Breakfast at Tiffany's review

 Number 490 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1961 romantic-comedy 'Breakfast at Tiffany's.'

Based on Truman Capote's novella of the same name, Breakfast at Tiffany's follows the free-spirited Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn.) She is a vibrant and independent socialise who falls in love with her neighbour - the struggling writer Paul Varjack (George Peppard.)

Firstly, let's address the Mickey Rooney shaped elephant in the room. He plays Holly's landlord Mr Yunioshi. For this role, Rooney wore prosthetics to look Japanese. This received both historical and contemporary criticism for being a racist characterisation of the Japanese, and East-Asians in general. As someone with East Asian heritage, I didn't find this offensive so much as I found it annoying. 

In fact, if there was an Oscar for most irritating performance ever Mickey Rooney would have surely won. Mr Yunioshi was a one-dimensional, terrible character. Rooney seemed to spend all his time shouting at the top of his voice in an accent that quickly grated on me. I think he was supposed to be some type of comic relief, but there was nothing funny about his performance.

If anything, I was more grossed-out at the revelation that Holly was only fourteen when she married her first husband Doc Golightly (Buddy Ebsen.) She is only nineteen in the film. And this is something that the film completely glosses over. But then again this was the sixties, long before political correctness ever became a thing. 

That notwithstanding, I did enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's. It was a wonderfully subtle film with plenty of laughs and a charming performance from Hepburn. She imbued the ditzy Golightly with enough charisma to make her a thoroughly likeable character. 

Director Blake Edwards also allowed for plenty of improvisation which helped the comedy to thrive. For the famous party scene, he let the champagne and food flow freely meaning, gave the cast little direction, permitting them to produce some authentic and hilarious moments.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is also well-known for its signature song 'Moon River.' Written specifically for Audrey Hepburn's limited range, it was the perfect accompaniment for the film. Suitably romantic and understated, it went onto rightly win the Oscar for the Best Original song. When a studio executive suggested it be cut in the film, Audrey Hepburn shot back with "over my dead body." If it wasn't for her strong convictions, we would have been robbed this gentle song.

The Mickey Rooney yellowface controversy aside, I did very much enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's.

The Wrestler review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man on Fire review

 Number 546 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tony Scott's action thriller Man on Fire.

John Creasy (Denzel Washington) is an alcoholic former CIA officer with PTSD. When his friend Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken) convinces him to become a bodyguard for the Ramos family in Mexico, he is initially reluctant. However, he soon forms a close relationship with Lupita 'Pita' Ramos, (Dakoto Fanning) daughter of the Ramos.' When she is abducted by a kidnapping gang, Creasy promises to rain down hell on her kidnappers.

By their very nature, action films tend to be cliched and formulaic. You get the handsome, physically fit hero with a troubled past and plot armour, lots of explosions and guns, gratuitous violence and a simplistic plotline. Man on Fire had all of this in spades. The only thing was missing was an attractive female lead whose only function would be as a sex object for our rugged protagonist. Man on Fire was pretty cliched as far as action films go. Creasy is haunted by an unexplained past which is never really fleshed out. And that certainly didn't make him anymore three dimensional. 

Upon finding out information about Pita's kidnappers, he resorts to violently torturing members of the gang. And some of his methods were so violent that they bordered on silly. He sticks an explosive up a corrupt policeman's rear and detonates it when he has the information he needs. His plot armour was ridiculously thick. How many gunshot wounds does he survive? 

I also think the villain of the film was cliched. Roberto Sosa plays Daniel Sanchez who is otherwise regarded as 'the Voice.' But we don't see enough of 'the Voice' or his motivations to really make him a threatening enough villain. He's the one giving the orders but he doesn't have enough screen time to make him particularly scary. And there was also too much slow-motion and in really strange places too. Why did we need to see Creasy help Pita out of the pool in slow-motion? 

Lastly, Radha Mitchell plays Pita's mother and while she was good enough her accent was not. Radha is Australian and her character was supposed to be Texan. However, Radha's accent was very inconsistent. At time it sounded Texan and at others it just sounded generic American.

Despite all that, it was still an entertaining and, most importantly, a thrilling film. Washington and Fanning had a great chemistry and it was lovely seeing their relationship develop. Creasy starts off as morose and grumpy, but Pita helps to bring him out of his shell. They were very cute together. And I also enjoyed the gritty, visual style. Apparently it was a homage to the brilliant film City of God. The two films also shared a similar cast. 

I'm not sure whether I would count this as one of the top 1000 films of all time. But as an action-thriller film, I think it was very good.