Monday 31 August 2015

Psycho Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go to my previous review: Modern Times

Number 39 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 'Psycho.'

What's it about: After Marion Crane embezzles money from her employer and goes on the run, she is caught in a rainstorm and finds herself at a motel ran by Norman Bates.  A man with serious mummy issues.

The Good: This film works very well as a psychological, slasher horror.  It is very scary.  Hitchcock does very well building the tension and the atmosphere.  The suspense builds up slowly and steadily and nothing is too rushed.  I also really liked how, unlike Rear Window, the suspense actually built up to something.  There were three very good payouts: Marion and Arbogast's deaths and the reveal of Norman's mother at the end.  All three of these moments were very scary and were suitably climatic.  Anthony Perkins was also great as Norman Bates.  He played the role well and made Bates seem like a very creepy individual.  Even when Bates was first introducted to the viewer, something seemed a little off about him, despite how polite and well-mannered he seeemd to be.  This was down to Anthony Perkins' subtle portrayl of the character.  As Marion's shower death scene is one of the most famous moments in film, I, unfortunately, didn't find it very scary, as I knew it was going to happen.  However, Arbogast's death scene came as a complete shock to me.  Even though, I knew it was going to happen, I was surprised at how early Marion died.  Before I saw this film, I didn't know that Marion was the protagonist, so therefore, I didn't expect her to die as early as she did.  However, I do like how Hitchcock did this, as it made the film interesting and it went in a different direction to what I expected.  I liked how the film kept me guessing like this.  


The Bad: As I previously said, this film wasn't as scary as it could have been, as I already knew about Marion's death scene: what's supposed to be the most shocking and scariest moment of the film.  Furthermore, even though the reveal of Norma Bates' decaying corpse was certainly gruesome, I did see it coming, when she initially appeared with her back to the audience.  This was another reason why the film, for me, wasn't as scary as it could have been.


The Ugly: Norma Bates' decaying corpse.


Rating: Awesome

This was a very intense and enjoyable film.  It had a great atmosphere and suspense with good payouts.  If only I didn't already know about the film's most famous scene, then Psycho would have been complete.  Either way, this film still made Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh something like stars on Earth.  

Modern Times Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go to my previous review: American History X

Number 38 on the top 1000 films of all time is Charlie Chaplin's 1936 and last silent film 'Modern Times.'

What's it about: Charlie Chaplin once again plays his iconic Little Tramp character, as he struggles through life in modern imes.  In this silent film, the Tramp works in an industrial factory, is caught in a communist riot, accidentally snorts cocaine, whilst trying to find wayts to make money for his love interest Ellen Peterson, played by his real-life wife Paulette Goddard.

The Good: Just like City Lights, all of the this film's humour came from slapstick and physical comedy performed by Chaplin itself.  Chaplin performed the comedy well and it generally hit its mark.  One of the best examples comes from when Chaplin is working as a waiter for a fancy dinner.  Chaplin tries to get a roast duck to a diner, but is impeded by a large group of guests on the dance floor.  When Chaplin finally makes it to the client who has been getting progressively angrier, Chaplin realises that the roast duck has been impaled on a chandelier and Chaplin has to return to get it.  Another example is that Chaplin is also supposed to sing at the dinner for its entertainment.  Not knowing the words, he writes them on the cuff of his shirt.  However, upon stepping onto the stage, his cuff comes flying off and Chaplin improvises by stringing together sentences of random Italian words.  Both of these instances were very funny and great examples of the film's physical comedy.  


When making this film, Chaplin wanted to comment on the rise of industrialisation and the alienation that ensued becaust of it.  I think Modern Times portrayed this well and conveyed Chaplin's distaste of constant efforts to improve the production process leading to mass unemployment and alienation.  In one of the film's best scenes, Chaplin is subjected to a machine, which feeds him whilst he is working, to maximise efficiency.  This, of course, fails miserably, but it is still funny and interesting to watch.


The bad: Unfortunately, like City Lights, this film didn't keep my interest throughout and I did get bored at times.

The Ugly: I'm still very surprised at how Chaplin got away with such a blatant and obvious reference to snorting cocaine.


Rating: Good

This film was enjoyable.  It was sweet and funny and the comedy worked well.  However, what I liked the most was Chaplin's commentary on rising industrialisation and the psychotic means some employers would go to maximise efficiency.

Click here to go to my next review: Psycho.

Monday 24 August 2015

American History X Review

SPOILER ALERT

Returning to top 1000 greatest films of all time, we have number 37 on the list: Tony Kaye's 1998 American History X.

What's it about: Edward Norton plays Derek Vinyard, a prominent Neo-Naxzi and leader of a white supremacist movement.  He is sent to jail for three years for killing three black men.  After he is released he desperately tries to stop his brother, Danny Vinyard (Edward Furlong) from following in his footsteps.

The Good:  Any film that engages with issues as sensitive as racism and white nationalism need to go hard or go home.  This film most definitely goes hard.  It is unrelenting an brutal in its depiction of racisms.  One of the film's most shocking, powerful and best scenes sees Derek leading his white supremacist group to trash a supermarket owned by a Korean man and staffed by members of ethnic minorities who are then beaten and tortured by the neo-nazis.  Another equally powerful scene sees Derek and his family having dinner where the conversation turns towards Rodney King and how he was beaten by the police.  Derek argues that the American public only took King's side because the police stopped him, before he could hurt anyone.  If King's drunken, reckless driving had hurt anyone, then everyone would be singing a different tune.  This made me think of the issue of racial profiling and police brutality ad how if a black police officer shoots a white man then nobody panics, but if it's the other way around, then everyone just loses their minds.  Just think of Michael Brown or Eric Garner.  These scenes were particularly powerful, due to how they so unrelentingly and unashamedly depicted the extremes that some groups go to.


Edward Norton was brilliant   He was utterly convincing in his role of the Neo-Nazi, racist skinhead, Derek Vinyard.  I also like how the film didn't romanticism him or the Neo-Nazi movement.  It is obvious that the Neo-Nazis are bad people and the film does nothing to disguise it. Rather it allows the audience to make up their own minds.


I really liked the film's visual style too.  The present-day timeline was interspersed with black and white flashbacks of Derek Vinyard's past.  The use of the monochrome filter gave the film a great grainy texture and old-timey feel.



The film's ending was very appropriate.  After it seems that Derek has convinced Danny to stay away from Neo-Nazism, Danny is shot dead by a black man, whom he had an earlier confrontation with. This ending was suitable, as it showcased the important message of how racism can always come full circle.

The Bad: There are a couple of minor characters who whilst are quite important to the plot are not given proper endings.  This annoyed me, as they were given strong introductions but were quickly forgotten about.  I also didn't like think Edward Furlong was anything special,  He certainly wasn't on the same level as Edward Norton.


The Ugly: In of the film's most brutal scenes, Derek Vinyard kills a black man trying to steal his car by curb-stomping him.

Rating: Awesome

A near perfect depiction of racism and white nationalism in America.  It is brutal, hard-hitting and doesn't let up for a minute.  American History X really is a shocking portrayl of racism and white nationalism in Modern Times in America.

Click here to go to my next review: Modern Times 

Killing Them Softly Review


Again, another film which wasn't on the top 1000 greatest films of all time, but it was on TV one night and seeing as it stars James Gandolfini, whom my dad and I both love in the Sopranos, we thought we would watch it.

What's it about: John "Squirrel" Amato hires two druggie deadbeats: Russell and Frankie, to rob a Mafia poker game ran by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta.) Even though, the robbery is successful, the Mafia then decide to kill Squirrel, Trattman, Russell and Frankie.  This where two contract killers, Jackie Coogan (Brad Pitt) and Mickey (James Gandolfini) are hired to do the job.  The film is set in 2008 amidst the financial crisis and the Bush/Obama presidential campaign.

The Good: The film is funny in places.  Frankie and Russell are complete deadbeats and are incompetent in almost all aspects of their lives and as such, injected a lot of the film's humour.  This humour was important in not letting the movie become too dark and sobre.


The Bad: Even though, the film had potential, it never really came together.  What let it down the most was that it never really felt like a film.  It was closer to a clipshow comprised of unrelated scenes and events.  The way the film cut from unconnected scene to unconnected scene which gave it a very fragmented and disjointed feel.


Another negative of this film was that there wasn't an obvious protagonist.  There wasn't one character who you followed through the film.  Even though, Brad Pitt had star billing, he doesn't appear until about a third into the film.  I was also very disappointed with James Gandolfini's inclusion.  He barely appears and when he does, he contributes very little to the actual plot.


I also felt that the film tried too hard in being artistic and creative, which hurt rather than helped it.  For example, when Jackie Coogan kills Markie Trattman  by shooting him through his car window, the whole scene is in slow motion and there are something like ten different shots of the bullet leaving Coogan's gun.  I felt like that the time spent on this scene could have been better spent elsewhere.

I also didn't like how the film ended.  With Obama's inauguration speech and discussion of America as a community playing in the background, Jackie Coogan becomes progressively angrier at his employer who is holding out on him.  Coogan calls bullshit on Obama's speech, arguing that America is a capitalist, dog-eat-dog world, where it is every man for himself.  This is where the film ends. Whilst I see what they were going for, the ending was too abrupt and left me feeling very underwhelmed.


The ugly: This film was made a year before James Gandolfini died of a heart attack and it was upsetting to see him past his best in this film.


Rating: Meh

A film with potential that failed to live up to expectations.  It had promise, but was executed poorly.  Whilst Obama winning the 2008 election might have made American History, I doubt that this film will follow suit.

Click here to go to my review of American History X 

50 Shades of Grey Review


SPOILER AND EXPLICIT CONTENT ALERT

Unsurprisingly, this film is not on the top 1000 greatest films of all time, but in my review of Secretary (http://goo.gl/zUAAAw) I said I would review 50 Shades, so here's the review.  I did try reading the book, but it was so bad that I gave up after two chapters.

What's it about: Christian Grey is a young, handsome and extremely creepy millionaire with a dark secret.  Anastasia "Ana" Steele is a young, innocent English Literature student who interviews Christian Grey, after her housemate is unable to.  Christian and Ana have an instant connection and the two begin a sado-masochistic relationship.

The Good: One thing I would give 50 Shades is that, whilst it grossly misrepresents it, it does make some effort in defining the different aspects of BDSM, which is something that Secretary lacks.




The Bad: Oh boy, where do I start? 50 Shades received much publicity due to its depiction of BDSM.  It was largely criticised by BDSM communities for completely misrepresenting the practice.  Those involved in BDSM relationships have emotional courage and a strong emotional bond with one another.  Nothing could be further than the truth in 50 Shades.  Whilst Ana is emotionally attracted to Christian, he wants to keep their relationship purely physical, as he doesn't date, he doesn't want to sleep in the same bed and he doesn't make love...he fucks HARD.  50 Shades also perpetuates the misconception of those in BDSM relationships being emotionally damaged.  It is revealed that Christian Grey entered the BDSM lifestyle after he lost his virginity to one of his mother's friends and then became her submissive for years.  However, their relationship failed due to incompatibility.  Rather than gratifying Ana's desires, I would argue that Christian is using Ana to vent his anger at his failed relationship with his mother's friend.


Christian is also a horrible character.  In the book, he effectively rapes Ana, when he ignores how she gives up her consent, during a particular act.  Whilst this doesn't happen in the film, he is still very creepy, by stalking Ana everywhere, getting unjustly angry at her and selling her car without her permission.  All in all, he isn't very nice to Ana and it is difficult to see why she is so attracted to him.  Ana is also very annoying.  After Christian tells her to go off and research BDSM, rather than using her initiative, she keeps asking him question after question after question.  This climaxes when she asks him what a buttplug is (seriously, Ana, what does it sound like?)


One thing I remember from the book is the dialogue being terrible and I was unhappy to see that the film stayed faithful to the book in this regard.  The dialogue was bad from Christian's "I don't make love...I fuck HARD" to Ana's "well good...because I'm making pancakes," which was worsened by Dakota Johnson's awkward delivery.  This is more of a minor criticism, but it also really annoyed me, when Christian asks Ana "was it Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre or Thomas Hardy that first made you fall in love with English Literature?" Speaking as an English lit student, I've struggled through both Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte and I can tell you, neither of them made me fall in love with English Literature.


One thing I felt that the film really lacked was Ana narrating it.  The book is told from Ana's perspective and I felt that the film should have been too.  With Ana narrating it, I felt like her personal journey and storyarc would have been more prominent for the audience.  It would have made her struggles and conflicts more identifiable.  I think she would have been a more likeable character, if the audience had been privy to her internal thoughts and feelings.


The ending was also really bad.  Ana demands Christian to demonstrate the extremes of a BDSM relationship to try and understand his emotional distance.  Christian then whips her 6 times with a belt.  Ana is horrified by this and storms out of Christian's playroom, which isn't where he keeps his xbox, Christian then calls out Ana's name and Ana calls out Christian's and there the film ends.  This ending was far too abrupt and sudden to really tie up any loose ends or resolve any outstanding issues.  It left me feeling very underwhelmed.  Finally, if Ana had actually done any research into BDSM, then she would have learnt to expect something like that happening.


The Ugly: I don't know which line is uglier: "I'm 50 shades of fucked up" or "I don't make love...I fuck HARD."


Rating: Shit

Yes this is the first film to receive a "shit" rating," but it really is a complete train wreck.  With a bad narrative, unlikeable characters and cheesy dialogue, this is a catastrophe of a film.  Watching it in the cinema really made me think, that the director was trying to kill me softly.  

Click here to go to my next review of Killing Them Softly 

Thursday 20 August 2015

Rear Window Review


Number 35 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 'Rear Window.'

What's it about: L.B "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart) plays a photojournalist who is confined to a wheelchair for weeks on end, after breaking his leg.  To relieve his boredom, he begins spying on his neighbours through his apartment's rear window.  It is there where he begins to suspect that one of his neighbours has murdered their wife.

The Good: For the most part, the film is interesting and engaging.  The film isn't hampered by having a small cast and only two or three set, on the contrary, it is the better for it.  The tiny set of Jeffries' apartment helped to convey the claustrophobia that he was feeling at the time.  This was further improved by the camerawork.  There are a number of POV shots of Jeffries spying on his neighbours using his binoculars or camera.  This helped to put the audience in Jeffries' shoes and made him a more relatable character.


The bad: I would argue that this film took a while to get going, and whilst you could argue that Hitchcock was just setting the scene and really trying to convey the boredom that Jeffries was feeling, I felt that the film was slow throughout.  I was only engaged with it at times, but other times I was quite bored.  I knew that Hitchcock was building tension throughout, but this tension never reached me, and as a result I was not glued to the screen.


The Ugly: The antagonist is a very ugly character for killing a poor defenceless doggy.


Rating: Good

A good film that makes good use of a small cast and a few different sets, but it wasn't interesting throughout and that's why it's only good.  Although, what could be said for the antagonist is that he is a character with definitely more then 50 shades of morally grey.

 Click here to go to my next review of 50 Shades of Grey

Tuesday 11 August 2015

Rang De Basanti review

 SPOILER ALERT

"If your blood does not yet rage, then it is water in your veins." Chandrashekhar Azad

Rang De Basanti (Paint it Saffron) begins with these powerful words. Filmed in 2006 by Rakeyesh Omprakash Mehra, it is number 34 on the top 1000 films of all time.

Sue Mckinley (Alice Patten) is a British filmmaker and the granddaughter of James Mckinley who served as part of the Indian Imperial Police, during the Indian Independence Movement.  Upon reading about his interactions with five leading members of the movement: Chandrasekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Shivaram Rajguru, Ashfaqualla Khan and Ram Prasad Basmil, she travels to India to film a documentary telling the story of these five revolutionaries. 

Once there, she meets with her friend Sonia (Soha Ali Khan) and casts her four friends Daljeet "DJ," (Aamir Khan) Karan Singhania, (Siddharth Narayan) Aslam Khan, (Kunal Napoor) and Sukhi Ram, (Sharman Joshi) as four of the five revolutionaries.  The fifth revolutionary is played by a party activist Laxman Adley.  (Atul Kulkani) Whilst the five actors are initially hesitant about appearing in the film, they soon settle into their roles and begin to embody the roles they are playing.

I think this film was brilliant.  It was enlightening, uplifting and very powerful.  It was funny, brutal and very emotionally poignant.  Rang De Basanti engages with the themes of loyalty, family, patriotism and independence.  The film's content matter being the Indian Independence Movement gave the film an intriguing and interesting backdrop. 

As the film progresses, the characters begin to embrace the revolutionaries that they are playing; their lives begin to parallel the lives of their revolutionary counterparts.  Whilst, Azad, Singh, Rajguru, Khan and Basmil were fighting for independence from British Rule, DJ, Karan, Aslam, Sukhi and Sonia are fighting against the oppressive rule of their conservative elders.  The parallels that begin to grow between the revolutionaries and the actors who are playing them become progressively and startingly obvious as the film continues.

Sonia's is engaged to Ajay, a talented fighter pilot and close friend of the rest of the group. However, he sadly dies when his plane malfunctions and he steers it away from a populated town to crash harmlessly in a field. It is revealed that the Minister of Defence purchased faulty parts to save money, but he disguises his own greed and incompetence by claiming that Ajay's plane crashed not due to malfunction but due to pilot error. This enrages the group and they decide to protest. 

The five friends along with Alice, Sonia and her mother stage a peaceful protest at Ajay's memorial, but this is soon broken up by riot police who begin beating the protestors including Sonia's mother who slips into a coma.  In a move that mirrors the five revolutionaries assassinating a high ranking British officer, the group then murders the corrupt defence minister.  Just like their revolutionary counterparts, the group realises that violence is the only way to get their voices heard.  The extent that they go to for their fallen friend is touching and poignant.

Another thing that this film does well is create believable and realistic storyarcs for all of the characters.  DJ, Karan, Aslam, Sukhi and Sonia begin the film as just regular young men and women.  They like to drink, joke, talk about girls and just have a good time and enjoy themselves, which is where a lot of the film's humour comes from.  They are well-aware of the corruption in their country and their parents disapproving of them engaging in Western traditions and ideals.  However, none of them care.

 This changes with the death of Ajay and Sonia's suggestion to kill him.  The film opens with the five friends spending their free time drinking and dancing to Western music and ends with DJ, Karan, Aslam, Sukhi and Laxman all dying as martyrs for their cause.  Laxman Pandey's character arc is more interesting, because, to some extent, it is the reverse of his younger counterparts.  He begins the film as an older, conservative and very anti-Western political activist.  Yet as the film progress, he soon loses faith in his old beliefs and adopts new ones.  This character progression was also a great strength of the film, but this was not only down to the writing, but also due to the fantastic acting of the ensemble cast.  All of the cast depicted how their loyalty for each other and apathy to their country's corruption soon progressed into a burning loyalty and patriotism for India.

Rang De Basanti not only exposes the corruption in the Indian government, but it also mirrors how governments worldwide are corrupt.  You hear so many stories of corruption and greed and bribery within the American, English, Italian, French and numerous other governments and how these governments use the police and the army as repressive state apparatuses.  After the Defence Minister is hailed a martyr by the Indian government and media, the five friends take over a local radio station to confess their crime and denounce the defence minister. 

They are soon silenced by the police and army, who are told they are terrorists, shoot them all on sight, but not before the group expose the corruption within the government and enrage citizens across the country.  The fact that the five friends are dubbed as terrorists and shot as such, despite being unarmed civilians trying to bring some change to their country, reminds me strongly of how the U.S Government condemning Edward Snowdon as a terrorist, even though he did nothing more than expose the White House's own corruption. 

I also really liked the film stylistically.  When Sue is filming the documentary with her five actors, her footage is intercut with flashbacks to her grandfather's experiences with the five original revolutionaries and how they were brutally interrogated and tortured by the Indian Imperial Police.  These flashbacks were shot with a harsh yellow filter that not only gave the film an old-timey feel, but also represented the garishness and vulgarity of the Anglo-Imperial regime. 


Lastly, I loved the ending.  When DJ, Laxman, Aslam, Sukhi and Karan hijack the radio tower, my initial thought was that they were all going to be killed by the police, but somewhere, in the back of mind, I was worried that they might all survive.  Call me a pessimist, but in situations like this, I find it far too unrealistic that anybody would escape scot-free with accusing a government of corruption or hyprocisy.  This is why I was saddened and somewhat relieved that all five characters are shot by the police.  Not, because I wanted them to die, but because of how they all became martyrs for their beliefs. A revolutionary knows how dangerous their work is, they know they could be killed before they inspire change, but perhaps they could inspire masses to become revolutionaries too.  This is what these five friends do.

This film was amazing.  It was funny, touching and very emotional.  It had great acting, strong writer and a very powerful message.  I would definitely recommend it somebody wanting to watch a good film.  I promise it won't be an easy ride, but it will be a rewarding one.  Hey, it might even inspire you to make some change.  

The Intouchables Review

Number 31 on the top 1000 films of all time is the French 2011 comedy-drama: the Intouchables, directed by Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano.

What's it about: Philippe (Francois Cluzet) is a billionaire Tetraplegic who whilst looking for a new live-in caregiver hires Driss (Omar Sy.)  Driss is everything a good caregiver isn't: immature, irresponsible, insensitive and all around a bit of jerk, but he is fun-loving, happy and is a good man at heart.  As the film progresses, Driss shows Francoise how to have fun despite his disability, and Francoise realises how much he has loathed being fawned and mollycoddled over by his previous caregivers.

The Good: One of the best parts of this film is how it showcases a clashing of cultures between Philippe and Driss.  Whilst Philippe is very sophisticated and cultured, filling his time visiting art galleries and attending operas, Driss smokes and rinks with his friends and attends job interviews, not because he wants the job, but so he can get his welfare checks signed.  This clashing of cultures provides a lot of the film's humour. 

For example, when Driss takes Philippe to an art gallery, where the latter buys a painting for 41,000 euros, which is essentially nothing more then a few blotches of red paint on a white background, Driss makes his own painting by splattering a few paint colours on a white background which then sells for 11,000 euros.  Another example comes from when Driss takes Philippe to an opera and Driss immediately bursts out laughing when he sees a character dressed up as a tree start singing. 

Whilst Philippe tells him off at first, he soon starts to join in with Driss' laughter.  Even though, this clashing of cultures provides humour to the film, it also underlines the more emotionally poignant point of how despite Philippe has all of the material possessions he could ever dream off, he still feels very spiritually unfufilled.  In some of the more interesting moments of the film, Philippe actually seems happiest not attending opera or listening to a classical orchestra, but smoking a joint with Driss. 

Another theme that the film engages well in is family and poverty.  Whilst Philippe shares an enormous mansion with his rebellious teenage daughter, Driss lives in a tiny flat with five or six of his little cousins and his aunt who is struggling to take care of them all.  As well as family, the film also really engages well the theme of loyalty.  Driss is deeply loyal to his family, even when they get mixed up with drug dealers and gang violence.  Similarly, depsite it being revealed to Philippe that Driss has a criminal record, Philippe refuses to fire him, because Driss is his only ever caregiver who has never pitied him.


(http://www.blackfilm.com/read/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/The-Intouchables-10.jpg)

The bad:  There was something about the film's ending I didn't like.  I can see what they were trying to do in giving both Philippe and Driss happy yet ambiguous endings, but I'd've enjoyed seeing an ending that was more finite.


The Ugly: Nothing ugly here.

Rating: Awesome

Whilst, I really enjoyed the comedy and drama involved in this film, the ambiguous ending stops it from being superlative.  I think the best lesson that this film teaches is that the life of a tetraplegic doesn't necessarily have to be black and white, it can have plenty of colour in it, if you know where and how to find it.

Saturday 8 August 2015

Life is Beautiful Review

SPOILER ALERT

Number 30 on the top 1000 films of all time is Roberto Benigni's 1997 'Life is Beautiful.'

What's it about: Set in Italy in the 30's during, the rise of Fascism and Nazi Germany, 'Life is Beautiful' follows Guido Orefice.  Guido is a blundering, clumsy, hapless, yet charming, optimistic, imaginative and very happy young Italian-Jewish man.  He is also deeply loyal to his family and his community.  This loyalty is put to the test, when he and his family are sent to a concentration camp and put to menial labour.

The Good: One reason why this film worked so well is that Guido was such a likeable character.  His incessant clumsiness shows him to be an imperfect and therefore relatable character and how much he loves his family makes him very likeable.  This love for his family is truly put to the test when he, his young son Joshua and his wife Dora are sent to a concentration camp.  Guido and Joshua are separated from Dora and in some of the most touching moments of the film, Guido works very hard to protect his son from the harsh truth of the concentration camp.  Guido tells Joshua that the whole thing is just a game with three rules: no crying, no calling for your mother and no asking for food.  If you receive a 1000 points you win the game and get the prize of a tank.  Guido endeavours hard to keep this charade up for the duration of his and Joshua's imprisonment. 

Guido's dedication to his son was emotionally poignant and was a great strength of the film.  Roberto Benigni who not only directed and wrote the film, but also starred as Guido, deserves some credit too.  He plays the character well, not only in engaging in some great physical comedy, but also playing some of the more emotional parts very well.  I also really liked how the film was very subtle and implicit in its depiction of anti-semitism and anti-aryanism: from a few passing comments of people discussing the benefits of exterminating disabled people to Jewish people being banned from book shops, the film remains very understated and is not vulgarly explicit about its portrayal of the Holocaust. 

The concentration camp was realised very well from the squalid conditions the prisoners were kept in to the labourious labour they were expected to complete.  I also really liked how some of the prisoners, if quite passively, played along with Guido's charade to protect his son from the truth.  I also enjoyed how the film had a happy ending of sorts.  Guido and Joshua's camp is liberated and even though Guido dies in the liberation, Joshua is rescued by American soldiers in a tank.  He is then taken to be reunited with his mother.  This was a very touching and heart-warming note to end the film on.


The bad: I do think that at times, Guido's clumsiness and brashness is very over done and not entirely realistic.  He wins the love of his wife Dora by riding into her engagement dinner on a horse and then stealing away from under the nose of her fiancee.  What happens to the fiancee? Did he ever try to get Dora back or confront Guido? We don't know, as the film doesn't cover it.  Furthermore, I think the guards in the concentration camp were far unrealistically lenient with Guido.  In efforts to console his son and keep his spirits up, Guido maintains that the concentration camp is just a game for Joshua to complete and win.  Guido is constantly explaining and amending the rules for his son, and usually in relatively open sight of the guards. 

For example, when Guido and the other prisoners are carrying heavy anvils, Joshua joins his father and Guido spends a good five minutes telling him off and to go run and hide.  However, there is no mention of any guards seeing Guido and punishing him.  Secondly, Guido and Joshua sneak into an officer's quarters and use the intercom to tell Dora that they are still alive and well, but, yet again, they are not punished for it.  Whilst downbeat and dark, I feel that it would have been realistic if the pair had been shot by the guards then and there.

 I also didn't like how Joshua and all of the elderly people were never put to work in the camp.  Throughout the film, he is left in the dormitories, whilst everyone else does the work.  This is explained, as since the children and elderly people will be gassed soon anyway, there is little point in making them work.  I find this very unrealistic.  I think that as long as you were capable of working, the Nazi's would have made you work and they would have only killed you when you were no longer capable of working.  They wouldn't have made any exceptions regardless of age.


The Ugly: It was certainly disturbing hearing a logical and reasoned discussion for the justified execution of hundreds of thousands of disabled.


Rating: Good

Any film that engages with the Holocaust will always be emotionally powerful and this film was no exception.  It was funny, sweet, charming yet very brutal and horrifying.  However, I can't help to think that Guido and Joshua got away with far too much in the camp, considering that they were thought of as untouchable Jews.

Leon: the Professional Review

SPOILER ALERT

Number 27 on the top 1000 films of all time is Luc Besson's 1994: 'Leon: the Professional.'

What's it about: Leon (Jean Reno) is a French hit-man or "cleaner" who lives in a New York apartment.  His neighbour is a 12 year old girl (Natalie Portman in her breakout role) called Matilda.  Matilda is the daughter of abusive and neglectful parents and when a drug deal goes bad between Matilda's father and a rogue DEA agent: Norman Stansfield (played by Gary Oldman) Stansfield kills Matilda's parents.  Whilst this doesn't particularly bother her, Stansfield also kills her little brother.  After this Leon takes Matilda in and reluctantly trains her to be an assassin in order to exact her revenge of Stansfield.

The Good: There's no denying that this is an odd film.  A 45 year old man takes in a 12 year girl and trains her to be an assassin.  To make things odder, the two then begin to have romantic feelings for each other.  Despite the strangeness, the film works.  At heart, the narrative is a simple revenge story, mixed in with a love story.  These two contrasting themes are what made the film interesting for me.  

The odd narrative and combination of these two genres made the film original and different.  The acting was good all around.  Jean Reno as Leon was great.  Reno just has one of those faces that look familiar.  Gary Oldman was also brilliant as the villainous DEA agent, Norman Stansfield.  Not only was he completely psychotic, but he was in complete denial of his evilness, which made him scarier.  Natalie Portman was also very interesting as Matilda.  She is confident in her own abilities and very convincing throughout the film.


The bad: Despite the strange narrative, the film is believable for the majority of the time.  However, there are a few occasions, where it does push the suspension of disbelief a little too far.  Firstly, upon hearing Matilda's request for Leon to train her to be an assassin, he dismisses her as a child not capable of killing anyone.  Matilda responds by snatching up his gun and firing many times out of his apartment window.  The fact that this doesn't attract police attention or any attention at all is too unrealistic to believe.

 Secondly, when training Matilda, Leon takes on a number of hits, one of which involves using a grenade to gain access to one of the victim's apartments.  Again, I found it too unrealistic that this didn't attract any attention.  I was also quite disappointed that Matilda never kills anyone in the film.  Whilst it was certainly romantic for Leon to sacrifice his life to kill Stansfield, I felt it would have been more poetical and appropriate for Matilda to have performed the hit.


The Ugly: Whilst Gary Oldman's highly exaggerated scream of "BRING ME EVERYONE!" might have been deliberately and wonderfully over the top, it still portrayed the ugliness of his character.

Rating: Good

Strong acting coupled with an odd but interesting narrative made this film good, but too many logical inconsistencies stopped it from being awesome.  Throughout this film, it is clear that none of these characters have beautiful lives, but they adapt and grow to make the best of the ones they have.

Thursday 6 August 2015

City Lights Review

 SPOILER ALERT

Number 26 on the 1000 greatest films of all time is Charlie Chaplin's 1931 'City Lights.' It is my first silent film and also my first Charlie Chaplin film.

What's it about: In this film, Charlie Chaplin plays his most famous character: the Tramp.  The Tramp falls in love with an unnamed blind flower-seller an also befriends a local millionaire.  After the Tramp finds out that his would-be lover will be evicted from her apartment after failure to pay rent, he works to raise the money for her, as well as for treatment to cure her blindness.

The Good: As this was my first silent film, I wasn't sure what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised here.  Despite the lack of dialogue, the film was very clear and easy to follow.  It had a very simple narrative and it was easy to distinguish between which character was which and what their motivations were.  The film was also quite funny too.  Due to it not having dialogue, the humour all came from physical comedy.  Some of the funnier moments came from the Tramp being caught sleeping on a newly-veiled monument and making a fool of himself, when trying to get off it and also when the Tramp and his millionaire friend go to a fancy dinner and cause absolute mayhem.  The ending was also very sweet.  The Tramp not only raise his would be lover's rent money, but also enough money for her to receive the cure for her blindness.  The film ends on on her realising who exactly the Tramp is and what's he done for her.  It was very touching to see the girl recognise and see the Tramp for the first time.  The musical score was also great and matched up with the film well.


The bad: I felt that on some occasions, the comedy element was overdone.  For example, when the Tramp stops his millionaire friend from drowning himself, there is a sequence where the pair inadvertently and repeatedly fall into the water.  The film also didn't keep my entire interest.  Perhaps it was the lack of dialogue, but at some points, I felt quite unengaged from the film.


The Ugly: I think this film is too sweet to have an ugly moment.


Rating: Good

Groundbreaking at its time and still a good entertaining watch, even if I did feel a little bored at times, I still think the film was very professionally done.

Wednesday 5 August 2015

Se7en Review



SPOILER ALERT

Number 25 on the top 1000 films ofall time is this psychological horror/thriller film, David Fincher’s 1995 film Se7en.

What’s it about: Morgan Freeman plays the soon-to-retire William Somerset, an old and wise police detective and Brad Pitt is the cocky, young and arrogant Detective Mills.  Together they pursue a sadistic serial killer dubbed John Doe, played brilliantly by Kevin Spacey, who murders people in conjunction with seven deadly sins: lust, pride, greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath and envy. 

I really liked the premise behind this film and how it delved in deep into the psyche of a serial killer.  I’ve noticed that in society, there is a strong fascination with serial killers and their motivations.  Whilst we don’t necessarily condone their actions, they are definitely interesting to learn about.  This is one reason why I liked this film: it really took the time to explore John Doe’s character and his motivations for killing.  It delves well into his backstory and his psyche.  This fleshed him out better as a character and added a sense of intrigue to the film.  Kevin Spacey was once again great as the serial killer: John Doe.  Playing the role with a deadpan seriousness, he conveyed himself, as a cool, calm and collected character.  This is what made him so scary; the fact that he doesn’t show any emotion or remorse for his actions makes him truly frightening.  I also quite liked the idea of John Doe using the seven deadly sins as a template for his kills.  I felt that this was creative and original enough to keep the film memorable.

Although, I did feel that this film was anti-climatic in terms of its scariness.  I expected to be hiding behind a cushion for the whole film, but I was able to watch it all without a problem.  Whilst Kevin Spacey was very scary, I felt that the film would have been scarier if the violence had happened on-screen, rather than off.

Great acting and an original narrative makes this film awesome, yet being anti-climatic in terms of scariness hurts it.  As an after-thought, I also really loved some of the camerawork showing off the city lights at night, where Se7en is set.