: Films here scrape the absolute bottom of the barrel without even trying, and are not even remotely entertaining. They do not have enough unintentional hilarity to receive a Z grade. Four examples: My Baby’s DaddyGodzilla (1998), The Human Centipede: First Sequence, Epic Movie

Z: The lowest of the low. Camp masterpieces that are absolutely, positively begging to be mocked. The polar opposite of an A PLUS, but still worth watching just to see how easy it is to completely and utterly botch a film. Watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 or RiffTrax version if available. Four examples: Any installment of The Twilight SagaPlan 9 From Outer SpaceBirdemic: Shock and TerrorShowgirls

Well, that’s my rating system. Now that that’s out of the way, why not check out some of my reviews? Many more of my opinions will be coming, and not just new releases. Enjoy my concise and pretentious film criticism, and be sure to tell your friends!