The Life of David Gale review

 Number 801 on the top 1000 films of all time is the psychological thriller 'The Life of David Gale.'

David Gale (Kevin Spacey) and his colleague Constance Harraway (Laura Linney) are two of the biggest anti-death penalty activists in the US. However, when David is found guilty of Constance's murder, he is sentenced to death. Maintaining he has been framed, he asks journalist Bitsy Bloom (Kate Winslet) to prove his innocence.

The Life of David Gale presents a fascinating premise: what happens when the biggest anti-death penalty activist is sentenced to death? It was also a divisive film with audiences loving it, hence its inclusion in this list, but many critics thought it was too clever for its own good.

I am firmly in the audience's camp. I thought it was a clever yet sensitive way of addressing a difficult topic. Many critics took issue with the final twist, but I thought it made perfect sense. Don't worry. I won't spoil it here.

Kevin Spacey and Laura Linney gave great performances. David Gale is objectively a flawed man. He is arrogant and overly-prideful. Not to mention, he thinks with his dick, landing him in big trouble. But he is also a tragic character who is the victim of his own circumstances, which again ties in well with the final twist.

Linney was also impressive. In comparison, Constance is a far more tragic character, and Linney played the role with a great sensitivity. Like Gale, Harraway is firmly principled, but, unlike Gale, she never allows her emotions to cloud her judgement. And all credit for Linney filming her death scene herself, and not using a body double. I won't go into detail, but she declared it was one of the most difficult things she ever had to film. I have no doubt about that.

I also have to shout out Melissa McCarthy who shone in the small supporting role, as Nico - the irreverent goth who gives tours around the scene of Harraway's murders.

I was less convinced by Kate Winslet who was quite melodramatic especially as the film built towards its inevitable conclusion. I was also confused by the inclusion of Dusty Wright (Matt Craven) a former colleague of Gale, as well as a former lover of Harraway.

He is seen aggressively stalking Bloom, but nothing comes from this except for a specific scene, which would spoil the film if I go into it. But if that's the case, then just have that scene, rather than all the shots of him watching Bloom from afar. It was a bit like the film was setting him up as the big, bad villain only to pull the rug from underneath our feet. In that regard, I would agree with the critics that the film was being too clever for its own good.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy the Life of David Gale. It was an interesting and thought-provoking thriller that brilliantly addressed a sensitive topic. 

Sleepers review

 Number 792 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal crime-drama Sleepers.

Lorenzo "Shakes" Carcaterra (Joe Perrino,) Tommy Marcano (Jonathan Tucker,) John Riley (Geoffrey Wigdor) and Michael Sullivan (Brad Renfro) are four boys growing up in the Hell's Kitchen neighbourhood of New York. Father Bobby Carillo (Robert De Niro) keeps a watchful eye over them. But when a childish prank goes horribly wrong, the four boys are sentenced to Wilkinson's Home for Boys where they experience horrific abuse by the guards led by Sean Noakes (Kevin Bacon.) Cut thirteen years into the future, the now adult John (Ron Eldard,) Tommy (Billy Crudup,) Shakes (Jason Patric) and Michael (Brad Pitt) swear to take revenge on everybody who did them harm.

Sleepers is very much a story of two halves. We have the lives of the boys before they attend Wilkinson's and their lives afterwards. If anything I preferred the first half. We're given a rich tapestry and a deep insight into life within Hell's Kitchen. There's no doubt that our four protagonists are little shits, but they are still interesting to watch.

And then things go south in the second half. The narrative tension just stops, as we enter a courtroom drama. The contrivance of all four boys all being sent to the same prison aside, the second half was not as neat or tightly focussed, as the first half. *spoilers to follow*

Upon release, John and Tommy become hitmen in the Irish mob. By chance they see Noakes in a bar and they publicly assassinate him. The case goes to court. Michael, now an assistant district attourny, seeing an opportunity to punish the rest of the guards who abused them, takes the prosecution with the intention of botching it. He enlists the alcoholic Dan Snyder ( Dustin Hoffman) to defend John and Tommy.

But the problem lies in how Noakes was killed early on. Noakes was the ringleader. He was the big, bad villain. The other guards were just his cronies. Without him, we're just seeing John and Tommy being persecuted for a revenge kill that the audiences knows they were justified in carrying out. It was dull.

It would have been more interesting seeing Sean Noakes, and the other guards, standing trial for the atrocities they committed. Instead, we were focussing on John and Tommy. And that killed any narrative suspense. The second half felt almost disconnected from the first. It didn't help that Noakes' cronies were little more than names on a page with little characterisation other than being a crony. The one exception was Ralph Ferguson (Terry Kinney) who was the only guard to express any remorse over what he did.

Even though there were some big names in the cast; Robert De Niro, Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman have five Oscars between them, I don't think anybody really shone. Brad Pitt and Dustin Hoffman only appear in the second half and De Niro was closer to a supporting character.

Overall, Sleepers was an entertaining if uneven film that went to sleep in its second half.

Dances with Wolves review

 Number 333 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Kevin Costner's 1990 epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.'

Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is a soldier in the US Civil War. In 1863, he is assigned to a military post in the American frontier. Instead of finding his assignment, he finds a group of Lakota. There everything he has ever known is flipped on its head.

I've never rated Costner much as an actor. He's very wooden and over-the-top. After seeing this, I don't rate him much as a director either. Dances with Wolves was a slow-plodding affair that had no business being three hours long. The film centres on Dunbar's relationship with the Lakota, but they barely feature until an hour in - which was also the first sign of tension.

How Dances with Wolves won the Best Picture Oscar is beyond me. How it beat out brilliant films like Awakenings or Goodfellas is even more stupefying. And don't even get me started on Costner being nominated for Best Actor. His constant narration slowed the film to an absolute crawl. He logs all his interactions with the Lakota in a journal. This is accompanied by the slowest, most monotonous, expository voice-over known to man. We see something on screen, and, for some reason, Costner felt the need to over-explain it ad infiniteum. 

It made everything very on-the-nose. It would have been much better if the audience had been left to figure things out for themselves.

Dunbar wasn't an interesting character to follow at all. I was far more interested in the dynamics of the Lakota tribe. It would have been more interesting if the film had been told from their perspective rather than from a tepid soldier who loves the sound of his own voice.

I did not care for Dances with Wolves. It was an overly-long, tedious affair. And how it was the 1990 Best Picture winner is a complete mystery.

Mystic River review

 Number 347 on the top 1000 films of all time is Clint Eastwood's crime-drama 'Mystic River.'

Mystic River is based on the book of the same name by Denis Lehane. It opens on three twelve-year-old boys Jimmy, Sean and Dave as they are running amuck in 1970's Boston. The cops come and take away Dave. He isn't seen again until four days later alleging he was held prisoner and sexually assaulted. Fast-forward twenty-five years and the three friends have separated. Dave (Tim Robbins) is still living with his childhood trauma, Jimmy (Sean Penn) has become a petty crook and Sean (Kevin Bacon) is a copper. When Jimmy's nineteen-year-old daughter is murdered, and Dave becomes the number-one suspect, the three friends are thrown back together.

I've always said that Clint Eastwood is a better director than an actor. Nowhere is that more evident than here. Mystic River is a taut, tight thriller that grabs viewers by the throat in the first fifteen minutes, and refuses to let go. Mystic River rightly earned Eastwood a Best Director Oscar nod.

But Penn and Robbins won the best-actor and best-supporting actor Oscars. These were well-earned. Penn gave a powerful performance as the emotionally exhausted father desperately trying to solve the murder of his daughter. But Robbins was equally good if not better as Dave. Try as he might, he couldn't put the trauma of being assaulted as a boy behind him. Becoming the number-one suspect does nothing to help his deteriorating psyche. And Robbins brought all this to the role and more.

Even Kevin Bacon surprised me. Granted, I haven't seen him in that much, but I've never rated him as an actor. Yet he brought an excellent maturity to the role. Out of the three friends, he's managed to put the childhood trauma behind him. However, also out of the three friends, he receives the least development and screentime. It is said that he has pushed away his wife in his efforts to overcome his trauma, but this plot idea wasn't as fully-explored as it could have been. When the two eventually reconciled, I couldn't have cared less.

I also thought Jimmy's relationship with his wife Annabeth (Laura Linney) wasn't well-portrayed. The actors didn't have the best chemistry. This was no better evidenced than at the film's conclusion. After Jimmy has dealt some street justice, she comes onto him in some weird faux-sex scene proclaiming him to be a king among men. It was all very cringy, but maybe it was supposed to be.

But I thoroughly enjoyed Mystic River. If only Clint Eastwood did more directing instead of acting.

Field of Dreams review

Number 715 on the top 1000 films of all time is the sports-fantasy drama film 'Field of Dreams.'

Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) is a corn farmer in Iowa. Haunted by his poor relationship with his late father, he fears growing old without achieving anything. And that's when a mysterious voice tells him to plough part of his corn farm and to build a giant baseball ring instead. Several months after building the field, ghosts of famous baseball players Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) start appearing.

"Build it and and they will come" is the famous line from this film. Let me tell you if somebody built this film in a middle corn field in Iowa, I would not come back as a ghost and see it. I am not a baseball fan, so I didn't think I would enjoy this at all. However, the real reason why I did not enjoy it was that it was cheesy, overly-sentimental and completely lacking in any type of dramatic tension.

To say it had a slow start would be an understatement. The beginning is so lacking in any conflict that it almost put me to sleep. There's a middle-aged man, whom I have no reason to sympathise with, is going through a mid-life crisis. He thinks the solution to this is to go build a baseball diamond because some random ghost told me to do so. His wife goes along with this and the diamond is built without any issue. Ghosts of baseball players start appearing and Kevin Costner starts pitching and batting with them. Everything's hunky-dory. Where's the tension? Where's the conflict? Where's any reason for me to be interested in this film?

And the lack of any central conflict was this film's biggest problem. Ray Kinsella's mid-life crisis had such little immediacy and urgency that it was not engaging at all. His wife Annie (Amy Madigan) was fully supportive of his dreams, which again removed another source of conflict. Any recognisable conflict came from Ray and Annie potentially losing their farm to the bank, but even this was mostly-glossed over. And this all eventually culminated when their daughter Karin falls or is knocked off (it isn't clear which) some beachers and tumbles down in the most unrealistic and silliest looking way possible. But then she's healed by one of the baseball - playing ghosts. Just what?

This film wasn't entirely bad - James Earl Jones was enjoyable in a supporting role. But Field of Dreams was so lacking in substance and conflict and tension that it failed to be anything other than boring.

Glengarry Glen Ross review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Time to Kill review

 Number 969 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joel Schumacher's 1996 legal drama 'A Time to Kill.'

Based on John Grisham's book of the same name, A Time to Kill focusses on the relationship between white Mississippi attorney Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) and his black client Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson.) After Carl Lee's ten-year-old daughter Tonya (Rae'ven Larrymore Kelly) is brutally raped and almost murdered by two racist rednecks Billy Ray Cobb (Nicky Katt) and James Willard (Doug Hutchinson.) Carl Lee takes the law into his own hands and shoots them dead. Brigance decides to defend him. He is aided by his old mentor, the alcoholic Lucien Wilbanks (Donald Sutherland) and law student Ellen Roark (Sandra Bullock.) But Brigance is up against stiff competition as district attorney Rufus Buckley (Kevin Spacey) takes up the case for the Cobb family. Billy Ray's brother - Freddie Lee (Kiefer Sutherland) also resurrects the Mississippi KKK chapter to exact his revenge on Carl Lee.

Joel Schumacher is so well-known for almost killing the Batman movie franchise with the abysmal Batman and Robin, it is easy to forget that he has made other films. A Time to Kill is one of these films. It's just as cheesy as Batman and Robin, but it is a million times better. That is a low bar and it's certainly not perfect, but it's watchable enough.

A lot of that is down to the star-studded cast. To be honest, I don't think McConaughey was anything special. Brigance is your classic, intelligent, handsome clear-cut hero - there's not much more to him than that. But I thought Samuel L. Jackson was great. He's so well known for either action roles or over-the-top, eccentric oddball, it was refreshing to see him in a more human role. He played it well conveying a brilliant vulnerability. Carl Lee is an obviously sympathetic character. His daughter is raped and left for dead. She is attacked because she is black. He only did what any father would do. Is that so wrong? 

According to Spacey, it is. Men must not be allowed to take the law into their own hands. Spacey shone, as he always does, playing a slimy lawyer, who only takes the case to build his own public profile. And he does that Southern drawl so damn well. I couldn't help but be reminded of one of Spacey's most famous roles: President Frank Underwood on House of Cards. Kiether Sutherland was also enjoyable as the villainous Freddie Lee Cobb. Hell-bent on revenge, he starts up the local KKK chapter and terrorises everybody involved in the trial. Granted all the roles I've seen Sutherland in are villains/morally dubious, but he does them well.

The only character I was unsure about was Ellen Roark. An ACLU activist and law student, she helps Brigance pro bono, so to speak. Yet she was such a poorly written character. It seemed like Sandra Bullock was only cast because she was hot and not because of her great acting ability. As she doesn't really have a chance to do much except to riffle through cabinets and have sexual tension between her and Brigance. Perhaps her character is there to tempt Brigance into an extra-marital affair and put a strain between Brigance and his wife. But these ideas never came to fruition. An affair between the two is teased, but Brigance always stops himself before things go too far. But this is never something that makes it home to his family. In fact, rather than Roark, it is the KKK leaving burning crosses outside of Brigance's home that drives a wedge between him and his wife. She and her daughter soon leave for their own safety. And so does any potential for narrative tension.

If the intention was to force some sexual tension then it failed dramatically. And if it wasn't then what was the point of the character? Why would you squander Sandra Bullock's acting ability - she is a best actress Oscar winner? Why would you put two young hot people like Mconaughey and Bullock together if they're not going to get it on? Sure, he might need a paralegal, but why does that have to be somebody like Bullock. He character seemed so contrived. Also Bullock was in her thirties while filming - too old to be playing a law student.

The ending also seemed too contrived and cheesy. Brigance *spoiler alert* convinces the jury of Carl Ray's innocence, but his method is what troubled me. He effectively tugs at heart strings rather than using the law. He asks the jury to close their eyes and to imagine the rape and attempted murder of Tonya. He ends by saying "imagine if she was white." Obviously race is a presiding issue and Tonya suffered a horrific hate crime, but as, Spacey spends much of the trial protesting, it isn't Tonya's rape that is at issue, but Carl Lee's murder of her rapists. During Brigance's impassioned speech, Spacey doesn't object once, nor does Judge tell the jury to strike it from the record. This was all too difficult to believe.

I also found it troubling that Freddie Lee and the other KKK don't face any proper consequences for their actions. Sure, we see them being quietly confronted by the cops, but nothing more. Freddie Lee left a burning cross outside of Brigance's house, he beats his secretary husband's to death, he tries to shoot Brigance and he kidnaps Roark, takes her to the woods, strips her and leaves her tied to a tree. Yet his actions are effectively brushed under the rug. All I needed was the coppers clasping him in irons and reading him his Miranda rights.

Also there was a mysterious man operating through the film. He warns Brigance's family of the burning cross through a shadowy phone call. But was the person's identity ever revealed? Was it the same man who rescued Roark or was that just a stranger?

So yes, this film is cheesy, unrealistic and relegates Bullock to playing little more than a sex object, but I do think it is well worth a watch. Look past the cheese and you'll find an entertaining and gripping thriller. Just a shame that Schumacher followed this up with Batman and Robin.

K-Pax review

 Number 965 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction film K-Pax.

Prot (Kevin Spacey) claims to be an alien visiting earth from the planet K-Pax, while manifesting in the form of a human male. Upon his arrival in New York, he is quickly remanded to a psychiatric facility. Where he comes into the care of Dr Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges.) Dr Powell is determined to prove Prot a liar, but he is confronted with increasingly convincing evidence.

Kevin Spacey has undoubtedly become a problematic figure, but there is no denying that he was one hell of an actor. By the time he filmed K-Pax, he had already won acting Oscars for the Usual Suspects and American Beauty. He brought the full force of his acting skills to this role too. As far as aliens go, Prot is a little bit like a Vulcan - observing the customs of humans with a scientific curiousity, and, at times, a quiet exasperation. If Dr Powell asks him whether he has K-Pax equivalent of a human custom, Prot will rationally explain why something like that would be nonsense.

In the hands of a lesser actor, these explanations would sound like rubbish, but Spacey pulls off the awkward dialogue with finesse. And even a bit of humour. For a science-fiction film, there were a lot of jokes and Spacey played them well. As well as making us laugh, he pulled at our heart strings too. To unlock the truth, Dr Powell hypnotises Prot and discovers that Prot - or at least the human form he is assuming - was once known as a man called Robert Porter who worked in an abattoir. His wife and daughter are raped and murdered by a paroled convict. In his grief, Robert kills the murderer. To protect his fragile state of mind, he creates a delusion of being an alien from K-Pax. Spacey was brilliant in these scenes. 

Jeff Bridges was great too - often playing the Dr Bones to Spacey's Spock. And as he becomes more obsessed with the case, his relationship with his family becomes strained. Bridges plays a man caught between two worlds. But like Spacey, he plays the comedy well, often acting as the straight man.

A lot of science-fiction films that deal with big philosophical themes tend to be self-indulgent and pretentious, *cough  cough* 2001: A Space Odyssey, as they try to prove how clever they are. K-Pax was nothing like this. It was a simple and straightforward plot. There wasn't anything pretentious about it. Rather than vaguely answering big questions, it hyper-focussed on what it means to be human.

And was Prot really an alien or a delusional human trying to survive a severe trauma? Like any good science-fiction, it doesn't tell you what to think, but lets you make up your own mind. Personally, I think that Prot and Robert Porter had a symbiotic relationship. Prot needed a human host and Porter needed a reason to not be himself anymore. But what do you think?

JFK review

 Number 306 on the top 1000 films of all time is Oliver Stone's epic political thriller: JFK.

Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is the former New Orleans district attorney. After President Kennedy is assassinated, the Warren report declares that Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) was the lone perpetrator. Garrison has his doubts and reopens the investigation. He inadvertently unearths a massive conspiracy theory. The huge ensemble cast includes Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and John Candy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a film needs a very good reason to be over three hours long. And it needs an excellent reason to be three hours and twenty-five minutes long. JFK had no such reason. it was one of the longest films I've seen and far longer than it needed to be.

It's safe to say that Kennedy's assassination is one of the most controversial topics in history. Few people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting as a lone wolf. The true perpetrators range from the mob to the CIAS to the Russians to the Cubans. Any one of these explored in isolation could have made a very interesting film, but where Stone went was how he tried to connect everything. Reportedly, he read two dozen books on Kennedy's assassination and his research team read 100-200 books. And it was like Stone tried to include every single scrap of information he could find. This made for a bloated, unfocussed film.

The supporting cast was huge and certainly could have been trimmed down. Garrison's many deputies were very similar to each other and I regularly mixed them up. Some of them were also ultimately pointless to the plot as they were involved in subplots that went nowhere. Bill Broussard (Michael Rooker) is one such deputy who becomes uncomfortable at how the conspiracy begins to implicate LBJ. He betrays his former boss by starting to work for the feds, but we never see any consequences for this.

Stone was heavily criticised for taking liberties with history. But my issue isn't so much was he included, but what he didn't, which was nothing. He included everything which was not necessary. I could have done without seeing how Garrison's investigation was affecting his family life. This would have cut the film down a lot.

And everything was slow that after a while it became very tedious. Much of the film were characters sitting in a room either quietly talking or loudly yelling at each other. As such, a lot of the supporting cast was wasted. Gary Oldman did very little as did Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. With so many famous faces, it's inevitable that you can't give them all the attention they deserve and a lot of them did fall by the wayside. Although, John Candy and Joe Pesci gave memorable performances and Costner's ending monologue was particularly powerful.

The film did have the potential to live up to its ambitious premise, but if you have to watch a film in two halves then it is too damn long.