Harvey (1950) review

 Number 254 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1950 comedy-drama 'Harvey.'

Elwood Dowd (James Stewart) is a peculiar young man who lives with his aunt Veta Louise Simmons (Josephine Hull). What's so peculiar about him? He believes in a 6 foot tall white rabbit called Harvey. Harvey is his best friend, but he's imaginary. Considered a quack by his queers, it is possible that Elwood is wiser than us all.

In my last review, I reviewed the courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder starring James Stewart as the charming and whimsical lawyer Paul Biegler. However, Harvey, made a mere nine years earlier, lacked a lot oft he same charm and whimsy. Far from being a heart-warming, comedy drama, it was a soulless affair.

James Stewart lacked a lot of the charisma I saw him display in Anatomy of a Murder and the Philadelphia Story. Rather, with Elwood, he seemed to be in a mindless daze for the entire film. if anything, he was just a vessel for the imaginary Harvey. It wasn't the most compelling of characters or performances. I'm not really sure why he was nominated for an Oscar.

While Jimmy Stewart was nominated for an Oscar, Josephine Hull won for Best Supporting Actress. I was confused as to why Stewart was nominated, but I was shocked at how Hull won. Her performance was fine, but it was hardly Oscar-worthy. For one thing, she disappears halfway through the film only to reappear later. I know this was only a Supporting Oscar, but her screentime didn't seem to warrant such a prestigious award.

Going into this film, I was expecting this to be something similar to It's a Wonderful Life, where a character, in this case, Harvey, has an unexpected/unrealised effect on those around him. Yet, I saw little evidence of this. Dr Sanderson (Charles Drake) and Nurse Kelly (Peggy Dow) are a couple working at the sanitorium that Veta wants to commit Elwood to; it is also implied they are having marital problems. The head of the sanitorium Dr Charles (Cecil Kedaway) is lamentful that he never had a chance to holiday in Akron with a beautiful woman. However, after a supposed encounter with Harvey, the couple sort out their problems and Dr Chumley resolves to carry out his wish. Rubbish. There wasn't enough foundation for these emotional beats to land.

And I could very well say the same for the film Harvey. What should have been a fun feel-good affair left me feeling indifferent.

Anatomy of a Murder review

 Number 248 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1959 courtroom drama 'Anatomy of a Murder.'

Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a down-on-his-luck lawyer who has found his next case of Lt. Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) who shot dead the man who raped his wife Laura (Lee Remick.) The question isn't whether he did it, but why. The prosecution argues it was pre-meditated, but Frederick argues it was a case of 'irresistible impulse.' It is up to Biegler to prove the latter. Assisting him is his sardonic secretary Maida Rutledge (Eve Arden) and his drunk partner Parnell McCarthy (Arthur O'Connell.)

Courtroom dramas by their very nature can have the tendency to be dull. They are low on spectacle and sets - often it's two or two and a half hours of characters just droning on at one another. This is especially true, as we don't often see the crime, but, rather, its aftermath.

I was surprised to find Anatomy of a Murder was highly interesting. It was a watchable affair that moved along nicely. It helped that you had the charismatic Jimmy Stewart in the lead role who breathed a lot of life into what could have been an incredibly stuffy role. Real-life courts and barristers probably aren't as theatrical as he is, but they're probably a lot less interesting too.

I thought there was something fishy going on between the Manion couple. Maybe we would be surprised by concluding plot twist, so you can only imagine my disappointment when the story remained incredibly straightforward. Not that there is anything wrong with a straightforward plot. I think I'm just too used to the courtroom dramas being overly-complicated.

Thankfully, that wasn't the case with Anatomy of a Murder. It wasn't quite as good as 12 Angry Men, but it is certainly up there.

Before Midnight review

 Number 245 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Lintlaker's 2013 conclusion to his 'Before Trilogy' - 'Before Midnight.'

Nine years on from when we saw them last in Paris, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delphy) are married with twin girls holidaying in Greece. However, Jesse also has a fractious relationship with his son Hank from a previous marriage. It doesn't help that his ex-wife hates both him and Celine.

What do you think of when you hear perfect film trilogies? Lord of the Rings? Back to the Future? The Dollars trilogy? The Dark Knight? I would add the Before Trilogy to that illustrious list. While it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it is a highly satisfactory end to Lintlaker's Before trilogy.

In many ways, Before Midnight is the biggest film of the three. The cast is expanded by Celine and Jesse are holidaying with a group of friends. The film loses some of its intimate feel as we see the cast having extended conversations with each other, and the character dynamics and relationships take precedence over a stripped-back plot. But when you have characters and dialogue as real as you have here, this is no criticism at all.

With this installment, we see that Jesse and Celine have the most to lose. They have long left behind the honeymoon phase and are now married trying to navigate the complexities of life - least of all Jesse's estranged relationship with his ex-wife and son. Having lived in Paris for the last nine years, Celine is unwilling to give up her life to move to New York especially since Jesse's ex-wife hates her so much.

Yet such an important plot-point like this is very much left up to the viewer's imagination. The less-is-more approach has always been this trilogy's strength - it has always been light on plot, spectacle and budget, but this was too crucial of a detail to be relegated to mere exposition. The same can be said for Jesse's son Hank who, despite appearing at the beginning, never felt like anything more than a plot device.

I was also unsure about the ending. Just when it seems that Jesse and Celine's relationship might be torn apart after a terrible fight, they reconcile with Jesse making an impassioned plea that he isn't perfect and neither is their relationship, but that's just the way life works out sometimes. Considering how the trilogy has always been so big on authenticity, I was expecting something more bittersweet, but having couples make up after bad fights is just as realistic as having couples who don't.

These criticisms don't take away from what was a great conclusion to one of my new favourite film trilogies. Before Midnight was a great exploration of how the way we love can change with age. The script was as natural as ever with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy having as much chemistry as always. I was surprised to find out that there was no improvisation on set - the script was followed verbatim. Everything felt so real that I sometimes thought I was watching a documentary rather than a film.

Why Star Wars is overrated

 Yes fanboys, you've read that correctly. I think Star Wars is overrated, but before you start force choking and executing order 66 on me, hear me out.

I am a fan of Star Wars - the films at least, I have had little exposure with the extended universe, but I don't think they're some of the best films of all time. The original trilogy certainly don't deserve to be included in the top 1000 films of all time.

I can acknowledge Star Wars for what it is - mindless, escapist fun. It's nothing more than that - we're not talking hard sci-fi like Blade Runner or Star Trek where we get deep philosophical questions about what it means to be human. Star Wars is the hero's journey set in space. That's it.

I've always been puzzled when I've heard girls say that they don't get Star Wars. What's there to get? Are we talking about something as (supposedly) profound or deep as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Are we posed with meaningful questions about the nature of humanity like we get in the Terminator films? Star Wars is nothing more than a big boy's film: it's a Western set in space. Tatooine and the other outer rim systems are the Wild West - the Mos Eisley cantina is an easy substitute for the old-timey saloons. Instead of horses we have spaceships. Instead of the man in black, we have Darth Vader. Luke Skywalker is our hero in white. The bounty hunter Han Solo is the outlaw, roguish man with no name. The blasters substitute the magnum revolvers. Hell, instead of Indians and cowboys, we have the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire.

I think George Lucas would agree with me. When he was originally creating Star Wars, he wanted to make something closer to Flash Gordon and the Brothers' Grimm fairytales than Kubrick's Space Odyssey. He wanted to create a space fantasy where the audiences witnessed something fun, adventurous and whimsical. And that's what he did. It doesn't mean that these films are the best ever made.

Fans slate the Disney sequel saga for their awful writing and dialogue. That's fair criticism, but I would urge you to take off your rosy-tinted glasses. The original films are just as badly written. The evil, omnipotent Galactic Empire was stupid enough to make not one but two Death Stars with the same fatal flaw of having a massive hole in the middle, which any old rebel pilot can fly their X-Fighter into and shoot a few torpedoes into. This is an error so egregious that Family Guy mocked it and a whole new film had to be created to explain it - Rogue One. 

Furthermore, Leia kisses Luke in a New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back before confessing that she's always known they were brother and sister in the Return of the Jedi. A lot of this comes down to Lucas' originally writing a monstrously huge script for A New Hope - most of which had to be spread across a whole trilogy of films. This meant that he had to use the ending of Return of the Jedi for a New Hope, as he explained in the DVD commentary, which would explain the overly-cheesy and definitive ending that didn't leave much room for a sequel. 

Yet it isn't just his writing that is bad, but also his dialogue. Harrison Ford criticised it saying you can type this shit up, but you can't say it. There are varying reports about why Alec Guinness' character of Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi dies in a New Hope, but some say that Guinness begged to be killed off, so he didn't have to say the dialogue anymore. In Attack of the Clones, Hayden Christensen, who plays Anakin Skywalker, goes off about how much he hates sand. A lot of people slate Christensen's wooden performance, but how charismatic can you be when you have to recite a monologue about sand?

But Lucas wasn't just bad at writing or at dialogue, but also direction. Far from being a director who was at the forefront of the action, he gave his cast and crew little instruction. Producer Gary Kurtz described him as a loner who didn't get on with the large crew while Carrie Fisher said that when he did give direction it was little more than "faster" or "more intense," in the Empire of Dreams The Story of the Star Wars trilogy documentary. That's exactly the captain you want at the helm of your ship, right?

What I will give Star Wars credit for is its pioneering use of special and visual effects. Obviously, I wasn't alive to see the original films in cinema, but I've heard that it was an amazing experience, because of the effects. Lucas made terrific use of miniature models to create some brilliant action sequences.

This pioneering use of models eventually translated into CGI, which made the prequels such an entertaining watch. But it was just entertaining. Nothing more. Especially when Lucas took things too far and kept constantly re-releasing the original trilogy with unnecessary edits like replacing the original holographic emperor in The Empire Strikes Back, played by Marjorie Eaton, voiced by Clive Revill, with Ian Mcdermid who went onto play the evil emperor in the prequels. Another replacement saw Sebastian Shaw who played the force ghost of Anakin Skywalker in the Return of the Jedi being swapped out with Hayden Christensen.

I also don't think the prequels aren't as bad as the fanbase makes them out to be. Yes, the Phantom Menace is slow-paced and bogged down with trade negotiations, but they get progressively better from there. Despite being bad, they are still entertaining. Like the originals. And, like the originals, they all share the same weaknesses. Samuel L. Jackson had to say some god-awful dialogue in Return of the Sith: "our worse fears have been realised," and, who can forget Darth Vader cheesily screaming out nooooooooooooooo. Of course, we've already heard about the infamous sand monologue.

There is nothing a Star Wars fan hates more than Star Wars. And there is no fandom I hate more than the Star Wars one. (I wouldn't be surprised if I start getting force-choked before I finish writing this.) I get that all fanbases have their toxic, elitist elements, but the Star Wars fanbase seems rotten to the core.

Firstly, they're blinded by nostalgia for the originals, which as we've already established, aren't all they're cracked up to be. But these rosy-tinted glasses have become blinkers where they struggle to acknowledge anything out of their reality.

Now even a casual Star Wars fan like me can acknowledge that the Disney sequels aren't great - even by Star Wars' standards. In the opposite of the prequels, they start off well and get progressively worse. I enjoyed the Force Awakens - I thought Ray and Finn were great together. But then they're separated for the next two films. In lieu of not knowing what to do with Finn, they give a couple of love stories that don't work, all while Ray's writing becomes progressively more contrived.

This is all fair criticism, but due to the Star Wars fandom, who enjoys bullying actors on social media, I'm sure it doesn't go far enough. Star Wars fans so hated the character of Rose in the Last Jedi that they sent no shortage of racist and sexist hate to Rose's actress Kelly Marie Tran - so much so that she deleted her social media. There were plenty who insisted this wasn't indicative of the whole fanbase, but I'm not so sure. Ahmed Best who played JarJar Binks became suicidal over the hate he received from playing a fictional character. Jake Lloyd who played the young Anakin Skywalker in A Phantom Menace didn't grow up to be a Hollywood A-Lister, but a paranoid schizophrenic with a criminal record. Granted, this isn't directly the result of the fandom, but being constantly bullied certainly didn't help things either.

I realise this isn't strictly a Star Wins, but a fanbase being stupid thing - Leslie Jones in Ghostbusters and Josh Mcdermitt in the Walking Dead also suffered abuse at the hands of so-called fans. Hell, even Tom Felton, who played Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films, had people hissing and booing at him in the streets. Yet it always seems the Star Wars fanbase who seems the most vitrolic in their hate. And they are always the ones you less likely to be able to reason with.

Do you disagree with me? Prove me wrong in the comments, but don't talk to me the way you did with Kelly Marie Trans. And remember, I do like Star Wars.  They're just NOT the best films ever. May the force be with you all.

Before Sunset (2004) review

 Number 272 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Lintlaker's romantic-drama 'Before Sunset' - sequel to the 1995 Before Sunrise.

Jesse Wallace (Ethan Hawke) is an American writer on the last stage of his European book tour in Paris. he is promoting the book that he wrote about a fleeting romance he had with French lady Celine (Julie Delphy,) whom he met in Vienna nine years prior. The events of which constitute the plot of Before Sunrise. Little does he know that we will soon re-unite with her in Paris.

I absolutely loved Before Sunrise. It is low in spectacle, action and budget, but high in authenticity and romantic chemistry between its two leads. I loved the original so much that I couldn't wait to watch the sequel. It was reminiscence of the beginnings of relationships where everything is exciting, new and fresh. Did Before Sunset live up to the hype? Not quite.

It was still a highly entertaining film, but it lacked the spark that the first one had. In many ways, it was a rehash of the first one. Only this time, Jesse and Celine are in Paris, instead of Vienna, and instead of an entire night together, they only have an hour before Jesse has to return to America at sunset.

Considering it's been nine years since their last encounter, Jesse and Celine have as much chemistry, as they did before. The same can be said for Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy who co-wrote the film along with Richard Lintlaker. If you told me that the pair were dating in real life I wouldn't have been shocked as they were brilliant together. Obviously they weren't, as they weren't Ethan Hawke was finalising his divorce with wife Uma Thurman. Anyway, Jesse and Celine's dialogue sparkled. And the film had a fantastic air of authenticity. It didn't just feel real. It was real.

Yet the film still lacked something. It is only a paltry eighty minutes long, but it still felt longer than it should have been. On the surface, it seems that Jesse and Celine are picking up where they left off - even though they're both in new relationships - Jesse is married with a son, but we soon learn that they never truly recovered from their fateful encounter. Jesse is trapped in a loveless marriage while Celine never sees her photojournalist boyfriend. They're still both deeply in love with each other. While Before Sunrise showed the excitement of the beginning of the relationship, Before Sunset, seemed to focus more on the relationship after the honeymoon period has worn off.

This all culminates in a tearful confrontation at the film's climax. But this should have come sooner. I couldn't see what this film was building to - I wonder if it would have been similar to how Before Sunrise ended. But *spoilers*

it ended on a less ambiguous, but equally hopeful note. 

Richard Lintlaker captured lightning in the bottle with Before Sunrise. He couldn't quite do the same with Before Sunset, but it was still a great film nonetheless.

Arsenic and Old lace review

 Number 242 on the top 1000 films of all time is Frank Capra's 1944 black, screwball comedy 'Arsenic and Old Lace.'

Mortimer Brewster (Cary Grant) is a theatre critic and author who's just married minister's daughter Elaine (Priscilla Lane.) Before they go on their honeymoon, he goes to see his aunts Abby (Josephine Hull) and Martha (Jean Adair) who are living with his mentally deranged brother who believes that he is Teddy Roosevelt. There he is horrified to learn that his aunts have been poisoning lonely, old men and burying them in the cellar. To make things worse, Mortimer's other brother Jonathan (Raymond Massey) arrives - also a murderer and fugitive of justice.

You get screwball comedies and then you get this completely off-the-wall farce. It gives the genre of "screwball comedy" a whole new meaning. It was so kooky that I'm not even sure where to begin.

Actually let's start with Cary Grant who once again put his vaudeville background to good use. He was a delight as the straight-edged Mortimer Brewster who is trying not to lost his mind at his aunt's gleeful admissions that they are serial murderers. He was so funny both in his mannerisms and dialogue.

We also need to credit Josephine Hull and Jean Adair who brought a lovely whimsy to their roles as the killer aunts. Despite being murderers, they made the aunts so endearing. They were just as funny as Cary Grant especially in their physical comedy. One particular scene sees them trying to poison a potential lodger by lacing his wine with arsenic, yet every time he goes to take a sip, he gets distracted. Their constant excitement and disappointment was a joy to watch.

As the film progresses, things do become increasingly ridiculous - particularly when the murderous Jonathan enters the scene along with the hack German Doctor Herman Einstein (Peter Lorre) and a whole cohort of police officers. Chaos ensues as the film descends into a completely meaningless farce.

Despite the strange ending, Arsenic and Old Lace was a charming, funny and often ridiculous screwball comedy. 

Sleuth (1972) review

 Number 238 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joseph L. Mankiewicz' mystery thriller 'Sleuth.'

Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) is an eccentric crime writer with a love for puzzles, games and his mistress. He wants nothing more than to run off with her. The problem? He is still married. Enter his wife's lover, salon-owner and second-generation Italian immigrant Milo Tindle (Michael Caine.) Together the two hatch a plot for them to end up with their desired women.

You have to give Mankiewicz some credit. This is film with a minimal cast and sets, yet it is a true head-scratcher. It was a complicated affair. I'm not sure I understood everything even now. Despite that it is an interesting film that demands every ounce of your attention.

It was originally adapted from a play by Anthony Schaffer and I wonder if it would have been more effective on stage and screen. The two-man cast and two or three sets would have lent itself well to Broadway. Considering it won a Tony, it obviously did.

Plus this film adaptation included a giant of the English theatrical world: Laurene Olivier. He was enjoyable as the eccentric Andrew Wyke, often giving the role an electrifying energy. This coupled with his larger-than-life performance certainly wouldn't have been out of place in the theatre. He was incredibly physical and incredibly theatrical. Andrew Wyke is an odd fellow who fancies himself the next Agatha Christie. His house is full of strange costumes and other peculiarities. Olivier played the role to a tee. He was rightly nominated for an Oscar.

Michael Caine - also Oscar-nominated - was every part his equal. He plays Tindal well and he soon enters a battle of wits with Andrew Wyke. Although the two start as uneasy allies, then enter a cat-and-mouse game, as they desperately keep trying to outwit one another.

Although Sleuth was good on screen, I do think it was better suited to the stage. The intellectual plot, heavy dialogue, minimal sets and characters would have been perfect for any theatre hall.