The Killer review

Number 359 on the top 1000 films of all time John Woo's Hong Kong action film 'the Killer.'

Ah Jong (Chow Yun-Fat) is a hitman who accidentally blinds nightclub singer Jennie (Sally Yeh) in a mob hit gone wrong. Wanting to raise money for an operation that can cure her sight, he embarks on one last hit, but disgraced policeman Li Yang (Danny Lee) is determined to send him to prison.

If there was a list for the cheesiest 1980's, popcorn-munching action films then the Killer would surely top the list. If you love those types of films then you would love the Killer. But if you're looking for something more than pretty much every single cliche in the action genre, then you'll be disappointed. And I was left sorely disappointed by this film.

I know it was an action film, but it was so absurd that it bordered on the ridiculous. Like I say, it is absolutely bursting with cliches. Where do we even start? There's the infinite ammo cliche. In the numerous gun fights that litter the film, Ah Jong and Li Yang never seem to run out of bullets even when they're using handguns. And the characters get shot multiple times but rarely show any distress. Plus there's a silly amount of slow motion too.

The character of Jennie is little more than a damsel-in-distress having little identity beyond being a screaming woman to be saved. Hardly the most complicated of characters. Not knowing that he is the one who blinded her, she falls in love with Ah Jong and the two begin a relationship which also seemed pretty unlikely.

As for the villains, Triad boss Wong Hoi (Shing Fui-on) was one of the most two-dimensional villains I've seen in a while. Like the rest of the film, he was just so over the top that it really hurt his credibility as a scary enemy. However, I also think that the exaggerated reality was very much the point of the film. Everything was supposed to be over-the-top. 

Yet that didn't make it any more entertaining. The gunfights became tedious after a while. And they detracted from the rest of the film particularly from the central three characters of Ah Jong, Jennie and Li Hang. Beyond their roles in the film, there was little depth to any of them. The whole film is about Ah Jong raising money to help Jennie's sight yet she ends up completely blind by the end. It was rather a disappointing end to that storyline.

You should only watch the Killer if you love cheesy action films. If you don't, then I would sorely recommend you find something else to watch instead.

Breathless review

 Number 358 on the top 1000 films of all time is Jean-Luc Goddard's French crime-drama film 'Breathless.'

Michel (Jean-Paul Bermondo) is a petty-crook who after stealing a car and killing a policeman in Marseille hides out in Paris where he quickly starts up a relationship with American exchange-student Patricia (Jean Seberg.) In love with her, he tries convincing her to run away with him, but she has other ideas.

Breathless received much fanfare for its visual style which was pioneered by none other than by leader of the French New Wave movement - Jean-Luc Goddard. When it came to editing down the film rather than cutting whole scenes, Goddard instead cut out parts of the scenes themselves employing what has come to be known as jump cuts. Watch any Youtube video from the 2010's and you'll understand what I mean. Reportedly, Goddard improvised most of the film writing most of the dialogue in a journal that only he was allowed to see. As for the actors, he told them the dialogue while filming. It was all very experimental.

Was it an experiment that worked? In my opinion, no. Unless the experiment was to see whether Goddard could make the most boring film known to man. Mother-in-heaven I have seen 3 or 4 - hour long films that have more life than this 90-minute snooze fest. At least Ben-Hur had the exciting chariot race and things actually happen in Gone with the Wind. Granted, not the best things but things nonetheless.

Very little happens in Breathless. The film starts interestingly enough with Michel killing the police officer, but the narrative tension screeches to a halt when he reaches Paris. Goddard then mostly treats us to thrilling scenes of Michel and Patricia arguing in a smoky Parisian bedroom. Fascinating...not. Nothing was happening and there was a sense that nothing was going to happen. It was all so boring.

It didn't help that Michel wasn't a likeable character. Yes, he is a petty crook, thief and cop-killer, but he isn't even interesting to watch. Patrick Bateman in American Psycho is a freaking serial killer, but I was actually interested in reading about him. I had no interest at all about following Michel's journey.

And I had no interest in this film either. 358th on the 1000 best films of all time? More like 358th on the 1000 most boring films of all time.

King Kong (1933) review

 Number 356 on the top 1000 films of all time is the pre-code adventure, horror-monster film 'King Kong.'

New York film maker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is making preparations to film his next project on a mysterious island. Casting Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) as his leading lady, they along with the crew of Captain Englehorn (Frank Reicher) and First Mate Jack Driscoll's (Bruce Cabot) ship, they sail to skull island where they find all kinds of impossible creatures such as dinosaurs and King Kong himself - a gigantic gorilla.

There's no doubt that this film was technically ground-breaking. It was a pioneering force in special effects blending together stop-motion, matte and live-action to create a stylistically brilliant experience. It's just a shame that it was all spent on a thoroughly boring film. Seriously, King Kong was tedious, repetitive and populated with unlikeable characters.

Film-maker Carl Denham only cares about making his film regardless of the cost to human life, Driscoll is your standard hothead with a heart of gold and Ann Darrow was little more than your proto-typical damsel-in-distress. I get this was the thirties but Darrow embodying the helpless female character became very old very quickly. Fay Wray gained a reputation for being the first scream queen and with good reason. Even when she isn't being attacked by any monsters she still spends most of her time screaming.

And there are a lot of monsters in this. From a T-Rex to a Brontosaurus to a Stegosaurus to a Pteranodon and even a massive snake-like thing, it all became too much after a while. It was monotonous seeing Kong having to save Ann from these monsters. I kept asking myself when was this going to end. It seemed to go on forever. By the time Denham captures Kong and takes him back to New York I had almost fallen asleep - not that I would have missed much. Due to how much time had been spent on the bloated beginning, the ending, which saw Kong become a freak show on Broadway, was rushed. The film was only 100 minutes but could have been shorter.

I'm sure King Kong was ground-breaking at the time, but I don't think it holds up well 92 years later.

The Untouchables review

Spoilers ahead 

Number 355 on the top 1000 films of all time is Brian De Palma's 1987 crime film 'The Untouchables.'

The Untouchables tells the true-life story of Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) a prohibition agent who forms a team of untouchable, incorruptible men to bring down the era's biggest gangster and bootlegger Al Capone (Robert De Niro.) Ness' team consists of the veteran Irish-American cop James Malone (Sean Connery) young hot-shot George Stone (born Giuseppe Petri - Andy Garcia) and accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith.)

Firstly, let's address the Sean Connery in the room. Despite Malone being an Irish-American character, Connery's accent is neither Irish nor American. Like he does in every other role, he stubbornly played the role with his native Scottish accent. This was quite distracting to say the least, but what else can you expect from Sean Connery? He won the Best Supporting Oscar for his role and, despite the accent, I think it was a well-earned win. Malone acted as a mentor-cum-father figure for Ness helping to coach him on the best way to take down Al Capone. Connery played the role well bringing a great energy and life to the character.

The rest of the performances were fine, but none of them matched Sean Connery. Garcia was never really given the chance to exercise his acting chops - granted Stone IS a supporting character, but I don't think he was really fleshed out beyond being the best shot in his class. Charles Martin Smith was also good, but, alas, Oscar Wallace was the first of the Untouchables to prematurely die. It was a sad death as due to his accountant background he was the least suited for the way of life, but he still proved his worth for the team, being the one who suggests prosecuting Capone for tax evasion. 

Hell, I even liked Kevin Costner - Elliot Ness wasn't a character with a lot of depth, but he made for a good action hero and Costner played the role well. I was particularly surprised with Robert De Niro as Al Capone and I don't mean surprised in a good way. Considering I'm speaking about Robert FREAKING De Niro, I thought his portrayal of Capone was rather simplistic. There was none of the depth or complexity that I would expect from one of De Niro's roles. To paraphrase Capone himself, he was nothing but a receding hairline and a baseball bat.

Brian De Palma also played fast-and-loose with history often fictionalising or completely making up most of the film's key events. Ness's team had very little to do with Capone's tax evasion case and the train station shootout or the Canadian border raid never happened in real life. But that didn't matter as it all made for dramatic, entertaining viewing. The train station shootout was inspired by the Russian step scene in Battleship Potemkin with the parallels being obvious to see. Despite being pretty unbelievable/cheesy, it was still good fun to watch.

And that is a good summary of this film. It is an incredibly loose retelling of historical events but was still a thrilling watch. The acting wasn't fantastic except for Sean Connery, yet it still earned its place on the top 1000 films of all time.

Mulholland Drive review

*Spoilers ahead* 

Number 354 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's surrealist neo-noir mystery horror film Mulholland Drive.

Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) is an actress arriving in Hollywood to start her career. She befriends amnesiac Rita (Laura Harring) who is the only survivor of a terrible car crash. Betty resolves to help her new friend regain her lost memory to horrifying consequences. A separate storyline sees director Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux) struggle to maintain control of his latest film project, as both studio executives and mobsters try to interfere.

David Lynch regarded this film as his magnus opus. It takes surrealism to a whole new level - far more so than previous efforts like Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. This isn't any understatement. Mulholland Drive is one of the weirdest films I have seen since Dark City or even Blue Velvet. I'm not sure it's worth trying to figure out the meaning behind Mulholland Drive - considering there is any meaning at all. Perhaps it's weird for purely the sake of being weird. Justin Theroux said that Lynch was happy for viewers to arrive at any interpretation they wished. As for Lynch, he has never elaborated on the deeper meanings behind the weirdness of Mulholland Drive. 

There is a lot of weirdness from the strange opening scene that looked to be from another film to Kesher meeting a mysterious cowboy to everything that happened at Club Silencio. And who can forget that awful decaying corpse believed to be Diane Selwyn. I was with the film until the final act where Rita unlocks a mysterious box leading to both her and Betty disappearing. Betty then reawakens as struggling actress Diane Selwyn. Rita is now Camilla who is playing the lead in Adam Kesher's new film. Oh and there's a weird old crone character uttering abstract prophecies. At this point it all became incomprehensible to me. I'm not even going to try and decipher the various oddities.

Instead, I will say this is one of the scariest, most unsettling films I have seen. The final scene where Diana, being terrorised by hallucinations, runs into her bedroom and shoots herself, was terrifying to watch. But it was also masterfully shot. The lighting and camerawork were brilliant. Watts and Harring were also great as the two leads. Mulholland Drive was very much Watts' breakout role and she really acted her socks off. Her terror in the above scene was palpable. Harring was also very good - playing her role as the amnesiac Rita with all the confusion, panic and fear that you would expect.

Yes, Mulholland Drive is a WEIRD film. It is surreal, abstract and confusing, but that's exactly what David Lynch intended. And he wouldn't want it any other way. It was also gripping, terrifying and thrilling. A good film all around. 

The African Queen review

 Number 348 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Huston's 1951 adventure film 'The African Queen.

Charlie Allnut (Humphrey Bogart) is the alcoholic captain of the steamboat: 'The African Queen' who delivers mail and supplies to a Methodist mission in 1914 German East Africa. The mission is manned by brother and sister Samuel (Robert Morley) and Rosemary (Katherine Hepburn.) When WW1 breaks out, German colonial troops conscript the African natives and kill Samuel in the chaos. Rosemary urges Charlie to use the African Queen to attack a German gunship.

If you think this film sounds similar to the iconic 1942 Casablanca, you would be right. Both films star Humphrey Bogart as an alcoholic rogue who only looks out for himself. This is despite the protests of the attractive female lead urging him to take a side in the wider-world conflict. Swap Morocco for Tanzania and Ingrid Bergman for Katherine Hepburn and you basically have the same film.

However, the biggest similarity is that The African Queen is just as good and iconic, if not more, than Casablanca. A lot of this comes down to the chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn. It is undeniable that both of them were titans of the acting industry - it's difficult to think of two actors more emblematic of the Golden Age of Hollywood. They were brilliant together. Unlike other female leads, like Ingrid Bergman, who disliked Bogart, and Audrey Hepburn, who was disliked by Bogart, Katherine Hepburn was every bit his equal. 

Katherine Hepburn was well-known for her fiery, outspoken demeanour which made her the perfect match for the cynical Charlie Allnut. She brought a great firecracker energy to her role as Rosemary Sayer, but also portrayed a soft, sensitive side for when her brother was killed. Yet she is also persuasive enough to convince the old, gnarled cinnamon-bun Allnut to jump down from the fence and pick a side. The two of them soon develop a romance. And, unlike other films, I could totally believe the two characters being together.

True, I'm not sure how much Hepburn got on with Bogart off-set - reportedly, she made a point about only drinking water after being appalled at seeing how much whisky old Bogey and director John Huston were drinking, but the two of them were great on-screen. Bogart earned his only Oscar for this performance, but I would argue that Hepburn truly earned her Oscar nomination as well. 

The African Queen was mainly filmed in Uganda or, what was, the Belgian Congo, and it looked brilliant. The cinematography was great. John Huston made a terrific film that blended humour, tragedy and important ideas about standing up and fighting for what was right. It also didn't hurt that you had the excellent pairing of Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn.

Rosemary's Baby review

 Number 345 on the top 1000 films of all time is Roman Polanski's 1968 psychological-horror film 'Rosemary's Baby.'

Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) and her husband, stage-actor, Guy (John Cassavetes) are two newlyweds who have just moved to New York. Looking to settle down and start a family, they are soon expecting a baby. But Rosemary suspects that her husband and her neighbours have sinister intentions for her unborn child.

Production designer Richard Sylbert deemed this the "greatest horror film without any horror in it." I don't think I could have described this film any better. Despite not having any gore, jump scares or big, bad villain, Polanski still created an overwhelming sense of dread. True, the villains are a coven of witches, but it's not like Halloween, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the Wickerman where you can identify one key villain. 

You know that things are going to hit the fan - it's just a question of when. This is a film comprised of small, scary jigsaw pieces like the apparent suicide of Rosemary's neighbour or Guy getting the main part in a play, by virtue of another actor going inexplicably blind, which all add up to a frightening picture - Rosemary has been impregnated with the anti-Christ. All of these small parts culminate in a fever dream where Rosemary imagines that she is being raped by a demonic presence - perhaps even the devil himself. When she wakes up, she discovers that Guy actually raped her while she was asleep.

During production, Mia Farrow was undergoing with some marital problems with then-husband Frank Sinatra. He wanted her to leave the film and she was about to relent, before a studio executive convinced her to stay saying that she would win an Oscar for her performance. She stayed, Sinatra divorced her and Farrow wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award. Some have labelled this an egregious snub. I would agree. Farrow was great. She portrayed the fear, terror, but also resoluteness that you would expect from somebody like Rosemary.

I found it strange that Farrow wasn't nominated yet her co-star Ruth Gordon was not only nominated, but went onto win for Best Supporting Actress. Gordon played Farrow's neighbour Minnie Castevet - a busy body who becomes a little too involved in Rosemary and her unborn baby. It was a fine performance. It certainly wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. Was it Oscar-worthy? Was it memorable enough to justify winning an Academy Award? I'm not too sure about that.

Nonetheless, Rosemary's Baby was probably one of the scariest horror films I've seen that didn't have any actual horror in it - other than Farrow being snubbed by the Academy, of course.

Hannah and her Sisters review

 Number 340 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's comedy-drama 'Hannah and her Sisters'

Hannah and her Sisters follows the entwined lives of three couples across a twenty-four month period. The first story focusses on TV writer Mickey and the destruction of his marriage with his wife Hannah (Mia Farrow,) all told in flashback. The second focusses on Hannah and her new husband Elliot (Michael Caine) as he falls in love with Hannah's sister Lee Barbara Hershey. The third story focusses on Hannah's other sister Holly (Dianne West) a former cocaine addict who is trying to break into Broadway with her friend and rival April (Carrie Fisher.)

I have yet to come across a Woody Allen film that I have actually liked. Hannah and her Sister was no exception. In fact, it had everything I don't like in a Woody Allen film: Woody Allen, inappropriate relationships and a distinct lack of laughs.

Woody Allen always seems to play the same character in his films: a neurotic, middle-aged Jewish writer. The novelty ran out five films ago. Now this character has become incredibly tedious. Mickey was no exception especially considering his hypochondriac ways. This hypochondria then stems into an existential crisis as Mickey starts looking for religion - a religion other than Judaism. This wasn't a character that I wanted to root for. At least he wasn't dating a seventeen-year-old.

The inappropriate relationship was saved for Michael Caine's character Elliot who cheats on his wife with her sister. Sure you can argue that Allen was depicting a true fact of life, but it didn't make the character very likeable. I'm also going to be controversial and say that Caine didn't support the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Sure, he was the best part of a bad film, but that didn't mean he gave an Oscar-winning performance. The same goes for Dianne Wiest who won for Best Supporting Actress.

The biggest problem about the film was that all the characters were unlikeable. They seemed to spend all their time fighting with each other from Mickey to Hannah to Elliot and Hannah to April and Holly to Hannah's parents. The whole barrel was rotten. There wasn't one character I cared for or even wanted to care for.

It didn't help that the film was so expository with title cards doing the cinematic equivalent of telling and not showing. As is par for the course for a Woody Allen film, Hannah and her Sisters was just not funny. I didn't crack a smile until the thirty-five minute mark and I don't think I laughed more than three or four times.

This is the sixth Woody Allen film that I haven't liked. Who knows? Maybe I'll like the next one. I'm not holding my breath.

Moon review

 Number 339 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction film 'Moon.'

Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is the sole engineer responsible for maintaining an energy-mining facility on the dark side of the moon. His only companion is the AI computer GERTY voiced by Kevin Spacey. However, Sam was a personal crisis when he realises he is actually a clone.

Duncan Jones directed this film in his debut where he was heavily influenced by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. The comparisons were plain to see. Both films contain a minimal cast with an AI-esque robot that has dubious intentions. The main difference is where Kubrick prioritised his big ideas over his characters. Duncan Jones balanced the two very well. This was no surprise, as he soon went onto direct the excellent Source Code.

Sam Bell was a memorable character whose world is rocked when he finds out that he is a clone of the original Sam Bell. And he only discovers this when he finds his doppleganger after hunting for answers. This allowed Rockwell to show off his considerable acting skills, as he plays a duel role where is playing against himself. No wonder he won an Oscar eight years later.

But this role really outlawed him to run run the gamut in terms of character work. He played confusion, distress, anger, joy and happiness. As Duncan Jones only had one character with any considerable screentime, he needed a good actor to go along with that. He had written the role of Sam Bell specifically for Rockwell. Luckily, he accepted both for Jones and for us, as Rockwell carried the film.

True, there are other characters like Benedict Wong and Matt Berry who played Bell's superiors back on Earth or Dominique McElligot who played Bell's wife, but these were supporting roles at most. Bell's wife probably could have used a bit more development.

Despite being heavily influenced by Hal in A Space Odyssey, Spacey too the character of Gerty to a different place by making him a benevolent robot. It was a refreshing change. Spacey helped to provide some light humour to what was otherwise a pretty dour film.

Duncan Jones made Moon on a small budget of $5 million. He kept the budget small by having a small cast and re-using old sets from other films and TV shows like Red Dwarf. Yet the film never felt cheap. He knew how to get the most out of his money.

And Jones knew how to make a good science-fiction film. Moon, not only posed interesting existential questions, but had interesting characters to boot.

Three Colours: Blue review

 Number 336 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kryzstof Kieslowski's first installment of his French Three Colours trilogy: Blue.

Julie (Juliette Binoche) has just survived a car crash. Her daughter and famous composer husband did not. Shutting down from the world, she tries to close herself off to everything, but her past life continues to intrude into the present.

As is the nature of this list, I often watch film trilogies out of order. Here I watched the final film 'Red' first. Luckily, these three films are only linked thematically and not narratively. Each film in this trilogy corresponds with a colour of the French flag - in this case, blue. This film also explores the theme of 'libertie' or freedom.

As much as Julie tries freeing herself from her past, it always finds a way to resurface. She was a tragic character. And Binoche made her both believable and likeable. Kieslowski used her a way to explore the theme of grief. Shutting down as Julie does is an all too common response to this severe trauma. Yet she has constant reminders of the past to having a stranger trying to return her daughter's necklace to her having a relationship with her late husband's best friend. Together, they try to complete her husband's final symphony.

The colour blue was also factored into the film's cinematography with many of the scenes having a distinctive blue filter achieved by placing a filtered gel over the lens. This is another motif that carried over to the other films. It made the film look so nice on-screen, as well as really dialling into Julie's grief.

Three Colours: Blue was a good film with a unique colour aesthetic which really helped it to explore the theme of grief.

Frankenstein (1931) review

 Number 335 on the top 1000 films of all time is the pre-code Gothic drama 'Frankenstein.'

Based on Mary Shelley's book of the same name, Frankenstein follows the Bavarian scientist Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) in his attempts to create life. This culminates in him creating a monster played by Boris Karloff. This monster is made out of dead bodies. Meanwhile, his fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and cousin Victor (John Boles) try to talk him out of his madness.

Frankenstien is a film that needs no introduction. Even if you haven't read the book you are familiar with the story. I have read the book and I think the film over-simplified the plot and characters.

At seventy minutes long, there wasn't enough time to properly explore the characters in any depth. As a result, they felt shallow, superficial and under-developed. Neither Dr Frankenstein or his monster had the humanity they had in the book.

Frankenstein's monster was little more than a simple killing brute and not the misunderstood yet articulate being he was in the book. He's supposed to be somebody you both pity and are scared off - not just something to be feared. Similarly, Dr Frankenstein lent a little too much into the "mad" aspect of "mad scientist." he wasn't so much of an evil genius, as just evil. It was a radical departure from the books where he was a brilliant if misguided scientist.

This film is beloved by many - having spurned countless sequels, parodies and imitators, so I'm obviously in the minority with my opinions. But I didn't care for Frankenstein. It was an overly-stripped affair that lacked the heart and humanity which made the book so beloved.

Cinderella Man review

 Number 334 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ron Howard's 2004 biographical sports-drama 'Cinderella Man.'

Cinderella Man tells the true story of the washed-up boxer James Braddock (Russell Crowe) who recaptured his former glory during the Great Depression. Renee Zellweger and Paul Giamatti co-star.

I've said it before and I will say it again. I've never been a fan of boxing films. Whether it's Rocky. Raging Bull or Million Dollar Baby, they're of little interest to me. Cinderella Man was no exception. I don't think it helped that I don't much like Russell Crowe as an actor. He always seems so serious and gruff - even in roles that might require some levity.

Braddock was a man seriously down on his luck. Like many men during the Great Depression, he was struggling to put food on the table, seeking out a meagre living as a dockworker, due to his failed boxing career.  Yet, I wasn't convinced by Crowe's performance. He didn't properly showcase the vulnerability of the character. Even in the scene where he has to go begging for money, I felt little sympathy. Maybe I'm just heartless.

I don't think he had much chemistry with Renee Zellwegger who played Braddock's wife. She was good, but not good with Crowe. For that reason, I didn't enjoy their scenes together. Weirdly enough, I actually preferred the boxing scenes.

These were all more entertaining to watch than I thought they would be - probably because they used real boxers, most of the time. Although this wasn't great for Crowe who sustained multiple injuries while filming.

The film's redeeming feature was Paul Giamatti who played Braddock's coach and manager Joe Gould. Giamatti bought a terrific energy to the role. There was probably a reason why he was nominated for an Oscar and Crowe wasn't - although, it should also be noted that Crowe actively campaigned for Giamatti rather than himself.

All in all, while Cinderella Man might be a heart-warming rags to riches story, I didn't care for it. Crowe's performance lacked heart and he also lacked chemistry with Renee Zellweger. Giamatti truly earned his Oscar nomination though.

Shadow of a Doubt review

 Number 323 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's psychological thriller 'Shadow of a Doubt.'

Charlotte "Charlie" Newton (Teresa Wright) is a young woman who lives with her family in Santa Rosa, California. Bored with her life, she is overjoyed when her uncle Charles "Charlie" Oakley (Joseph Cotten) visits. Little does she realise is that Uncle Charlie is a serial killer on the run from the police. 

I've watched at least ten Hitchcock films in my time and I would count this as one of my least favourites. This is in stark contrast to Hitchcock who thought this was one of his best films. Sorry, Mr Hitchcock, but we shall have to agree to disagree.

I found Shadow of a Doubt to be overly-theatrical. It was stagey with an excess of dialogue. Some of this dialogue was attributed to side characters like a waitress in a diner. I was confused as to why she was speaking so much considering that she wasn't a major character.

Charlotte had two younger siblings, who were, quite possibly, two of the most annoying characters ever seen on screen. Christ, they were insufferable. They very much embodied the pompous, stuck-up little brats that you see too often on film.

And the sound-mixing was strange too. Maybe I was watching a bad bootleg, but I struggled in hearing some of the dialogue. It didn't help that the characters spoke over one another. At times, Charlotte's speech had a distinct echo.

Finally, the ending wasn't convincing at all. *Spoilers*

Upon hearing that Charlotte has discovered his secret, Uncle Charlie tries pushing her out of a moving train, only for her to get the upper hand and push him from the train instead. I just didn't find that believable at all.

Overall, this was not a film I cared for. 

Head-on Review

 Number 321 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 20024 German-Turkish drama 'Head-On.'

Cahit Tomruk (Birol Unel) is a Turkish-German alcoholic widower. Sibel Guner (Sibel Kekili) is a young Turkish-Germany lady who is desperately trying to escape her controlling, oppressive family. Both characters are severely psychologically damaged, but soon enter a marriage of convenience.

This was an entertaining if uneven film. It all followed a rather predictable plot hitting over-familiar beats. Cahit is your standard cinnamon roll - a suicidally depressed man who is angry at the world around him. While he is hot and fiery on the outside, Sibel soon starts peeling back the layers to find a soft centre. Soon Cahit starts falling in love with her for real. The same goes for Sibel. What initially starts as a sham marriage soon turns into something real.

As the name suggests, Head-On also wasn't afraid to tackle some heavy themes ... well... head-on. Sibel, just like Cahit is suicidally depressed -  the two of them met in a clinic after we see their failed suicide attempts. This is a theme that occurs throughout the film. It certainly makes for some uncomfortable viewing, but it never feels gratuitous.

I did enjoy the ending, as it took me by surprise. *Spoilers*

You might think that Cahit and Sibel would live happily ever after as they realise their true feelings for each other. However, they end up separated. Sibel promises to run away with Cahit, but then stands him up, leaving him all alone. It was a nice way to deviate from the predictable plot.

But there's nothing wrong with predictability if it is done well. And Head-On was done well. It's no surprise that it won the Golden Bear. 

Pink Floyd: the Wall

 Number 320 on the top 1000 films of all time is the surrealist, musical part-animated drama 'Pink Floyd: The Wall.'

Pink (Bob Geldof) is a rock star who is becoming paranoid and alienated from society. To protect his increasingly fragile mental state, he builds a figurative wall.

Pink Floyd are one of, if not, my favourite band, so this film was perfect for me. However, if you've never listened to a Pink Floyd song then this film would be lost on you. I am surprised that this film had enough mainstream appeal to appear on this list. Its surrealist nature coupled with its lack of conventional narrative can make it inaccessible to all but the most ardent of Pink Floyd films.

You could argue that this film was an extended music video for Pink Floyd's double album: the Wall. In many ways, that was the intention behind the film - with many of the songs punctuating key moments of the film. All of this accompanied the Terry Jones-esque animation with the overall end result being a fever dream.

The storyline, for what it was, closely mirrored the themes of the album, which again would be lost on non Pink Floyd fans - you have the same themes of isolation, alienation and disconnect from society. There were some scary images too like Pink hallucinating himself as a Fascist dictator at a Neo-Nazi rally - that was populated with real Neo-Nazis singing along to Waiting for the Worms. Another scary scene is the school children marching into the meat grinder and wearing freaky masks. Appropriately, this scene is set to Another Brick in the Wall.

I wasn't entirely convinced by the acting either. Bob Geldof didn't have too much to do other than stare existentially into the middle-distance. Reportedly, he almost didn't take the role, as he didn't like Pink Floyd's music, so that might have contributed to his lacklustre performance.

The Wall also had a troubled production with director Alan Parker and writer and Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters, often coming to blows. I wonder if that contributed to the disjointed film. But, then again, I think the disjointedness was supposed to be part of the point. The film is all about alienation and disconnection.

I certainly enjoyed the film, but that's more because of the great soundtrack, rather than the film itself. And if you aren't a Pink Floyd fan, you might not like this film at all. Upon its premiere, Steven Spielberg asked "what the fuck was that?" An accurate reaction for sure.

Rain Man review

 Number 319 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1988 road, comedy-drama Rain Man.

Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) is a spoiled and selfish wheeler and dealer in Los Angeles. When his wealthy father dies, he is disappointed to learn that he has been virtually cut out of his will in favour of an anonymous benefactor who will be inheriting his father's $3 million estate. Little does Charlie realises that this benefactor is his autistic savant brother Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) who Charlie didn't even know exist.

Rain Man is a highly-regarded film. It won Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Director and Best Actor (for Hoffman) at the 61st Academy awards. While it was good, I don't think it was Oscar-worthy. It was competing against the likes of Mississippi Burning for Best Film and Actor (Gene Hackman) but I'd argue Mississippi Burning was better.

Let's talk about Tom Cruise first. Although he was good as Charlie, he wasn't incredible. Charlie was a jerk and it was obvious that he would go through a redemption arc as he spent more time with Raymond, but Cruise didn't sell me on this transformation. It was a shame as he is a fine dramatic actor. I just wish he took these roles more often rather than the big action hero.

While Hoffman was very good as Raymond, I'm not sure he deserved the Oscar. It was a convincing representation of autism, all thanks to Hoffman preparing for the role by spending time with the autistic community, but it still felt quite surface-level. There wasn't the depth I was expecting. We see glimpses of Raymond's humanity beneath his neurodiversity, but not the whole picture. I can't think of a standout scene where Hoffman earned his Oscar.

If anything I preferred Valeria Golino who played Charlie's girlfriend Susanna. She was fast to call out Charlie on how he is using Raymond for his money which is in sharp contrast to how she genuinely cares for him. She later leaves Charlie before reconciling with him, which was rather contrived.

All in all, Rain Man was a good film. But not a great film and certainly not Oscar-worthy.

Days of Heaven review

 Number 317 on the top 1000 films of all time is Terrence Malik's 1978 romantic period-drama film 'Days of Heaven.'

Richard Gere and Brooke Adams play Bill and Abby - two lovers in 1916 Chicago. After Bill kills his employer, he and Abby flee to find work at a Texan farm. There they concoct a plan for Abby to marry the dying farm-owner, played by Sam Shepard, with the idea of inheriting his money after he dies, but then she falls in love with him.

After the Thin Red Line, this is the second Terrence Malik film that I've seen. I am swiftly realising that I do not like Terrence Malik films. They are tedious, pretentious and over-long. Yes, Days of Heaven, was only ninety-five minutes, but that's still too long for what was ultimately a boring film.

There were too many weird close-ups of insects and animals and not enough of things actually happening. Much like, the Thin Red Line, and that was a war film. Yet all we got was endless philosophising rather than exciting war scenes.

I was bored of Days of Heaven within the first five minutes which naturally meant I missed all the film's set-up and introduction. But even if I hadn't I don't think I would have missed much. The performances were just as bland as the script which was a surprise as you have good actors like Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and Sam Shepard. Yet the weird love triangle felt unconvincing due to the lacklustre acting. Even writing this now, I am struggling to remember the character's names.

If I were to compliment the film on anything, it would be its cinematography particularly the climatic sequence with the farm being set on fire. There was a reason why it won the Best Cinematography Oscar.

Otherwise, this was a bland, boring and tedious film. Par for the course for Terrence Malik.

Ten scariest horror films on the top 1000 films of all time

 I will be the first to admit that I don't like horror films. Alas, I am too cowardly to brave all the jumpscares and torture porn. However, since I have started working through the top 1000 films of all time, I have naturally watched a number of different horror films. Here are my top ten. This list is only ranked chronologically. Spoilers to come.

Freaks (1932)

Freaks ranks 377th on our famous list. And we are going all the way back to the thirties with this pre-code horror film. Yes, it suffered terribly from studio interference, but it was still one of the earliest examples of how cinema has the power to scare us. True, it might be tame compared to modern standards, but the final scene of the eponymous "freaks" crawling through the morning rain to kill one of their own was terrifying to see.

The Wicker Man (1973)

The Wicker Man ranks 620th on the list. Without a doubt, it is the scariest horror film of all time. It also pioneered the folk-horror genre. If you loved the Witch or Midsommar then you owe the Wickerman a debt of thanks. Made on a miniscule budget, it was no less the scary for it. The final scene of the villagers gaily singing while Ed Woodwood burns to death was horrific.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

This film comes in at 813th. And it is a brilliant example of how less is more. It was another low-budget film that excelled in building atmosphere. Rather than overlying on jumpscares and gore, it chose when to scare us. Yes, Leatherface chasing after Sally was awful, but I'd argue the previous scene of her strapped to the chair with the cannibals all around her was scarier still.

Suspiria (1977)

This Italian horror film ranks as the 851st best film of all time. A dance student discovers a coven of witches at her academy. Cue one of the scariest films of the seventies. Yes, the special effects were a bit dated, but the soundtrack performed by Italian rock band Goblin sent the scares through the roof. The scene of one student falling into a pit of razor wire still lives rent-free in my head.

Alien (1979)

Ridley Scott's Alien is the 58th best film of all time. It will have you on the absolute edge of your seat. Alien is a terrifying film that never lets up for a moment. From start to finish, it is high on suspense. Ellen Ripley remains one of the best movie heroines of all time while much of horror and science-fiction owes a huge debt to Ridley Scott. From face-hugging to chest-bursting, this film has many iconic scenes. In fact, it scared me so much that I'm not brave enough to go back and rewatch it.

Misery (1990)

Misery is the 469th best film of all time. While I was tempted to include the 1976 adaptation of Carrie - also based on a Stephen King book - Misery edges it for Kathy Bathes Oscar-winning, standout performance of superfan Annie Wilkes. What was scary about her was how real she was. She isn't a vampire or an alien or a weird pagan cult, but she is a human being driven to madness by her fanatism toward author Paul Sheldon played by James Caan. And there are plenty of people just like Annie Wilkes in the real world. That's what makes her so scary.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Number 29 on the top 1000 films of all time is only the third film to have won the Big Five Oscars. There are some who might not agree that it is a traditional horror film but everybody would agree that it is scary. It features Anthony Hopkins in a career-defining role where despite only having eight minutes of screentime still won the Best Actor Oscar. This shows just how he gave such a scary performance.

Speaking of scares, the final scene of Clarice Starling hunting Buffalo Bill in the dark cemented this film as having legendary status.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Requiem for a Dream is the 87th best film of all time. Similarly to the previous entry, not everybody would argue this is a traditional horror film, but I still think it is one of the scariest films ever. Not to mention one of the most intense watches since Alien. Telling the story of four drug addicts in New York City, it is one of those films too upsetting to watch more than once. I have, because I obviously hate myself. But if you want your children to never do drugs, show them this film. They'll be teetotal for life. And probably traumatised too.

The Ring (October 2002)

The Ring is the 971st best film of all time. I'm so glad that I watched it in the morning and not in the evening. I would never have fallen asleep otherwise. This remake of the Japanese Ringu has become an iconic film in its own right. After all, what could be scarier than turning off the TV and still having a possessed demon girl crawl through it to kill you.

28 Days Later (November 2002) 

28 Days Later comes in at 653 on the list. By 2002, the zombie horror genre was floundering. This was long after George A. Romero pioneered the genre and long before the Walking Dead TV series. 28 Days Later helped to revolutionise the genre by introducing zombies that could run, which are far scarier than anything you could might see in Night of the Living Dead. Of course, it also introduced us to future Oscar-winner Cillian Murphy.

This intimate, quiet yet horrifying zombie horror film was the perfect shot of adrenaline that the genre needed. 

The Exorcist review

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Magnolia film

 Number 314 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Thomas Anderson's 1999 drama 'Magnolia.'

Magnolia tells the epic story of a group of damaged characters as they search for meaning in the San Fernando family. The ensemble cast includes Tom Cruise as pick-up artist Frank Mackey, Jason Robards as Mackey's estranged, ailing father Earl Partridge, Philip Seymour Hoffman as his nurse Phil Parma and Julianne Moore as Earl's much younger wife Linda. William H. Macy plays former child quiz show genius Donnie Smith while John C. Reilly plays policeman Jim Kurring -a  lonely man looking for love. Finally, there is Philip Baker Hall who plays game show host Jimmy Gator who is also suffering from ill health.

Although Paul Thomas Anderson is highly revered as a director, I have never been too big on his films. Sometimes I find that his films buckle under the weight of their own ambition. I'm probably going to piss off a bunch of cinophiles, but I wasn't keen on either Boogie Nights - also starring Julianne Moore and Philip Seymour Hoffman - or There Will be Blood. Yes, they had their good individual elements like Daniel Day-Lewis, but I didn't like them as a whole.

And that is what I felt about Magnolia. There were lots of great elements, but they were disparate and they didn't mesh together well. Even anthology films like Paris Je T'aime have an over-arching theme connecting the disparate elements together regardless of whether this theme was more figurative than literal. Yet the different elements of Magnolia stayed stubbornly unconnected.

Having said that, the individual elements were excellent with Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore leading the charge. Tom Cruise proved just how good of a dramatic actor he is in his portrayal of Frank Mackey. He shone as the pick-up artist who embodied the obnoxiousness, self-confidence and arrogance you would expect from somebody in that field. It's no surprise really as Mackey was modelled on a pioneering pick-up artist Ross Jeffries.

But Tom Cruise showed his dramatic chops when he played Mackey making amends with his estranged father as the latter lay dying. Cruise proved why he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor by channeling his own personal grief about losing his father.

He even brought Philip Seymour Hoffman to genuine tears. Hoffman and Moore were impressive. Out of the different element, this was one of the best. I also enjoyed John C. Reilly who, instead of playing your comedic relief or lovable oaf, brought a lot of humanity to a lost man looking for love.

I could have done without William H. Macy or Jeremy Blackman's storylines. Blackman played Stanley Spector - a child, quiz-show genius, similar to Macy. Spector's storyline was meant to show the horrific pressures child stars are subjected to within the entertainment industry. This is true, but the storyline was rather on the nose especially his cheesy speech about how they were exploiting him. It was true and the exploitation was sad to see - upon being denied a bathroom break due to the tight shooting schedule, Spector pees himself - but the speech was still cheesy.

Although Magnolia had lots of impressive elements, I am not convinced they all married together well.

Ratatouille review

 Number 313 on the top 1000 films of all time is Pixar's 2007 animated comedy-drama 'Ratatouille.'

Remy (Patton Oswalt) is a rat who has aspirations of becoming a chef. His dreams become reality when he forms an unlikely relationship with the human Linguini (Lou Romano) pot-washer at the prestigious Gusteau restaurant in Paris. The restaurant used to belong to renowned Auguste Gusteau (Brad Garrett) before his death. It is now under the care of Gusteau's former sous-chef Skinner (Ian Holm) who hate Linguini.

Ratatouille was an entertaining if uneven effort by Pixar studios. While it was good, I certainly wouldn't rank it highly. Like you would expect from any Pixar film, it was bursting with creativity and the animation was gorgeous. It helped that you had famous chef Thomas Keller acting as a consultant who provided valuable information about how a restaurant works and how food should look.

In Finding Nemo, Pixar arranged for the cast and crew to go diving in a coral reef to help them truly understand that environment. The same happened here with the crew spending time in real restaurant kitchens. This gave the film a great authenticity and realism.

However, I still found the film to be incredibly lacklustre. The plot was predictable. Obviously films don't need to be littered with plot twists to be enjoyable, but I still found Ratatouille cheesy. Linguini becomes too big for his boots which drives a wedge between him and Remy. But the two make amends in time for both of them to get their happily ever after. It was all very obvious.

The voice-acting wasn't very memorable either. It was a mixture of lesser-known actors like Lou Romano, Brian Dennehy and Peter Sohn and established stars like Patton Oswalt, Ian Holm and Peter O'Toole, but I'm not able to pick a standout performance. It was a far cry from Tom Hanks and Tim Allen in Toy Story.

Overall, while I recognise Ratatouille for its strengths, I wouldn't rank it highly in Pixar's filmography.

Dancer in the Dark review

 Number 310 on the top 1000 films of all time is Lars von Trier's musical psychological tragedy 'Dancer in the Dark.'

Selma Jezkova (Bjork) is a Czechian immigrant living in the US. Suffering from a degenerative eye condition, that she has passed onto her son, she ekes out a meagre living from her factory job. She is saving up all her money to pay for an operation that will save her son's eyesight. Catherine Deneuve co-stars as Selma's friend Kathy. Peter Stormare plays Selma's love interest Jeff. David Morse and Stellen Skarsgard also star. 

*Spoilers to follow*

I have written a few listicles detailing the films too traumatic to watch again. Dancer in the Dark would be one such film. It is a soul-crushing, gut-wrenching thoroughly depressing film. Part of that was down to tis realism. Trier shot is like a documentary with low-quality cameras and plenty of close-up shots. Trier pioneered a cinematic style called Dogma 95, and even though Dancer in the dark isn't true Dogma 95, it still retains that some authenticity and intimacy.

The performances were also great. I've seen Bjork act before, and probably never will say again, due to the horrific time she had shooting Dancer in the Dark - to say the least, there was no love lost between her and Trier - but she was brilliant in the lead role.

Granted, she was also difficult to work with - often going AWOL, but she brought the tragic Selma to life - a character who despite the best of intentions is treated awfully in life. Like many of the best people in life, she is given an absolute rotten hand.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with David Morse who plays a policeman and Selma's landlord. Having his own money problems, he asks Selma for a loan. When she refuses, he steals the money she ahs been saving for her son's operation. After she finds out a struggle ensues where she accidentally shoots and kills him. Selma is tried and sentenced tod eath.

It is no surprise that she was given the death sentence, because she was given an awful lawyer who made no effort to defend her from a prosecutor played by Zeljko Ivanuk. As a quick sidenote, I have seen Ivanuk play a few roles as a slimy authority figure. He always plays the part well.

But I found it strange how Selma's lawyer never objected to the prosecutor's evisceration of her client. Especially when Kathy and Jeff get Selma's case reopened with an actual competent lawyer who tears apart his predecessor. It was like Trier was openly admitting and criticising his own mistake.

However, Kathy and Jeff's efforts go to waste as Selma refuses to take the lawyer's help when she realises that his fee will be paid out of the money that she was saving for her son's operation. It all seemed like a pointless, unnecessary way to inject conflict.

Speaking of her son, Gene, despite his importance to the plot, he was never anything more than just a plot device.

I also didn't like the musical numbers. Selma loves musicals and even acts in a Sound of Music production. Of course, you can't have Bjork starring in your film without having her sing, but these songs seemed rather strenuous to the plot. Jeff declares that he doesn't like musicals because he finds it strange when people spontaneously break into song and dance. That's what happened here and I agreed it was weird.

Nevertheless, this was still a powerful if heart-breaking film. It's definitely not one I will be watching again in a hurry. Too sad for that.

Talk to Her review

 Number 308 on the top 1000 films of all time is Pedro Almodovar's 2002 Spanish psychological melodrama 'Talk to Her.'

Marco Zuluaga (Dario Grandinetti) is a journalist. Benigno Martin (Javier Camara) is a nurse. What connects these two different men is that the women they love  - pioneering matador Lydia Gonzalez (Rosario Flores) and talented dancer Alicia Roncero (Leonor Watling) respectively are in comas. The two men form an unlikely friendship, as they take care of their women.

This film is largely told in flashback, as we explore the reasons that Lydia and Alicia are in their comas. We also understand their relationships with Marco and Benigno in more detail. Admittedly, things take a while to get going, but when they do the film is enjoyable. Marco and Benigno are two different characters with two differing mindsets.

Marco is in despair over Lydia's condition whereas Benigno has an almost insufferable optimism about Alicia recovering and the two living happily ever after. The far-more grounded Marco often has to bring the fantasist Benigno back down to Earth. Despite this, the two quickly become friends.

They form a poignant and touching relationship, as we explore how different people react to grief. But as we approach the ending, things take an unnecessarily dark turn.

*Spoilers*

While Marco and Lydia are lovers, things are far more one-sided with Benigno and Alicia. Before she enters her coma, Benigno forms an unhealthy obsession with her. He is overjoyed at finding out that he will be the nurse assigned at looking after her. But then it is implied that this obsession has grown so toxic that he goes onto rape and impregnate her.

From there, the film takes a different turn, as Marco desperately tries to prove his friend's innocence. Although I found it strange that nobody took a paternity test from Alicia's baby. Yes, it was stillborn, but surely this could have been the one thing that either affirmed or denied Benigno's guilt. And we never got a positive answer either way.

I didn't like the dark path that this film took. Up until this point, it seemed like a feel-good, heart-warming picture that helps you find hope in even the darkest of places. But then that was all undone by the unnecessarily dark ending.

The Searchers review

 Number 307 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Ford's 1956 Western 'The Searchers.'

Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) is a civil-war veteran living during the Texan-Indian wars. When his niece Debbie (Natalie Wood) is abducted by the local Comanche tribe, he and his nephew Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter) mount a years-long expedition to find her again.

Time for one of my least-favourite film genres: Westerns. I've never been a fan of cowboy films - not for any egregious reason. They're just not for me at all. The Searchers didn't really do much to shift the needle.

Perhaps that's because of John Wayne. Wayne was well-known for his cowboy films, but, after a while, they all kind of blend into one. From Ethan Edwards to Tom Doniphan to Rooster Cogburn, they all featured the hulking Wayne always playing the same role in the same way.

Edwards has strong anti Native-American sentiments, bringing him into conflict with his nephew Martin who is an eighth Comanche. Jeffrey Hunter was more convincing as the more straight-forward, as cut-and-dry hero. In contrast, Edwards was more of a not-so-lovable rogue.

His bigotry also rears its ugly head when he realises that Debbie has voluntarily assimilated into the local Comanche group who abducted her. Wood is a decent-enough actress. She was Oscar-nominated for Rebel without a Cause, as well as Splendor in the Grass and Love with the Proper Stranger. But she never had the proper time to shine here.

Yes, the Searchers had the stunning cinematography that depicted the old American-West, but it didn't do anything to make me become a fan of cowboy films.

The Straight Story review

 Number 305 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's 1999 biographical road film 'The Straight Story.'

The Straight Story tells the true-life story of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) - an ailing, elderly man living in Iowa. When he finds out that his estranged brother Lyle (Harry Dean Stanton) has suffered a stroke, Alvin determines to make amends. The only problem is that Alvin can't legally drive and Lyle lives 240 miles away in Wisconsin. Alvin resolves to drive there on a John Deere tractor that travels at 5mph. Sissy Spacek co-stars as his simple-minded daughter.

It's difficult to believe that this film was directed by the same David Lynch who directed Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet. It is the least 'Lynchian' film he has ever directed, despite how he described it as his most experimental film. Although considering he is so well-known for his surrealism, anything else would be considered experimental.

The Straight Story was an intimate, quiet, but powerful film that focussed on family and community. It featured Richard Farnsworth who was absolutely endearing as Alvin Straight. Farnsworth brought a vulnerability, but also a relatability to the role. Who among us hasn't wished we could make amends with their estranged family members? Farnsworth earned his Oscar nomination. It's just so heart-breaking that a year later, a cancer-stricken Farnsworth took his own life.

Nevertheless, he left behind a lasting legacy with the Straight Story. Alvin's story was a heart-warming tale of tragedy and triumph. He is a character determined to achieve his goals, regardless of whatever comes his way.

Film critic Roger Ebert compared the dialogue to the realism that you would read in a Hemingway book. He hit the nail on the head. The whole film, particularly the dialogue, felt painfully real. And this was down to Mary Sweeney and John Roach's script. They excelled in crafting an authentic script where there was so much power in what the characters didn't say. In a particularly powerful poignant scene, Alvin swaps traumatic war stories with a fellow veteran. Much of the scene's deeper meanings are left up to the viewer to figure out for themselves. It was subtle and understated with a brilliant subtext - the same can be said for the rest of the film.

Yes, you can argue that the ending is anti-climatic, but this film epitomises the phrase: "it's not the destination, but the journey." And this film was a hell of a journey.

The Artist review

 Number 304 on the top 1000 films of all time is Michel Hazanavicius' 2011 silent-film 'The Artist.'

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a silent film-star who finds himself at crisis when the film industry is slowly transitioning to talkies. Will his relationship with rising star Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) help to save his career? John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller and Malcolm Mcdowell co-star.

Since beginning this challenge, I have seen my fair share of silent films from Charlie Chaplin to Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Yet the Artist failed to capture the same magic. It lacked the same physical comedy or emotional tenderness that you would get in a Charlie Chaplin film.

The first half hour of the Artist was painfully dull as we took too long getting to George Valentin's conflict. In many ways, you can argue he is a dinosaur - desperately clinging to a life that no longer exists. Sure, it would have applied to many silent-film stars, but this type of resentment to embrace the future that turned him into an arrogant, archaic fossil. Hell, even after much resistance even Chaplin started making talking pictures.

I understand this was all part of George's character-arc, but it did make him unlikeable. I'm going to be even more controversial and argue whether Jean Dujardin truly deserved the Best Actor Oscar. He was quite over-the-top, although I guess that would have been the expectation of the time and medium. And it wasn't like he had that much more competition during that year's Oscars.

More convincing was Berenice Bejo, as Peppy Miller, who brought a certain charm to the film. James Cromwell who played Valentin's fiercely loyal manservant was also good. But Malcolm Mcdowell and John Goodman could have had more to do.

The Artist was enjoyable enough for what it was, but it didn't match up to the silent films of old.

This is Spinal Tap review

 Number 298 on the top 1000 films of all time is Rob Reiner's 1984 mockumentary musical comedy 'This is Spinal Tap.'

David St Hubbins (Michael Mckean), Nigel Tufnell (Christopher Guest) and Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer) comprise Spinal Tap - the UK's hottest hair-metal band. However, upon their latest tour to the US, they quickly realise that their popularity is quickly fading. Meanwhile, Marty Di Bergi (Rob Reiner) is filming a documentary about their successes and failures.

This was Rob Reiner's directorial debut. He went onto direct hilarious comedies like The Princess Bride also starring Christopher Guest, as well as heart-breaking coming of age dramas like Stand By Me. While I loved those two films, I found This is Spinal Tap to be a little disappointing. It didn't make me laugh like the Princess Bride or cry like Stand By Me. In fact, I didn't feel much of anything.

I do feel part of that was down to the nature and structure of the film. Naturally, we start off seeing Spinal Tap at the dizzying heights of their success, but when you're that high up, the only way is down. As such, we quickly saw them self-destruct. Fame is a fickle beast and this inevitably happens to many different bands, but it's not fun to see it happen on-screen.

It didn't help that all three characters encapsulated the annoying, spoiled, diva self-destructive artist archetype that so many rock stars fall into. Yes, it was realistic, but it wasn't entertaining. Their constant squabbling and tantrums became tiresome after a while. Back in the day, one of my favourite bands was Oasis, but this was because of their music and not because of the in-fighting of the Gallagher brothers.

Speaking of music, I didn't find Spinal Tap's songs particularly memorable. Mckean, Guest and Shearer are all accomplished musicians and singers - they wrong, performed and song the songs themselves, but I didn't leave the cinema, so to speak, singing one of their songs.

When I think of mockumentaries, I think of the cringe humour you get in the Office or Parks and Recreation. Granted, that isn't a pre-requisite of mockumentaries, but there was still little humour in this is Spinal Tap. Even though, I was supposed to be laughing at the characters, I didn't care enough to do so. For that same reason, none of the film's emotional beats landed for me.

I do think that this was one of those cases where the film just wasn't for me. I'm just glad that Rob Reiner has continued directing. Sure, I didn't like this is Spinal Tap, but the Princess Bride remains as one of the best films ever.