Night of the Living Dead review

 Number 327 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Romero's 1968 zombie-horror film 'Night of the Living Dead.'

Barbra (Judith O'Dea) and her brother are laying flowers on her father's grave when her brother is attacked by a zombie. Barbra runs in terror to a nearby house where she meets Ben (Duane Jones) and a group of other survivors. Together, they need to figure out how to survive the coming zombie hordes.

I am conflicted about this film. I am well-aware of its reputation. In many ways, it pioneered the zombie-horror genre popularising many of the tropes we now see in the likes of the Walking Dead Franchise or Z Nation. However, at its heart, 'Night of the Living Dead' is a siege film.

A group of characters are boarded up in a location and are besieged by an enemy force. Romero's unrelated sequel Dawn of the Dead follows a similar plot line. But I often find siege films lacking in tension and forward momentum. The characters are stuck in one place not going anywhere neither physically or emotionally. In many ways, Night of the Living Dead also fell into this trap until the characters decide to escape for a safer location.

That is until they start making stupid decisions which screws everything up. Stupid characters making stupid decisions for no other reason than to forward the plot is an annoying and tiresome cliche. Unfortunately it has become a mainstay of horror films. Is Night of the Living Dead to blame for this? I'm not sure.

What I am sure about is how I did not like how they reduced Barbra to little more than a damsel-in-distress. After she is rescued by Ben, she very much becomes an empty shell lacking in agency. While this would be a realistic reaction, it is difficult to believe that a character like that could survive in a world like this. Originally, Barbra was written with more grit, but upon casting Judith O'Dea, Romero rewrote her character.

But one thing Romero did right was the casting of Duane Jones as Ben. He very much carried the film on his back, as Ben was the leader of the survivors. Plus, it was a rare occurrence to have a black man star in a 1960's film. Originally, Ben was supposed to be a crude, un-educated truck  driver, but at the intellectual Jones' insistence, he was changed into a more well-rounded leader.

One cliche I was glad not to see was the one black character dying first in the horror film.

*spoilers*

In fact, Ben was the last one to die. And I did not like how he died. It wasn't in a glorious last stand with the zombies, but by a posse of white men who mistake him for one of the undead and promptly shoot him. But was it a mistake? There are some who have read into the racial undertones of a white man shooting a black man in the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement.

Either way, I found it to be an anti-climatic death unworthy of a good character. Reportedly, Jones wanted it this way saying it would be too Hollywood for him to be the last-man standing. That, notwithstanding, I would have preferred if he had been killed by a paranoid or scared man panicking over whether Ben was a zombie or not. Then his death might have had more meaning.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy Night of the Living Dead. It wasn't without its flaws, but it was still entertaining.

The Thin Red Line review

 Number 694 on the top 1000 films of all time is Terrence Malik's 1998 epic-war film 'The Thin Red Line.'

During the World War Two battle of Mount Austen, a group of US Army infantry soldiers are tasked with taking a key position of the Guadalcanal campaign which could be the turning point of the war in the Pacific.

I've watched a lot of war films and I don't think I've seen one as slow, badly-paced and boring as the Thin Red Line. It was a blocked, drawn-out affair with an overly-large cast.

I would say it takes a while to get going, but it never truly does. For the first ten minutes, we are introduced to Private Witt (Jim Cavizel) who is frolicking with the Melanesian locals, but we don't have any reason to care about them at this point. It is only after the ten minute mark do we see any whisper of conflict where Sergeant Welsh (Sean Penn) tells off Witt for going AWOL.

Thirty minutes later, the soldiers go to the war. Seriously. It's a war film and we don't see any war until well over the forty-minute mark. It's a far-cry from the storming of the beaches in Normandy depicted at the start of Saving Private Ryan.

The Thin Red Line also suffered from a severe lack of main characters or any characters to root for. Sean Penn received star-billing as Sergeant Welsh, so you would think he's the protagonist, but the he only appears in a handful of scenes. But Private Witt is the first character we're introduced to, so you might be forgiven for thinking he's the main character, but then he goes AWOL for much of the film.  

Private Fife (Adrian Brody) was originally scripted as a key-player, but much of his dialogue was edited out. He only had two or three lines. And while the cast was dominated by high-profile names like George Clooney, John C. Reilly, John Travolta and Woody Harrelson, their roles were little more than cameos. It was all very distracting and it certainly didn't make me care for their characters, which was problematic when they were in battle. I didn't care if they lived or died. If anything I cared more about the poor Japanese soldiers they were killing.

The two most memorable and best performances came from Nick Nolte as Lt. Colonel Gordon Tall and Elias Koteas as Captain James Staros. Having been passed over for promotion multiple times, Colonel Tall sees one last chance for glory by telling Staros to capture a bunker by full-front al assault. However Staros realises the position is heavily guarded and he refuses to send his men to die, leading to a huge confrontation between him and Tall. Although their conflict only lasts for a few scenes, it was one of the most interesting and dramatic.

Much of the rest was spent hearing random voiceovers of random characters all philosophising about the meaning of war. It all became very pretentious especially since there's no rhyme or reason as to why these characters are giving voiceovers at that particular time.

Terrence Malik was ruthless with his editing, not only vastly reducing Adrian Brody's role, but also cutting out other roles completely - Mickey Rourke was supposed to appear, but only does so in deleted scenes. I do think the film was overly-edited; it is an incohesive mess of random scenes and characters thrown together without any clear storyline.

Big surprise. I did not care for the Thin Red Line. Not only was it pretentious and bloated, but it was also something a film should never be and that's boring.

Michael Clayton review

 Number 977 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal thriller 'Michael Clayton.'

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is the fixer for a prestigious New York law film who is representing the agricultural conglomerate U-North amid a massive scandal. However, when the firm's lead litigator Arthur (Tom Wilkinson) has a massive breakdown, it's up to Michael to clean up the mess. However, he soon discovers his firm is at the centre of a huge cover-up. Sydney Pollack and Tilda Swinton co-star.

Michael Clayton was nominated for no less than seven Oscars including best acting, writing and film. While it wasn't a bad film, it certainly wasn't Oscar-worthy. Nor was it worth a place on this list.

It was an underwhelming affair, replete in dramatic tension, suspense and any concrete detail that would have made it an entertaining thriller. The narrative focusses on U-North as it weathers allegations on whether it knew that its carcinogenic weedkiller would lead to hundreds of deaths. Sounds like a horrific scandal, right?

But the details of this were kept surprisingly vague. It was treated very clinically. Perhaps because we were seeing everything through the eyes of lawyers who were more interested in the legal nitty gritty rather than the actual victims of the scandal. This film was definitely missing a lot of heart.

And while I don't want to diminish any of the immense acting talent on display, I don't think George Clooney or Tom Wilkinson deserved Oscar nods and I don't think Tilda Swinton deserved her Best Supporting Actress win. I don't think I can pin-point an exact moment where I thought, "wow, that's why she won the Oscar." Furthermore, all three of their characters remained very under-developed.

Michael Clayton is a little more than your standard male lead who has an acrimonious relationship with his wife and son. And while Arthur's meltdown catalysed the film, we never really explored the reasons or causes of it. Tilda Swinton's character was similarly under-developed.

I'm really not sure how Michael Clayton made it onto this list. It certainly was not one of the best films of all time. 

Up in the Air review

 Number 827 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2009 comedy-drama 'Up in the Air.'

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is the man you call when you want to fire somebody but you aren't brave enough to do it yourself. He flies around the US letting people go. However, his own job is threatened when his company hires young upstart Natalie (Anna Kendrick) who proposes the company moves to firing people via video-conferencing rendering Ryan obsolete.

Losing your job is a horribly relatable experience for many people, myself included. Thankfully, it didn't result in me losing much more than my job, but for some people it is much worse. Up in the Air succeeded in conveying a truly authentic experience. Part of that was down to the very good decision to invite real-life firees to play the characters that Ryan and Natalie terminate. They were told to react either how they did on the day or to say what they wish they had said at the time. And this helped to keep things very realistic. 

Ryan Bingham is a very superficial character. He lives a transitory experience with little concern about the people he lets go, as long as he gets his frequent flier miles. But he goes through a nice redemption arc partially thanks to Natalie, but also due to his casual lover Alex (Vera Farmiga) who convinces him that he wants something more than his superficial experience. Vera Farmigia is a much better actress than films like Running Scared gives her credit for. It's nice she is getting the recognition she deserves. In fact, she earned an Oscar nod as did Clooney and Kendrick.

Up in the Air was a surprisingly grounded portrayal of the human condition. It was sensitive toward those being fired, but it also made Ryan Bingham - a character that by all accounts we should hate, very likeable. Of course it helps when you have him played by an actor as charming as George Clooney. Natalie also had the potential to be annoying, but you can see she's just a misguided kid trying to make a difference.

Up in the Air was a very enjoyable film. It blended drama and comedy into an entertaining watch.

American Graffiti review

 Number 777 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Lucas' directorial debut and coming-of-age drama 'American Graffiti.'

Curt Henderson (Richard Dreyfuss,) Steve Bolander (Ron Howard,) John Milner (Paul Le Mat) and Terry 'Toad' Fields (Charlie Martin Smith) are four high-school graduates preparing to go their separate ways in life. Across one summer night, we see how they spend their last hours of adolescence.

It's hard to believe this is the same director who created Star Wars and produced Indiana Jones - two of the most action-packed, fun-filled, entertaining franchises in movie history. Francis Ford Coppola also produced this film. And he directed the legendary Godfather films. But American Graffiti was so boring. Once it gets going it's okay, but it takes so long to get going.

The first half of the film, which is roundabouts an hour, nothing much really happens. The four main characters spend most of the time just driving around Modesto, California. They all have their own personal goals: Curt is trying to find a beautiful girl he saw in passing while Toad schemes and plots to impress another girl called Debbie. But none of these goals were particularly interesting or relatable. And I think relatability is one of the most important parts of a coming-of-age drama. But American Graffiti was sorely missing this key aspect.

Once things do get going, there are moments of humour and poignancy, but these are few and far between. When Toad tries asking an older man to buy alcohol for him and his date, the man instead buys wine and sneaks out of the back of the store. A second man robs the store, but at least buys the alcohol for Toad. 

When Curt scratches the car of a group of greases, they coerce him into joining them for the night and force him to engage in petty crime like robbing arcade machines. If he refuses, they'll beat him up. It was entertaining if not the most realistic. Surely the greasers would just beat him up in the first place.

I also could have done without the ending epilogue revealing the fates of the different characters. These aren't real people. We don't need to know where they end up. That can be left up to the viewer to decide.

Although American Graffiti had its funny and touching moments, it was too slow and took too long to get going. How was this the same director who did Star Wars?

Dawn of the Dead (2004) review

Number 897 on the top 1000 films of all time is Zack Snyder's 2004 remake of George A. Romero's zombie-horror classic 'Dawn of the Dead.'

Nurse Anna (Sarah Polley) wakes up in the middle of a zombie apocalypse. The dead are rising up and feasting on the living. She meets up with police officer Kenneth (Ving Rhames) and three other survivors: former salesman and family man Michael (Jake Weber) petty criminal Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his pregnant Russian girlfriend Luda (Inna Korobkina.) Together they take shelter in an abandoned shopping mall where they realise the dead are the least of their worries.

Dare, I say I actually preferred this to the 1977 original. Unlike its predecessor, the tension and suspense always ran high. The action was immediate, as the characters were always in some type of danger. In the original, after our heroes enter the shopping mall, the narrative and as such the tension, completely dries up. This doesn't happen here.

I think it helped immensely that there were more than three characters. This meant there were more people to care about, more potential for conflict and better opportunity for interesting character dynamics. When our original group of survivors enter the mall, they are confronted by a trio of security guards led by the tyrannical CJ  (Michael Kelley.)

Later on another group of survivors crash their bus into the mall bringing with them a whole new host of problems. Meanwhile, Andre is hiding a dark secret from the rest of the group. There is a narrative tension galore. Mainly because all the threats and conflicts always felt imminent rather than vague and faceless.

True a lot of the conflict is fuelled by characters making stupid, unrealistic decisions while a lot of the characterisations never went past the superficial, but the actors did a good job with what they had. Sarah Polley was good as Anna. She took the role as the character wasn't your typical Scream Queen. I would agree with this. But Kenneth and Andre were less drawn. They were little more than a cop and a criminal. I also feel I need to mention Michael Kelley as CJ. He goes through a redemption arc, going from a tyrannical jerk to an unlikely hero. And Kelley was good in the role.

I also enjoyed how restrained Zack Snyder was in his direction. Unlike in 300, where he over-indulges in visual effects, he is less excitable here. there is far less crappy CGI and gratuitous slow motion.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this remake. It was one of these rare occasions where the remake was better than the original. 

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.

The Descendants review

 Number 939 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2011 comedy-drama 'The Descendants.'

Matt King (George Clooney) is an Hawaii-based attorney. While he is the sole trustee of his family's massive fortune, he has a strained relationship with his wife and children. When his wife is terminally injured in a boating accident, he has to reconnect with his estranged daughters: the older Alex (Shailene Woodley) and the younger Scottie (Amara Miller.) Both girls have troubled pasts.

The Descendants was penned by Nat Faxon, Jim Rash and director Alexander Payne. The former two also wrote and directed the great coming-of-age drama The Way, Way Back. Faxon and Rash produced another entertaining and enjoyable film. Although it had the potential to be morose and whiny, it was light-hearted, but poignant throughout. A lot of that has to do with the film's tone. The film is full of great jokes while also addressing serious topics. Family is the most important theme whether that is Matt's relationship with his estranged children or his relationship with his cousins who have all squandered their inheritance and are desperate for them to sell their land to make them a tidy profit. 

But despite these pressures, he is never a self-suffering protagonist. He always tries to do the right thing and, while, he has every right to be mad at the driver of the boat who injured his wife, he always chooses to take the high road. He is also an honest character - constantly despairing about how to connect with his children. Even when Alex reveals that Matt's wife was having an affair with an estate agent called Brian (Matthew Lilliard), explaining some of the resentment between the two, Matt just wants to give Brian a chance to say goodbye.

George Clooney was great as Matt King. He made the attorney sympathetic without making him pathetic. In fact, it's his hope and optimism that makes him such an endearing character to watch. He also had a great chemistry with Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller who played his daughters. It was lovely watching these three characters become a family again. Woodley and Miller were great as well. Granted both of them start as spoiled brats, but they both develop into strong, young women especially Alex. Woodley gave the character a wonderful vulnerability and she held her own against Clooney. She would have been only twenty in this role and she's since gone onto have a great career.

Nat Faxon, Alexander Payne and Jim Rash won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for this film, and it's easy to see why. Within the Descendants, they crafted an enjoyable, funny, and, at times, tragic story, that is never self-pitying or morose.

Fantastic Mr Fox review

 Number 496 on the top 1000 films of all time is Wes Anderson's animated comedy Fantastic Mr Fox.

Based on Roald Dahl's 1970 story, Fantastic Mr Fox follows Foxy Fox (George Clooney) who regularly thieves from three farmers: Boggis (Robin Hurlstone,) Bunce (Hugo Guiness) and Bean (Michael Gambon.) These farmers swear revenge on Foxy Fox endangering him, his wife Felicity (Meryl Streep) and his family and friends.

This was a stop-motion film and the animation was absolutely gorgeous. I loved the rich Autumnal colour schemes. The colour truly popped. All the different animals looked adorable too from Foxy Fox to his badger lawyer voiced by Bill Murray to the villainous rat voiced by Willem Defoe.

However, this star-studded cast and lovely animation wasn't enough to stop this ultimately being a film made for kids. I was hoping that it would be a family friendly film that would appeal to children and parents alike a la Monsters Inc or Toy Story, but this really was meant for little children. And that did hurt its watchability factor. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man, but maybe it was seemingly obvious that this film was always meant for kids. Children would love the bright colour scheme and the adorable animal characters.

Nevertheless, the conflicts were very juvenile such as the subplot of Mr Fox's son Ash Fox and his rivalry with his cousin Kristofferson. Ash feels threatened and jealous of his seemingly perfect cousin. This is a subplot that would be obviously appealing to little kids but not grumpy, old curmudgeons like me. All the violence bordered on cartoonish, like Mr Fox and his oppossum sidekick climbing up an electric fence. With every climb, the electric shocks x-ray their entire bodies. 

And a lot of the dialogue was contrived. It didn't seem natural and I think that some of that was down to George Clooney himself. I noticed that in a lot of conversations Mr Fox had with his son there were these strange hesitations at the end of each line. You could argue that, at first, this signifies their strained relationship. But their relationship fixes throughout the film, so why are there still the strange hesitations?

I think if I was twenty years younger I would have loved this film, but, now,  I'm far too much of a grumpy old man. It was good as far as it went, but that wasn't very far at all.

Oh Brother Where Art Thou review

 Number 472 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen Brother's comedy-drama Oh Brother Where Art Thou.

Inspired by Homer's the Odyssey, three convicts Ulysses 'Everett' Mcgill (George Clooney,) Pete (John Turtorro) and Delmar Mcdonnell (Tim Blake Nelson) escape from their chain gang in Mississippi to find the treasure that leader Everett hid before he was sent to prison. Hijinks and shenanigans ensue.

This is the third Coen brothers' film I've seen after Fargo and the Big Lebowski, and this has to be the most surreal yet. And I'm going to come out and sat it, the Coen brothers are too surreal for me. Oh Brother Where Art Thou is pretty weird from the heroes meeting Baby face Nelson to the valley flooding saving them from being remanded to prison. And apparently this wasn't deux ex machina as Mcgill constantly references how the valley will be flooded. But what does this all mean? Nothing probably, which I imagine is the point. 

Having said that, the film produces some genuine laughs and scares. We quickly realise that Everett is the brains of the operation, manipulating the weaker-minded Pete and Delmar to help him achieve his true objective. Along the way, they are lured away by sirens who drug and rob them and supposedly turn Pete into a toad. Of course this wasn't the case, but seeing Delmar's distress was very funny to watch.

Later on, they meet one-eyed bible salesman, Big Dan Teague (John Goodman) who squishes the supposed Pete the Toad and then beats Delmar and Everett and robs what little they have left. While he is beating Delmar, Everett nonchalantly asks him what's wrong. This kind of off-beat humour made the film very comical.

Yet it was also scary. The trio crash a KKK rally, just as they are about to perform a lynching. But the whole sequence was freaky from the Grand Wizard spouting his nonsense to the burning crosses and the ritualistic chanting. It was an abstract and disturbing spectacle.

My favourite part of the film had to be the music. Arranged by T-Bone Burnett, who later famously scored the television series True Detective, we're treated to period-specific music ranging from blues to country to folk. Most of the music is worked into the actual narrative giving the film a great authenticity, which also complimented the autumnal sepia-tone. 

The three leads, to get some quick cash, form a music group along with a Robert Johnson wannabe, and produce a record, quickly becoming local celebrities. Although all the actors were dubbed, it was great fun to see them perform. But I also loved all the gospel and blues music from the chain gang singing at the beginning to the congregation singing their hymns when Pete is baptised. And, of course, I'm not the only one who loved this music as the soundtrack won the Grammy for album of the year.

Overall while this film was entertaining with an award-winning soundtrack, it was just too damn weird for me.

The King's Speech review

Number 232 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tom Hooper's 2010 biopic 'The King's Speech.'

Based on the real life story, the King's Speech follows the future King George VI trying to overcome his speech impediment. To assist him, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) enlists the help of Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush.) Small note, George VI was only a regnal name. George VI's real name was Albert or "Bertie."

Released to critical acclaim, the King's Speech received twelve Oscar nominations and won four including best film and best actor. It is easy to see why. Hooper tackled a sensitive topic with tact and discretion. I think it would have been all too easy to victimise Bertie rather than make him a character to root for. But he wasn't a pitiful protagonist, but an endearing one. His family have no patience for his stammer. His older brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) teases him constantly while his father George V (Michael Gambon) thinks he can bully the stammer away.

Colin Firth very much earned his best acting Oscar. Again, it would have been very easy to portray Bertie as a victim. And while he was a victim of his circumstances, he was also a fiercely brave man. Rather than submitting to his stammer, he constantly fights against it and seeks help. Firth brought a real vulnerability and humanity to the role. When Edward VIII abdicates and George VI is thrust into his new position as king, he breaks down proclaiming that he hasn't a king. This was one of my favourite moments of the film.

It did puzzle me a little that the film didn't focus that much on the social context of Edward VIII's abdication. Surely events like these would have impacted greatly on George's character, but then again, these probably weren't relevant enough to include.

Overall this was a great film with Colin Firth earning his best Actor Oscar.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Review

 Number 173 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Roy-Hill's 1969 Western, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and Harry 'Sundance' Longabaugh (Robert Redford) based upon the real-life outlaws of the same name, are your two most likable bank and train robbers ever. However, upon robbing one train too many, a bounty is set on their heads. To escape the hunters, the pair flee to Bolivia but their troubles are far from over.

In undertaking this challenge, I have watched a fair few Westerns and I admit that I've never been a big fan. Cowboy films just aren't my thing. Butch Cassidy and Sundance was an exception. And perhaps this is because the film doesn't take itself too seriously. Rather than watching two hours of Clint Eastwood scowling, I was treated to the brilliant on-screen chemistry of Newman and Redford.

Having already seen The Sting, I know how well these two can work together with Newman leading the action and Redford bouncing off of him as his sidekick. And the pair's relationship is obvious right from the start. Cassidy's crew have mutinied against him with Harvey Logan (Ted Cassidy) taking control. Logan challenges Cassidy to a duel but Cassidy fights dirty and quickly wins. All the while, Sundance never doubts his partner.

The two of them are so damn charming that their victims enjoy being robbed by them. Despite how the train guard on the Union Pacific Overland Flyer is so honoured to be robbed by the pair, but has to remain loyal to his company. For his loyalty, he is rewarded with a face full of dynamite. Later on, E.H Harriman, the owner of the Union Pacific, sends a posse of expert trackers and bounty hunters after our heroes. They are cornered to a cliff where Cassidy convinces Sundance to jump into the river below despite Sundance admitting he can't swim.

Having plunged into the waters below, Sundance desperately clings onto Cassidy to try and stay afloat. Their ensuing conversation was funny to hear, but this brings me onto my first issue witht he film. And it's how the E.H Harriman storyline doesn't go anywhere. At first, it's very intense to see our heroes be hunted across rock and sand by a ruthless posse and an expert Indian tracker, but this rising action doesn't culminate in any big climax.

Cassidy and Sundance escape and that's that. I thought that we would be in for a big dramatic gunfight between our heroes and the posse, but it wasn't to be. This tension culminated in a fizzle rather than a bang. Rather, we get our climax with the two hiding in Bolivia. Having tried and failed to go straight, Sundance and Cassidy return to robbing banks, despite their complete lack of Spanish, which leads to the film's funniest scene.

But they soon attract the attention of the Bolivian police and army who pin down our heroes with no means of escape. Again, I expected Harriman to appear, but again I was disappointed. Another thing I didn't like was the use of montage as a pure exposition device to showcase the hero's journey from America to Bolivia. It felt very rushed and I think this could have been explored more.

Lastly, I just want to praise Karathine Ross as Cassidy's love interest - Etta Place. Ross really helped to provide the film some heart. She begrudingly agrees to go to Bolivia with the pair on the one condition that she doesn't watch them die.

And this emotional subplot helped to balance out the comedy, drama and action. All of these elements blended together to make a vastly enjoyable film with great performances from its lead actors.