Planes, Trains and Automobiles review

 Number 742 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Hughes' 1987 comedy 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles.'

Neal Page (Steve Martin) is a high-strung ad-man trying to return home to New York from Chicago in time for Thanksgiving. However, after his plane is diverted due to a snow storm, he seeks an alternative way home. He is joined by the oafish, but kind-hearted Del Griffith (John Candy.) 

This was a great comedy that focussed on the age-old trope of the odd couple. Steve Martin and John Candy were absolutely brilliant together. Neal Page was the grumpy, irascible jerk playing the straight man to Griffith's funny man. And there were some great gags in this film from Page trying to bribe another businessman to use his taxi to Page and Griffith inadvertently spooning in a motel room from the two of them hitch-hiking in the back of a pick-up truck that belongs to a Southern hick in Missouri. Yet unlike with some comedies, the jokes never strayed into the predictable or cheesy territory. Part of that was down to Martin and Candy having a really great chemistry.

Yet this wasn't just a comedy. It was a film with real heart. John Hughes and the two leads did well to stop the different characters from becoming caricatures. Del Griffith was more than the lovable, fat oaf. Neal Page had more to his character than simply being an unlikeable jerk. When the two are forced to share a motel room for the night, Page tires of Griffith's slovenly habits and snaps at him. Instead of snapping back, Griffith unapologetically states that he might be a buffoon, but he likes who he is and he isn't changing. Most importantly, his wife also likes him. It was difficult not to feel for Griffith at this point. Page also realises that he has gone too far and the two reconcile. Page shows some real growth and has a great character arc.

And I did enjoy how this comedy did engage with some deeper themes. It stopped it from being a pointless farce yet it wasn't corny or sentimental either. It engaged with the film's key theme of thanksgiving. Page might have initially been very angry at being lumped together with Griffith, but by the film's conclusion, the two have become good friends. Page is thankful for his experiences. And when Griffith reveals *spoiler alert* that he has nowhere to go for thanksgiving as his wife is long dead, Page openly welcomes him into his home.

All in all, I really enjoyed this film. It was a great comedy film that had real heart. And Steve Martin and John Candy just had a great chemistry. If we celebrated Thanksgiving in the UK, I would surely be watching this every year.

Enemy at the Gates review

 Number 734 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2001 war drama 'Enemy at the Gates.'

Set during the Battle of Stalingrad during WW2, 'Enemy at the Gates,' follows the sniper Vasily Zaitsev turned living legend. His colleague Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) uses Vasily as a piece of propaganda to embolden the Russian troops fighting against the Germans. One such German is Major Konig (Ed Harris) who is another sniper who embarks to kill Vasily at any costs. 

Based on a true story, although no doubt creative license was taken, Enemy at the gates received its fair share of criticism for its historical inaccuracy. I am not a historian so I cannot comment on this. However, 'Enemy at the Gates,' took a massive historical event and told it on the micro-level, delivering an entertaining and gripping narrative. Granted, it was probably overly-simplistic at times, but it was thrilling nonetheless.

Law and Harris embark on a cat-and-mouse game that always keeps the tension at a high. Both of them are such living legends that the death of either would surely tip the scales in the balance of power. there is excitement abound in the many battle sequences - this was 2001 so we can forgive the ropey CGI, but the special effects were great.

What was less great was the love triangle between Vassily, Danilov and interpreter Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz.) I understand that love stories add heart and offset the darker themes, which is all well and good, if they actually work. But this one didn't and it distracted from an otherwise good film. Danilove grows so obsessed with Tania that he has her transferred to headquarters so he can work more closely with her. And Joseph Fiennes' portrayal of him was creepy and predatory. And as for Law and Weisz, I don't think there were any sparks in between them, let alone fireworks.

Also, can we talk about the accents? Ron Perlman stars in a supporting role, playing a former protege of Konig, but he does the weirdest accent. It isn't German or Russian, but a peculiar hybrid of English and Australian. Considering, Fiennes, Law and Weisz speak in their natural accents why doesn't Perlman? Also Ed Harris does a strange accent. I don't know what it was, but it certainly wasn't German.

This film might have faltered with its oversimplified plot and faltering love triangle, but it was an entertaining film.

Bound review

 Number 862 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Wachowski sisters' directorial debut and neo-noir crime-thriller 'Bound.'

Violet (Jennifer Tilly) is the girlfriend to the violent and unpredictable money launderer to the mob Caesar (Joe Pantoliano) and is sick of being in the life. She starts a clandestine affair with ex-con and neighbour Corky (Gina Gershon.) The two start plotting to rip off Caesar and the mob and then cut and run.

What the Wachowskis did with Bound was take a genre that's had its heyday - noir - and injected some new life into it. They did this through Violet and Corky's lesbian relationship. Reportedly, the Wachoskis struggled in finding an interested studio and actresses, but they stuck to the guns and I'm glad they did, instead of giving the more conventional route of a straight relationship. Putting a lesbian love affair front-and-centre was a brave choice for the nineties, but it worked well. Representation in mainstream media is such a buzzword in modern cinema, but Bound, showed that when representation is done right, it's great to watch. Gay women can do everything straight men can do.

It would have been all too easy to have a man in Violet's place, convincing his lover to help him flee the mob. But this gender-bending helped to subvert a clever cliche. I also enjoyed how Violet and Corky were both equals. In the noir films of old, it would be the male hero doing all the exciting stuff, while the woman stood by and looked pretty. yet as much of a badass Corky is, Violet was every bit her equal.

It is Violet who kicks the story into gear. When things go wrong, it is she who stays calm and doesn't panic. And when Caesar figures out their plan, it is she who manipulates things to her advantage. And it is Violet, not Corky, who *spoiler alert* kills Caesar, successfully completing their heist.

Conversely, the tough-as-nails, closed-off Carly has a chance to display her more sensitive side - and all credit to Gina Gershon who took what could have been just another emotionally closed-off woman and made her a character in her own right. Jennifer Tilly was also great as a femme fatale type role.

I've been speaking at length about the female leads, but I have to mention Joe Pantoliano. In his debut lead role, he played the slimy and manipulative Caesar to a tee. Pantoliano has a penchant for playing memorable villains whether that's in on the Sopranos or Memento or the Matrix. He's a great actor. So is Christopher Meloni who gave a memorable performance as secondary villain, fellow mobster and Caesar's rival 'Johnny.' He provided a lot of dark comic relief.

I thoroughly enjoyed this neo-noir thriller. It was gripping throughout, maybe not always the most believable, but it was a hell of a ride.

Battle Royale review

 Number 501 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Japanese action-thriller 'Battle Royale.'

In a dystopian future, to curtail rising teenage delinquency, the Japanese government forces a group of junior-high-school students to fight to the death on an abandoned island. These include aspiring love-birds Shuya Nanahara (Tatsuya Fujiwara) and Noriko Nakagawa (Aki Maeda,) exchange students, wildcards and former champions - the quiet Shogo Kawada (Taro Yamamoto,) and the psychotic Kazuo Kiriyama (Masanobu Ando), and the mysterious but equally psychotic Mitsuko Souma (Kou Shibasaki.)

Battle Royale was the Hunger Games before the Hunger Games. There is an on-going debate about which of the two is better - * cough cough* it is Battle Royale, by a country mile. Yes, Battle Royale is cheesy, over-the-top and pretty ridiculous at times, but that is what made it so enjoyable. Unlike, another film I could name, it doesn't take itself very seriously. It is dour and downbeat at times, but also self-aware and funny. The contestants constantly acknowledge the absurdity of their situation. And even the creators of the game do too - to supposedly make things as fair as possible, they give the kids a different weapon each - some get guns, some get knives, some get nunchucks - Shuya and Noriko get binoculars and a cooking pot lid.

The tournament begins with forty-two contestants and things are very confusing at first. All of the schoolkids are dressed the same in their uniforms meaning that it was difficult to tell them apart. Director Kinji Fukasaku tries his best to give each of the kids an important scene before their inevitable deaths, arguably he does a better job than other directors have done, but there were just too many characters for me to care about. It was only after the competition started to get whittle down did things become clearer. 

But then again, Fukasaku was just killing off the supporting cast, so he could properly focus on our principle characters - such as Kawada who entered the competition to gain revenge on the tournament's founder - former teacher Kitano (Takeshi Kitano.) Kawada won the last tournament at the expense of his former love. 

The stylised violence does border on the excessive at times, I don't think I've ever seen so much spurting blood before. And, perhaps you can argue it was a little silly that each character stays alive long enough to get a memorable death scene. However, a lot of this violence is offset with emotional storylines. We see love and lust blossom among a lot of the contestants - we see tales of friendship and tales of heartbreak. Some of the kids commit suicide instead of fighting. Other abstain from fighting altogether and the strongest group together. All of the reactions were so human. But, most importantly, we see kids act like kids. These aren't adults who have willingly volunteered for this gladatorial fight to the death, but school kids who are being punished by the Japanese Government. And that's where Fukasaku succeeded. Yes, the actual concept and execution might be a little spurious, but the characterisation felt real.

And some of the best characterisation comes from the film's antagonist: Kitano. His backstory is explained within a flashback where he resigns from his teaching job after being knifed by one of his students. It is later explained that he has a tumultuous relationship with his own estranged daughter. Yet like many of the other characters *spoiler alert,* he stays alive long enough so he can have famous last words. After Shuya supposedly shoots him dead, he stands up, answers the phone and then dies for real. Kitano's backstory is explained as him having a tumultuous relationship with his own daughter. Pretty ridiculous, but entertaining nonetheless. This all added to the rich tableau of Battle Royale. A tableau that's a hell of a lot richer than the bloody Hunger Games.

The Hurt Locker review

 Number 667 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kathryn Bigelow's war drama 'the Hurt Locker.'

Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner) is the new team leader of a U.S Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit during the Iraq War. However, he is also a maverick and renegade, often playing by his own rules. This soon puts him into conflict with the rest of his team, most notably, his second-in-command Sgt. J.T Sanborn (Anthony Mackie.) Chris Carmago, Ralph Fiennes and Guy Pearce all co-star.

When Kathryn Bigelow won the 2008 Best Director Oscar, she made history by becoming the first woman to have done so. I would argue it was a worthy win. Within 'the Hurt Locker,' she portrayed a harrowing, nuanced and gritty portrayal of war. This wasn't an overly-simplistic "Americans are good and rest of the world is bad," it was far more complicated and realistic than that. Part of that realism comes from how 'the Hurt Locker' was shot in Jordan - close to the Iraqi border. Reportedly, she had wanted to film in Iraq, but it would have been too dangerous. Although, the cast and crew were shot at on multiple occasions, so ... but by filming on location, Bigelow brought a brilliant authenticity to the film. This wasn't just some Hollywood sound stage, but a reality for the many poor people who live and suffer here. 

As is inevitably the case in war films where all the characters are dressed alike and there are lots of explosions and gunfire, things do become chaotic and confusing. But, as such, is the nature of war. It's a frenetic and hectic environment where danger lies around every corner. This type of high-octane risk was enough to keep me glued to the screen.

Although, I would question the nature of James' character. Renegade, mavericks who don't play by the rules maybe great characters with lots of agency who push stories along, but I wonder how realistic they are in real life. Surely, in high-discipline environments like the military where obedience is key, a character who constantly breaks the rule would never be allowed to thrive like James does. Every decision you make not only impacts whether not only you, but also your teammate, come home alive or in a body bag. Okay, so James is good at his job and always gets results, but he is repeatedly putting his comrades in danger. James repeatedly clashes with Sanborn. And later, James' reckless actions lead to one of his men becoming badly hurt and having to be airlifted home. These rogueish actions might make great watching and great conflict, but I don't think it's realistic at all.

The film ends with the conclusion of James' rotation where he returns to the US and struggles to adapt to civillian life. There is a gulf between his wife and daughter, and he quickly decides to return to Iraq. This was such an important theme to explore, but I feel it was a little short-changed. So many veterans struggle to reassimilate to everyday life as they don't receive the support they need. It's horrible to see. However, I don't think this was explored in enough depth. We didn't see enough of James' family to feel any type of emotional connection. I cared about him as a soldier, but not as a family man. Bigelow didn't give me enough to care about. Perhaps if the film was book-ended with scenes of his wife and daughter, things might have been better.

Nevertheless, this was a taut and gripping war drama that earned Kathryn Bigelow a well-deserving Best Director Oscar. And congratulations for being the first woman to receive that illustrious prize.

Gandhi review

 Number 217 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Attenborough's epic biopic 'Gandhi.'

This biopic focusses on the life of historical figure Mohandas 'Mahatma' Gandhi - the man who led India to independence from the British Empire. Ben Kingsley plays the man himself from his humble beginnings as a lawyer being thrown off a train in South Africa to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre to gaining Indian independence to his eventual assassination.

This was a difficult film for me to review. While I'm no expert on Gandhi, I certainly know his reputation. He is a veritable hero in India - well not to everybody, but we won't get into that now - some will go so far to call him the Father of the Country. There is no denying that Gandhi tackles the important subject matter of what was in effect the beginning of the end of the British Empire. For his expansive and comprehensive perspective, Richard Attenborough won the Best Director and the Best Film Oscars. This is no surprise really. The Academy loves a biopic, especially an epic biopic. 

Through his direction and Ben Kingsley's Oscar winning performance, they helped to demystify the legendary figure of Gandhi. Gandhi kicks off with the titular character being racially discriminated against. Despite having a first-class ticket, he is kicked off a train in South Africa for no other reason than the colour of his skin. This injustice ignites a fire inside of him and he starts non-violent protests for all Indians in South Africa. His protests win many important rights for his compatriots and later he heads home to join other Indian revolutionaries in gaining independence. 

Despite its significant subject matter, the film struggled to hold my attention. And that isn't a fair criticism of the film itself, but it's my own personal preference. I don't care for period dramas. And I certainly don't care for epic period dramas that exceed three hours. They don't grip me and they don't hook me in. There's no denying that Kingsley isn't a talented actor. There is a reason he won the Oscar. But perhaps Attenborough could have been a bit choppier with the pacing. I think it was a little inconsistent. At times, it blistered along, most notably with the Jallianwala Massacre, but at others it was slow especially toward the ending. 

I think everything came a bit bogged down in the denouement. Gandhi is building toward Indian independence. But when India gets its independence, there are further problems with the Partition of India. While this is important to set up, Gandhi's death, I think it could have been shortened and simplified.

So, like I said, I had trouble in reviewing this film. I think I should have liked it more than I did. There's no doubt that it tackles difficult subject matters, I just bloody hate three-hour long period dramas.

End of Watch review

 Number 633 on the top 1000 films of all time is the crime drama 'End of Watch.'

Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena) are best friends and LAPD officers. Shot documentary style, the film follows their relationship as they stumble upon a massive drug-running and people trafficking organisation and soon become targets of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Since starting this challenge, I've watched my fair share of cop dramas from Crash to Training Day. And they're often felt unrealistic. Either they've been over-the-top or too understated. But End of Watch had a lovely authenticity flowing through it. Part of that was down to its cinematography.

As previously stated, this was shot as a documentary. This is worked into the story. Brian is doing a film class and so he's filming all his police work on a hand-held camcorder. What he misses is picked up by dashcam and bodycam footage. Some critics maligned this as being unnecessary and confusing. Yes, at times, especially during the gunfights, it did become chaotic. But that's exactly what it would be like in real life. And the camera work adds another layer of realism. It shows these cops at their most relaxed, there is no fake facade or veneer. These are your police, like them or not. 

Rather than being unnecessary, it made everything feel so much more real. What I will concede is that it was strange seeing the Mexican gangbangers film themselves with camcorders too. Surely, they're smart enough to realise that they're incriminating themselves. This didn't make any sense.

Another reason End of Watch felt so real was because of the chemistry of the two leads - Gyllenhaal and Pena. Reportedly, the two didn't connect at first, but over time they became good friends. And this came across in the final project. A lot of the banter between them was completely improvised making their relationship all the more genuine. You got a real sense of the camaraderie that exists within the police force.

If there was anything I didn't like, it was the ending. *Spoiler alert* The cartel tracks down Taylor and Zavala - shooting both of them. Taylor survives and Zavala doesn't.  It would have been better if this was the other way around. Taylor is reckless and impulsive, often dragging his friend into danger - he's the one who initially incurs the cartel's wrath. It would make sense that his rashness would get him killed. But then again, it's all too common for the more rational characters like Zavala to die because of the impulsiveness of people like Taylor.

Granted, the film is a little cheesy in places - I could have done without Taylor's opening monologue, where he espouses about what it means to be a police officer. However, I do think that this type of cultural identity definitely exists within the LAPD.

This is a gritty police drama that neither exaggerates what being a police officer is like nor does it romanticise it. Rather it creates an authentic reality that lets the viewer make up their own mind.

South Park: Longer, Bigger, Uncut review

 Number 499 on the top 1000 films of all time is the animated black comedy 'South Park: Longer, Bigger, Uncut.'

This film was inspired by the TV series of the same name and featured all out favourite characters including Cartman, Kyle, Stan, Kenny and Chef. The four boys sneak into an R-rated, Canadian film called Asses of Fire. It is a vulgar and crude film that influences them to start swearing profusely. Their mothers start campaigning for the film and the creators to be executed - sending a moral panic across the US. Meanwhile, after dying one too many times, Kenny is consigned to hell where he discovers a secret plot between Satan and Saddam Hussein to take over the world.

I'm going to preface this review by saying that I don't like South Park. I have watched the first season and I found it juvenile, repetitive and boring. This film is supposed to be a satire of censorship. People should have the freedom to joke about what they like without any consequences. I get that, but I think there were more subtle and sophisticated ways to have gone about it. A lot of the film's humour is based around shock factor and being as offensive as possible. That's all well and good, but that type of outrage humour only works in moderation.

Sure it might have been funny hearing Kyle and Stan sing about "Uncle Fucker" or Cartman telling Mr Garrison to "suck my balls," once or twice, but hearing it over and over became very tedious. I'm sure I'll get some denouncing me as a liberal snowflake, but I don't have a problem, as such, with the content of the jokes, but with how they were told. There is a small clip of Chinese people - drawn in stereotypical ways, singing the Uncle Fucker song in mock Chinese. I am of a Chinese heritage and I didn't find this offensive. In fact, it was so silly, it was actually funny. It's a shame there weren't more jokes like this instead of the monotonous use of vulgar swear words in lieu of any humour.

I much preferred the subplot concerning Kenny, Satan and Saddam Hussein. Not only are the two conspiring to take over the world, but they're also in a relationship. This was so ridiculous that it was hilarious to watch. To see two of the evilest people in history become a bickering, married couple was a clever and funny idea.

South Park wasn't the movie for me. I didn't find it funny. As I always say, there isn't anything wrong with dark/shock humour, as long as it's clever, and not just shocking for shocking's sake.

Road to Perdition review

 Number 544 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sam Mendes' 2002 crime drama 'Road to Perdition.'

Tom Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a hitman working for Irish-American mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) in 1930's Illinois. When Sullivan is out on a hit with Rooney's son, Connor (Daniel Craig,) Sullivan's own son witnesses the killing. Fearing the boy will talk, Connor kills Michael's wife and his own son. Hellbent on revenge, Hanks will stop at nothing to kill Connor. Meanwhile, a silent assassin Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) is tracking down Michael Sullivan.

What I liked most about this film was its understated nature. For a gangster film, it was subtle and quiet. While there were big acts of violence, as we would expect, it was never gratuitous. This was a film that prided itself on its nuanced performances rather than its grandiose spectacles. And there were some great performances.

Tom Hanks always knocks it out of the park. From Saving Private Ryan  to Captain Philips, he has proven time and time again that he is a well-deserving two-time Oscar winner. This was also Paul Newman's last live-action role before his death a few years later. I remember him well from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. And he brought the same gruff charisma to this role. His character is one of conflict. As well as being Connor's father, he is also Michael's spiritual father. He is a man caught between two sons and two worlds and Newman played the role well.

I was less convinced by Law and Craig, but I feel that's more due to their writing rather than their performances. Law's character was too mysterious and under-developed to be of any circumstance. And after making a powerful impact in the film's first half, Craig then completely disappears in the second half. Supposedly, his character goes into hiding, but considering the film is building towards a showdown between he and Michael Sullivan, it was a let-down to not see this showdown playout.

Nonetheless, this was an enjoyable and effective gangster thriller. And I certainly think that Newman went out on a high.

300 review

 Number 513 on the top 1000 films of all time Zack Snyder's historical, action film '300.'

Based on the historical events, 300 follows King Leonidas (Gerald Butler) leading his 300 strong soldiers in battle against the Persian King-God Xerses (Rodrigo Santoro.) Fiercely outnumbered, Leonidas and his soldiers are determined to fight with everything they have.

300 strongly reminded me of a sword-and-sandals version of Braveheart. You had your dodgy history, your cheesy dialogue, your dodgy accents and plenty of blood and guts. However, what's important to remember that, first and foremost, 300 and Braveheart are films. They're films designed to entertain and not documentaries designed to inform. So it wouldn't really be fair to judge the films on their historical accuracy. Also 300 was inspired by Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name. Just like Snyder, Miller embellished history to tell a better story. Snyder also utilised a special chroma key technique to represent the graphic novel's visual style. Granted the film isn't the most believable at times, it definitely isn't something to be taken seriously.

That notwithstanding, I do think you can legitimately criticise the film for its pacing. It was just so damn slow. Away from Leonidas, there are a lot of dialogue-heavy scenes between Lena Headley and Dominic West. And even though there were plenty lots of action/battle scenes which you would think would speed things up, this was immediately undermined by the gratuitous slow-motion. We saw some exciting action sequences that became boring when they were slowed down. There's only so many times we can see Leonidas or one of his generic minions cutting off a Persian's head or impaling them on a spear in slow-motion.

The cheesy dialogue did not do anything to help speed things up either. Just as it looks like things might get going, the plot is slowed down with some verbose, corny monologue. These monologues were mostly delivered by Gerard Butler in an attempt to psych up his troops. But he also had plenty of cheesy and unnecessary one-liners. Yet a lot of the dialogue was over-written. It could have been pared down immensely. 

The supporting cast were all very indistinguishable at all. I did struggle in telling who was who. Yes, they were all soldiers and dressed the same, but even so I think they could have been better characterised. Even though there were some famous faces like Michael Fassbender or David Wenham, it was hard to tell one Spartan from another.

Speaking of David Wenham, he plays Dillos - the only survivor of the attack and also the narrator of the film. I really feel like we could have done without the narration. At times, it did help to elucidate what was happening, but mostly, it seemed like a massive engine for exposition. And this constant, non-stop exposition killed the pacing time after time. Dillos was generally telling us things that we already knew or that we could infer from the context. It just wasn't necessary most of the time. 

Also the CGI was just awful. All of the backgrounds and the monsters looked so fake. I can only assume this was intentional, but I'm not sure why.

300 is an enjoyable enough film. Yes, it is cheesy, slow and historically inaccurate. But you have to remember it is only a film at the end of the day. Watch it for its entertainment factor and you won't be disappointed. 

The Bourne Ultimatum review

 Number 225 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Greengrass' action thriller 'The Bourne Ultimatum.'

The third in the Jason Bourne series, the Bourne Ultimatum follows former CIA assassin Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) as he aims to find out more about his past. Suffering from amnesia, he is desperate to find out more about how he became the man he is today. His journey takes him across the world from Russia to London to New York as he investigates the mysterious Operation Blackbriar. And he is aided by former CIA operative Nicky Parsons (Julia Styles.)

The very nature of this list means that I watch lots of film series in the wrong order. Despite being the third film in the series, this is the first Jason Bourne film that I've watched. Please forgive me if I made any ignorant comments about the film's content. 

But as far as films go, The Bourne Ultimatum is a pretty generic thriller. It has all of your favourite action movie tropes: gun fights, car chases, explosions and a ridiculous amount of plot armour. Jason Bourne survives things that would kill non-action heroes such as myself. But that's what we would expect from our favourite action stars. And the action sequences were good. They were tense and thrilling if a little unbelievable or frenetic at times.

However, the biggest thing missing from this film was a central villain. Sure, there were plenty of villainous characters, but I don't think any of them really took an Ernst Bloefiled role. Noah Vasen (David Straithairn) the CIA deputy director is little more than hapless bureaucrat, constantly outwitted by Bourne at every occasion, He didn't pose any real threat. Paz (Edgar Ramirez) a CIA assassin was too generic to be memorable. I guess the scientist Dr Hirsch (Albert Finney) who orchestrated the mind control program that turned Bourne into a ruthless killer was supposed to be the big bad. But he really only appears at the end of the film. Up until then, he is only seen in shadowy phone calls. Too vague and enigmatic to be scary.

I also thought that a love story was missing from this film. In action films, there is usually a love story; a bit of heart to off-set all the high-octane action. But that was missing here. It's implied that Jason Bourne's last girlfriend has been killed, but I thought that something might happen between him and Nicky Parsons. But, apparently not. To be honest, Nicky Parsons didn't do very much at all. I think Julia Styles was wasted. It's a shame as he is a great actress.

The Bourne Ultimatum is good as far as it goes. It's exciting, gripping and thrilling, but it could have gone a hell of a lot further.

Glengarry Glen Ross review

 Number 416 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama 'Glengarry Glen Ross.'

Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning play of the same name, Glengarry Glen Ross follows four real estate agents pitted against each other to make the most money. Only the top two agents will be retained and the other two will be fired. There is the office's top-seller Richard  Roma (Al Pacino,) the fallen star Shelly Duverne (Jack Lemmon,) the devious Dave Moss (Ed Harris) and the placid George Aaronow (Alan Arkin.) Rounding up the agents is the office manager John Williamson (Kevin Spacey.)

Upon starring in the film, Jack Lemmon remarked that he had never been surrounded by such acting talent before. And he was right. This film has Al Pacino to Kevin Spacey to even Alec Baldwin in a supporting role. For films adapted from the stage, you need a strong cast. There aren't any fancy set pieces or special effects. All of the audience's attention is on the cast.

I especially enjoyed Jack Lemmon. He might be better known for his screwball comedies of the fifties and the sixties, but he did the drama exceptionally well. Slowly Duverne was one of the best sellers within the office until he falls into a slump. Lemmon played him with just the right amount of vulnerability. He was sympathetic and pitiful, but not in a way that made him pathetic.

Al Pacino was also great as the erratic and the irascible Richard Roma. He spends much of the film, forcing the weak-minded James Lingk (Jonathan Pryce) into a deal that he really doesn't want to do. Just when it looks like everything is kosher, Lingk backs out causing Roma to have a veritable breakdown. Pacino acted with a manic energy that would be difficult for any actor to match.

I was less impressed with Alan Arkin and Ed Harris. They weren't necessarily bad, but their efforts paled in comparison with Lemmon and Pacino. I don't think Moss or Aaronow were particularly memorable characters. The two even seemed to blend into one at times. Surprisingly, Kevin Spacey was nothing special either. True it was a supporting performance, but it wasn't a noteworthy performance either. Alec Baldwin was good in his supporting role.

Glengarry Glenn Ross is a funny, old film. It is certainly low on spectacle, but high on acting talent especially from Al Pacino and Jack Lemmon. 

Crash review

 Number 383 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Haggis' crime drama film 'Crash.'

Crash follows a group of intersecting characters and how they interact with each other across Los Angeles. Some of these characters include LA District Attorney Rick Cabot (Brendan Fraser,) his wife Jean (Sandra Bullock) a collection of police officers including Graham Waters (Don Cheadle,) Sergeant John Ryan (Matt Dillon) and Officer Tom Hansen (Ryan Philippe,) and film producer Cameron Thayer (Terrence Howard) and his wife Christine (Thandie Newton.)

Crash won the Best film Oscar. This was a controversial decision as many thought that Brokeback Mountain should have won instead. Even director Paul Haggis doesn't think Crash should have won. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain so I can't comment on the first point, but I do agree that Crash wasn't a worthy Best Picture winner. It is an overly-ambitious and rushed film that tries to do too much in too little time. Rather than being a cohesive film, it is more of a collection of vignettes with a very loose story-thread connecting all the moving parts.

This thread is so loose that many of the connections feel contrived. Detective Graham Waters is looking for his errant brother, Peter (Larenz Tate) who just so happens to have been killed and left by the side of the road by Officer Tom Hansen. Not only that but he and his friend Anthony (Ludacris) carjack who else but Rick and Jean Cabot. When Christina is victim to a horrific car crash, who should come and save her but Sergeant John Ryan - a racist cop who sexually assaulted her the night before.

In my summary, I mentioned just a few of the different characters and storylines. There are so many that inevitably some do get overshadowed or short-changed. Despite Sandra Bullock being top-billed, she only appears in a handful of scenes. She initially comes across as a snooty and racially prejudiced woman - she doesn't like the locksmith Daniel (Michael Pena) because he is Hispanic. However, after a fall down the stairs where she is rescued by her Hispanic housekeeper, she has a change of heart. It's not exactly a road to Damascus moment, but we've given to understand that she's learned the error of her ways. At least that was the intention, but we really don't see enough evidence to justify this transformation.

I touched upon Christina's sexual assault earlier. This is played out in a great fashion. She and her husband Cameron are unjustly pulled over by Sergeant John Ryan. Ryan accosts the couple by accusing them of having oral sex while driving. He makes them exit the vehicle and then evasively searches Christine. He threatens to report Cameron's conviction unless he apologises for his supposed misoffence. Cameron does so and the two are let go. Later on, they have a huge fight as Christine is angry that Cameron allowed her to be taken advantage of. 

Skip to the car crash scene and Christine is being rescued by Ryan. This had the potential to be such an interesting plot thread. Christine's life is saved by the police officer who molested her. How does this change her thoughts on the police? How does this change her thoughts on being sexually assaulted? How will this affect her relationship with Cameron? We don't know, because her storyline is barely touched upon again. This isn't to denigrate Newton's acting. She was fantastic - conveying horror, panic and terror all in one, but her material short changed her. 

Speaking of acting, I also think that Terrence Howard was excellent. He is arguably less 'woke' than his wife and far more respectful of the police and white institutions in general. The two have a massive argument where she accuses him of not being as "black" as she. However, as he is slowly confronted with the bigotry all around him, especially in the film world, he becomes a pressure cooker waiting to blow. This happens when Peter and Anthony attempt to carjack him and are then confronted by none other than Tom Hansen. See what I said about contrivances? Anyway, in a sharp contrast to his previous encounter with police, he tearfully confronts the officers, ready to be shot by them. Terrence Howard played this part brilliantly - the indignation, the anger. It was great.

Anthony's storyline was also a little contrived. He is a carjacker, but he is also alert to the social injustice around him. After his failing carjacking of Cameron, the film producer tells him he is an embarrassment. Anthony goes onto carjack a white van which he takes to a fence. But, lo and behold, the fence is full of South-East Asian refugees. Instead of letting a fence buy them to sell them to the highest bidder, he frees them in the city's Chinatown. Again, I don't think there was enough groundwork to justify such a sudden change of heart. Sure, it was nice to see, but I don't think it made a lot of sense.

A separate storyline sees Iranian shop owner Farhad (Shaun Toub) buy a gun to confront the locksmith Daniel who he believes has robbed his shop. When he goes to shoot him, Daniel's daughter jumps in the way. But she is fine, as Farhad had unknowingly loaded his gun with blanks. Farhad shoots the daughter at point-blank range. Even blanks would do some damage at that short of a distance. This felt like another contrivance. Farhad is a tragic character - a man who has tried his best to realise the American Dream and cannot understand why he has not been more successful. He isn't an inherently bad man, but one who feels let down by the system. I guess if he had killed Daniel's daughter than his whole tragic backstory would be negated. It makes sense, but I wish they could have done this in a less contrived way. It was point-blank range. 

Crash was a good film. It was gripping, tense with good performances especially from Howard and Newton. But it needed to be longer so many of its storylines could be properly fleshed out. And I certainly don't think it deserved the Best Film Oscar.

Mr Nobody review

 Number 396 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction film 'Mr Nobody.'

Nemo Nobody (Jared Leto) is a 118-year old man at the end of his life. He is living in a futuristic society where humanity has achieved practical immortality. A journalist (Daniel Mays) interviews Nemo about his life. Nemo gives a sprawling, contradictory story which explores the many different paths that his life could have taken. He focusses on key events that happened when he was nine, fifteen and thirty-four. Some of the events include the break-up of his parents marriage as well as his own relationships with a number of women.

If there is anything that this film taught me it's that I'm not the biggest fan of science-fiction. I'm not maligning a whole genre - there is some sci-fi I like, but a lot of science-fiction seems pretentious and self-indulgent; writers and directors trying to show off their intellectual ability. And, of course, you can argue that I'm being bitter because I'm not clever enough to understand it. Partly that is true, but, for me, cinema should be a form of escape. It should be something where I can turn my brain off and not worry about missing half the film. Sure, that doesn't mean it can't be arty or intellectual, but I want to easily enjoy and understand a film.

Anyway, I'm saying all that, because I think 'Mr Nobody' was pretentious, self-indulgent and overly-long. The concept of it was interesting enough. A multi-verse idea lends itself to lots of narrative potential - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And every decision you do or don't take can create a whole new universe. And this could have been interesting to watch if the film didn't explore every single way Mr Nobody's life could have gone. We see what life would have been like if he had chosen to live with his mum and with his dad. We see what his life would have been like if he had dated and married Anna (Diane Kruger) or if he had married Elise (Sarah Polley) or Jean (Linh Dan Pham.) All of these different storylines bloated the film and made it far longer than it needed to be.

And because so much of the film is told in flashback, with Thomas Byrne playing a nine-year-old Nemo and Toby Regbo playing Nemo at fifteen, it didn't really give Jared Leto a chance to act. He isn't the film all that much which is weird considering he plays the main character. He's a great actor - he won an Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club so why you won't allow him to do his thing is just a mystery to me. And when we do see him, he is mostly in make-up or against a horrifically, fake-looking green-screen. Seriously? The CGI was awful. Or perhaps that was supposed to be the point. Mr Nobody gives so many contradictory accounts that we're not sure which account to believe. Maybe the flashbacks with the awful CGI are supposed to be the imposters.

Although, one good thing about the film was its soundtrack. It was diverse and varied consisting of artists like Otis Redding, the Police and Buddy Holly. But this great soundtrack didn't make up for what was ultimately a convoluted, overly-confusing and self-indulgent film. And a film that severely under-utilised its lead actor.

Walk the Line review

 Number 414 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biographical drama 'Walk the Line.'

Focussing on the story of the country music star Johnny Cash (Joaquin Phoenix,) 'Walk the Line' shows his life from his humble beginnings on an Arkansas cotton farm with his abusive father Ray (Robert Patrick) to his rise to stardom to the breakdown of his first marriage with Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin) and his relationship with his contemporary June Carter (Reese Witherspoon.)

Although I do like Johnny Cash songs, I'm certainly no expert on his life. And 'Walk the Line' offered an unflinching look into the Man in Black himself. Joaquin Phoenix helped bring this character into life. He stopped him from being just another country music star and turned into a vulnerable and damaged man. I say, just another country star, as the film also adapts a lot of Johnny Cash's contemporaries from Waylon Jennings to Elvis Presley to Jerry Lee Lewis and, of course, June Carter.

Up until now, June Carter has always just been a name to me. I knew that she was married to Johnny Cash, but little more than that. Reese Witherspoon was great in the role. She was charismatic and energetic as the country singer. But she also brought a quiet ferocity. This was a woman who wasn't going to roll over and let herself be dominated in a man's world. And, on many occasions, she rightly puts all the men in their place. 

Witherspoon won the Best Actress Oscar for the role and I think she put in a formidable performance. She was great by herself, but also great acting opposite Phoenix. The two actors had a great chemistry. Reportedly, the two got off to a rocky start but they soon became so close that they made a pact that if either one of them leaves the project, both of them would leave. I would argue that Phoenix and Witherspoon had better chemistry than Phoenix had with Goodwin. Although considering the two characters don't have the best relationship, perhaps this worked out for the best.

But a musical drama about real life musical stars is nothing without good singing performances. And Phoenix and Witherspoon don't disappoint. They did all their own singing and instrumentation without any dubbing. I've never really heard June Carter sing so I can't comment on Witherspoon too closely, but Phoenix got Cash down to his classic bass-baritone voice.

I did enjoy this film. Even if you're not a country music or a Johnny Cash fan, this is still a great watch with strong performances from both its leads.

The Wrestler review

 Number 372 on the 1000 films of all time is Darren Aronofsky's 2008 sports drama 'The Wrestler.'

Randy 'Ram' Robinson (Mickey Rourke) is a former professional wrestler who is desperately clinging to his past days as an 80's wrestling legend. When his hedonistic lifestyle catches up to him, he has to give wrestling up. But he finds letting go of the past harder than he thinks.

I have to admit I've never thought of Mickey Rourke as much of an actor. I've seen as cliched bad guys and I've seen as cliched action stars. But I don't think that these roles allowed him to display his full acting ability. Judging from 'the Wrestler', I would say his ability is very good. Granted he is still playing an action star of sorts, but this is one with pathos. He displays a more vulnerable side as he plays a character desperately clinging to times gone by. He is a lonely man who lives in a trailer. His only family is his estranged daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood.) It's implied that he was a neglectful father, thus creating an acrimonious relationship between he and his daughter. Even when he tries fixing it, he still ends screwing everything up.

But Rourke plays the role well. He brings humanity to a character who is desperately seeking human connection. He finds some of that through the equally damaged character of Pam (Marisa Tomei) a stripper trying to create a better life for her son. Tomei was also very good and the two actors had great chemistry. One of the best scenes was when she and Randy were in a bar and start dancing to some cheesy 80's music. It was a simple scene, but an effective one.

Another great scene is where see Randy in his day job of a deli worker in a supermarket. Rourke's infectious energy comes to the fore and Randy is obviously enjoying himself. This scene was completely improvised with the customers being all genuine.

And for a film called 'the Wrestler,' there was actually very little wrestling. Wrestling has never been something I've ever been interested in, so I thought I would be bored senseless. But the wrestling fights were so boring that you could never get bored. Seriously? Staple guns? Barbed wire? A prosthetic gun? Crazy stuff.

The Wrestler did surprise me. I thought it would be tedious sports drama. But it was a tender and heartfelt portrayal of an athlete holding tight to his glory days. Mickey Rourke earned a Best Actor Oscar nod. Well-deserved I think.

Dawn of the Dead review

 Number 402 on the top 1000 films of all time is George A. Romero's 1978 zombie horror 'Dawn of the Dead.'

Peter Washington (Ken Foree) and Roger Demarco (Scott Reiniger) are two police SWAT officers who forsake their posts, after seeing how the true horror of their situation. They join journalists Fran (Gaylen Ross) and Stephen (David Emge) in escaping the carnage. The four soon take shelter in a well-stocked shopping mall, but their problems are far from over.

Dawn of the Dead is generally regarded as a pioneer of the zombie horror genre. It's safe to say that it's had an influence of every single piece of zombie media that's come out in the last forty years. Yes, things have been streamlined and upgraded, but everything leads back to George A. Romero's classic. However, I think I have been spoiled by modern zombie horror. Maybe if I was watching this in 1978, having not seen The Walking Dead or 28 Days Later or Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead, I would have really loved this film. But I didn't enjoy it all that much.

First and foremost, the zombies were so non-threatening. They hobble and limp towards our heroes giving them plenty of time to get away. Even when the characters fall over, drop their weapons or are completely surrounded by the zombies, they still escape unscathed. They never felt like they were in real danger and that really killed any narrative tension. Narrative tension is a point we'll be returning to a while. Anyway, I can totally see why Danny Boyle had his zombies run in 28 Days Later. They were much scarier villains. And yes, I know technically they're not zombies, but you know what I mean. 

And, I know that this is one of the first proper zombie films and the characters don't know all the rules and zombielore, but they were all still so annoying. In a news broadcast, it is specified that you have to destroy the brain to kill the zombie, but the characters waste so many bullets by firing into the zombie's torso. And even when the undead are close enough to nullify a gun, the characters just run instead of pistol-whipping their skulls. Say what you will about the recent narrative direction of the Walking Dead, but the characters there at least know how to kill zombies. 

This is one of those films where a lot of conflict could have been avoided if the characters didn't make such silly decisions. Roger starts to lose his mind and takes unnecessary risks in an operation to barricade the shopping centre from any zombie superhordes. Similarly, Stephen wages a one-man war against the looters who come to ransack the shopping centre where he should have just stayed quiet and let them get on with it. As Peter identifies, the looters don't know they're there and would have easily left them alone. Roger and Stephen's recklessness gets them both killed. I get that being in a zombie apocalypse stops people from acting rationally, but it is a bit annoying when a character's stupidity is what pushes a story forward.

I also did take major issue with the shopping centre being fully stocked. That's completely unbelievable. Just take a look at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As soon as shit hit the fan, people were emptying supermarkets and fighting over toilet paper. And we're supposed to believe that this shopping centre has just remained untouched? Okay, so the film is supposed to be a comment on the selfish capitalism that is so pervasive of our culture, which only adds credence to the idea that the shopping mall would have been looted in the first instance. It also killed off a lot of dramatic tension. We're not seeing our characters struggling to find water or food as it's all readily available to them.

Speaking of narrative tension, the film suffers badly from sagging-middle syndrome. After the characters have barricaded themselves into the mall and have all the supplies they need, the narrative kind of stagnates. Peter, Stephen and Fran soon go mad out of boredom and realise they have locked themselves in a prison. The boredom was translated through the television screen as I found myself losing interest. It was just lucky there was the gang of marauders to inject a bit of adrenaline into things.

 Although that did lead to one of the most puzzling parts of the film. After the marauders force their way into the mall, leading the way for a super horde of zombies, Fran wants to escape using the helicopter but Peter has lost hope and decides to stay behind. Only he changes his mind at the last minute and joins Fran on the helicopter. This seemed very out of character. He leads the survivors and always keeps them optimistic and on the right path. And yet we're supposed to believe that he just gives up at the end?

And, of course, the special effects weren't brilliant. Dawn of the Dead was made on a tiny budget and it showed. The fake blood looked closer to its constituent ingredients of corn flour and red food colouring than actual blood. It looked fake and tacky. But I guess, this was the 70's. And I have been spoiled by all the fantastic special effects and make-up that went into The Walking Dead  and 28 Days Later.

I do think that at the time this film would have been groundbreaking. But I'm not sure it holds up forty years later. Yes, it created a great precedent, but it's just been bettered and surpassed.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf review

 Number 194 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama, based on the play of the same name, 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?'

George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) are two squabbling, middle-aged academics stuck in a loveless, hateful marriage. After returning home from a late-night soiree, they are joined by two of their juniors Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis.) But as the alcohol begins to pour, lies become unravelled and secrets are revealed.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? I am, George. I am. No, I'm not just quoting the film's famous ending lines, but I'm referring to my own time spent in academia. At university, I studied both To The Lighthouse and Mrs Dalloway. And that's enough Virginia Woolf to last a lifetime. In some ways, this film is reminiscent of a Woolf book - low on spectacle and high on subtext.

As previously mentioned, this film is based on a play and it's easy to imagine it on the stage - there are two or three sets and only four principle parts. The action doesn't happen on-screen, but rather in the actor's dialogue. Rather than being a high-octane thriller, this is a toned-down character study. And with simple character studies, you need the best actors available. In this case, we have Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Can you believe that in all these years this is the first Dick and Liz film that I've seen?

But both these actors did the roles justice. They're both more than bitter, old academics. While there is a lot of yelling, they say far more in their silences. Both characters are hiding a big secret which becomes apparent in the film's final act. The tension is palpable throughout the film - with the junior academics as uncomfortable as any audience is sure to be. Burton gave a particularly captivating performance especially his monologue where he recounts a story of his childhood where a boy he knew accidentally killed his father in a car crash - heavily implied to be about George himself.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf isn't the easiest film to follow. It is deeply uncomfortable and demands all your attention, but its subtle script and lead performances truly earn it a place on this list.

A Christmas Story review

 Number 218 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Christmas comedy film 'A Christmas Story.'

Told through a series of vignettes, 'A Christmas Story' follows a day in the life of nine-year-old Ralphie Parker (Peter Billingsley.) It is narrated by his adult self, voiced by Jean Shepherd, looking back on his childhood. All he wants for Christmas is a special air rifle. Meanwhile, he has to fend off school bullies and his father is locked in an eternal battle with the family furnace.

As well as earning a spot on the top 1000 films of all time, 'A Christmas Story,' is also regarded as a holiday classic. I'm not sure it deserves either honour. it isn't necessarily a bad film, but I don't think it is one of the 1000 best of all time. It is entertaining enough - there are a few great gags, the department store Father Christmas is one that comes to mind - their Father Christmas evidently hates children and hates it more when they sit on his lap and asks for presents. This was hilarious, but these type of funny gags were few and far between.

A Christmas Story is also paced very slowly. It takes a long time to get going. We're immediately introduced to our MC and told about his desire for his air rifle. And I was thinking, is that it? Is this the whole film? Also a 9-year-old kid wanting a gun for Christmas is the most American thing ever. No wonder you have 6-year-olds shooting their teachers, but I digress.

Even when things did get going, the film remained slow. Rather than speeding along it hobbled from one cheesy, over-the-top joke to another. And when Ralphie was on-screen with all his nine-year-old friends, it became a hubbub of kids screaming over each other. That made things very difficult to follow.

For what it was, it was an entertaining and watchable film. But certainly not one of the best 1000 of all time.

No Country for Old Men review

 Number 204 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men.

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is a Vietnam war veteran and welder who stumbles upon a big bag of drug money in the desert. He takes the money in the hopes of giving him and his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Mcdonald) a better life. However, he is being hotly pursued by mysterious hitman Anton Chigurin (Javier Bardem) who leaves a trail of chaos in his wake. Investigating this is local sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Woody Harrelson co-stars as a bounty hunter who is also tracking down Chirgurin.

Since I started this challenge, I've watched a fair few films by the Coen Brothers and they all contain the same offbeat, surreal humour. At times it did make things funny and at times it was tiresome. I was glad that No Country for Old Men was far more straightforward. It was more of a neo-western/thriller rather than an off-the-wall comedy. Everything was direct and easy to follow. Chigurin made a scary villain and I do think Bardem deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar. I loved the cinematography that was reminiscent of the old Spaghetti Westerns; the sweeping shots of the desert were great to see. You felt the isolation of all the characters. They were in this expanse all alone. Nobody was going to help them.

But despite all that, the film felt lacking. I was expecting so much more, but I was left short-changed. And I think that's because the film never really provided closure on anything. Our hero Llewelyn Moss dies off-screen. He isn't even killed by the bad guy, but by a Mexican drug cartel. There is no build-up and no payoff. He's our protagonist - the main character and he doesn't even have the dignity of an on-screen death. Sure, kill him off, but show it to us. He doesn't even have a confrontation with Chigurin. The sheer psychopathy behind Chigurin's character made him frightening to watch, but we don't even get to see him have a showdown with Llewelyn.

I was also sorely disappointed with Woody Harrelson's contribution. It looked like the film was setting up a confrontation between he and Chirgurin. And while the two meet, it's hardly the most thrilling of encounters. And shortly after, Chigurin kills him. Harrelson felt very underused.

But, perhaps this is supposed to be the point of the film. Times have changed. The days when films provide you closure and wrap everything up are long over. This is no country for old men, but also not a country for reviewers who like all their films neatly wrapped up with a pretty pink bow.