From Here to Eternity review

 Number 465 on the top 1000 films of all time is the romantic-drama 'From Here to Eternity.'

Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) is a soldier and former boxer stationed in 1941 Oahu. Despite pressure from his unit he refuses to join the regimental boxing team. They then proceed to make his life hell. His only friends are the Italian-American Private Angelo Maggio (Frank Sinatra) and Sergeant Milton Warden (Burt Lancaster.)

This is the film that famously won Frank Sinatra the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. It was just one of his many successful film roles. Yet I think labelling it "supporting" is stretching things just a bit too far. He only seemed to feature in a few key scenes before going AWOL to only reappear at the film's conclusion. He was certainly good enough - maybe not as quite as good as his performance in the Manchurian Candidate, but did he have enough screentime to justify a Best Supporting Oscar?

I was also confused to see that it was Burt Lancaster and not Montgomery Clift who received the Best Actor nomination. Lancaster also received star billing over Clift. Yet it was Prewitt and his tortured past that was driving the film forward. Clift was great in the lead role too, as he conveyed Prewitt's inner turmoil. Of course, this isn't to diminish Lancaster either, but of the two, Clift was the star of the film.

The film culminates in a thrilling conclusion, as we see the Pearl Harbour attack happen in real time. This was an enthralling ending which surely captured the confusion and tragedy of the time.

From Here to Eternity was certainly an enjoyable film, but I'm not sure it was Oscar-worthy.

The French Connection review

 Number 453 on the top 1000 films of all time is William Friedkin's 1971 neo-noir crime thriller 'The French Connection.'

NYPD detectives Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy "Cloudy" Russo (Roy Scheider) are trying to bring the influential and wealthy French heroin smuggler Alain Charnier (Fernado Rey) to justice.

The French Connection was William Friedkin's fifth film, but also the one that arguably made his name. Considering that this film netted him Best Director awards from the Academy, the Golden Globes the Directors Guild of America, I think it's fair to say this was his breakout film. No doubt the success of this allowed him to go onto even, arguably, greater heights of directing The Exorcist a few years.

 Supposedly the scariest horror film of all time. I say supposedly as I really hated the Exorcist. Although evidently I'm in the minority with that opinion as The Exorcist went onto receive ten Oscar nominations including Best Director for Friedkin.

However, I think the French Connection was a much better film to warrant a Best Director win. True, The French Connection is a bit complicated and confusing like most neo-noir films are, but it was still very entertaining. After all, Friedkin directed what some label to be one of the greatest car chase scenes in movie history. Popeye drives hell-for-leather to catch a would-be assassin. This is complicated by how the assassin is on the train and Popeye is in a car, yet in a thrilling sequence, we see him stop at nothing to bring this killer to justice in one way or another.

Although I think Friedkin earned the Best Director Oscar, I'm less convinced by Gene Hackman winning the Best Actor Oscar for Popeye. True, he was good, but I don't think this was one of his best performances. 

He was better in Mississippi Burning, where he was also nominated for Best Actor Oscar losing out to Dustin Hoffman, or the Conversation where Hackman wasn't even nominated. The Conversation's biggest theme was paranoia and we saw that through and through in Hackman's performance. Here I think he was more your every-day hero. Nothing wrong with that, but not Oscar worthy.

Anyway, this is a minor criticism in what was a thoroughly entertaining film. Just a shame, Friedkin went onto direct the Exorcist. 

Sling Blade review

 Number 288 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 drama 'Sling Blade.'

*Spoilers to follow*

Karl Childers (Billy Bob Thornton) is a developmentally-disabled man who has just been released from a psychiatric institution where he has been held since he was twelve years old. His crime? Murdering his mother and her lover with a sling blade. Thoroughly institutionalised, Karl struggles to adapt to his new life in Arkansas. That is until he befriends the twelve-year-old Frank (Lucas Black) and his mother Linda (Natalie Canerday) But her abusive boyfriend Doyle (Dwight Yokam) soon takes a disliking to Karl. As well as starring, Billy Bob Thornton also wrote, produced and directed Sling Blade.

Billy Bob Thornton won an Osar for writing Sling Blade. However, he was only nominate for acting and not even considered for direction. I think that's a good summary of the film: the acting and direction didn't match up to the Oscar-winning writing.

This isn't to say that Thornton did a bad job, but it certainly wasn't Oscar-worthy. Karl's journey was a predictable one. While predictability isn't a bad thing, Thornton did fail to bring anything new to the medium. Karl - having been institutionalised for most of his life struggles in adapting to life on the outside. He quickly comes to loggerheads with Doyle resulting in Karl murdering him. 

Yes, this was predictable, but a predictable ending can still be good if it was executed well. But this ending was disappointing and anti-climatic. There was too much build-up leading to a damp squib instead of a bang. We get a seemingly-endless montage of Karl preparing to kill Doyle with the latter meekly accepting his fate. It was a sequence devoid of tension.

I also think Thornton's portrayal of Karl was over-simplified. It didn't have the same depth as portrayals of similar characters of the era e.g Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. whereas Gump was a living, breathing three-dimensional character, Karl was little more than a grunting cave man.

I can understand why Thornton won the Best Writing Oscar. Sling Blade certainly had a good story. It's just a shame that the direction and acting didn't match up to the writing.

Harvey (1950) review

 Number 254 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1950 comedy-drama 'Harvey.'

Elwood Dowd (James Stewart) is a peculiar young man who lives with his aunt Veta Louise Simmons (Josephine Hull). What's so peculiar about him? He believes in a 6 foot tall white rabbit called Harvey. Harvey is his best friend, but he's imaginary. Considered a quack by his queers, it is possible that Elwood is wiser than us all.

In my last review, I reviewed the courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder starring James Stewart as the charming and whimsical lawyer Paul Biegler. However, Harvey, made a mere nine years earlier, lacked a lot oft he same charm and whimsy. Far from being a heart-warming, comedy drama, it was a soulless affair.

James Stewart lacked a lot of the charisma I saw him display in Anatomy of a Murder and the Philadelphia Story. Rather, with Elwood, he seemed to be in a mindless daze for the entire film. if anything, he was just a vessel for the imaginary Harvey. It wasn't the most compelling of characters or performances. I'm not really sure why he was nominated for an Oscar.

While Jimmy Stewart was nominated for an Oscar, Josephine Hull won for Best Supporting Actress. I was confused as to why Stewart was nominated, but I was shocked at how Hull won. Her performance was fine, but it was hardly Oscar-worthy. For one thing, she disappears halfway through the film only to reappear later. I know this was only a Supporting Oscar, but her screentime didn't seem to warrant such a prestigious award.

Going into this film, I was expecting this to be something similar to It's a Wonderful Life, where a character, in this case, Harvey, has an unexpected/unrealised effect on those around him. Yet, I saw little evidence of this. Dr Sanderson (Charles Drake) and Nurse Kelly (Peggy Dow) are a couple working at the sanitorium that Veta wants to commit Elwood to; it is also implied they are having marital problems. The head of the sanitorium Dr Charles (Cecil Kedaway) is lamentful that he never had a chance to holiday in Akron with a beautiful woman. However, after a supposed encounter with Harvey, the couple sort out their problems and Dr Chumley resolves to carry out his wish. Rubbish. There wasn't enough foundation for these emotional beats to land.

And I could very well say the same for the film Harvey. What should have been a fun feel-good affair left me feeling indifferent.

Top ten times the Academy got it wrong

 By now you should that I have some hot takes about the films that appear on IMDB's top 1000 films of all time. You can check out my lists on some of the most overrated films ever.  But the hot takes don't stop there, as I will be counting the top times that the Academy got it wrong whether that's awarding or even nominating a film or an actor or actress. This list is in no order but chronology.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Number 333 on the top 1000 films is Kevin Costner's epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.' Yet that isn't its only accolade for it also won the 1991 Best Film Oscar.

Yes, you read that correctly. It beat the likes of Goodfellas and Awakenings to win the Academy's most prestigious award. How? This three-hour long film is beyond tedious. Costner's wooden performance did nothing to help matters at all. And to all the critics saying it contains a white saviour complex, I challenge you to stay awake long enough to provide evidence of that. If it were up to me, then I would award the Oscar to Awakenings. Both Robert De Niro and Robin Williams excelled in that.

JFK (1991)

Oliver Stone's epic political thriller ranks 306 on the top 1000 films of all time. It focusses on the investigation following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Again, it stars Kevin Costner. Again, it is a three-hour snooze-fest. Thankfully, it didn't receive a Best Picture Oscar, but it was still nominated. Why? It is a bloated, over-long, unfocussed affair that is bursting to the brim with absolutely anything that is related to the Kennedy case. It quite rightly lost to the Silence of the Lambs, but it shouldn't have been in the running in the first place.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Terrence Malik directed this Vietnam war-film to 694th on the top 1000 films and to a Best Picture nomination. But just like JFK, I am puzzled as to why it was nominated.

It is just plain pretentious. Malik seemed more interested in philosophising and arty camerawork than in telling an interesting story. It's a war film, right? So, why don't we see any war happening?

It is also unfocussed with too many cameos and not enough main characters. It ultimately lost to Shakespeare in Love, but I think its fellow nominee Saving Private Ryan explored the theme of war much more effectively.

Crash (2004)

Paul Haggis' Crash ranks 383rd on the top 1000 films.

Crash won the 2005 Best Picture Oscar. And I am definitely not alone in thinking this was the wrong decision. The concept was admirable - an exploration of race relations in Los Angeles, but the execution left a lot to be desired.

Crash was a contrived, convoluted mess that rushed and over-simplified its key themes and ideas. The far simpler Brokeback Mountain should have won instead. But Hollywood just wasn't brave enough to celebrate a film about two gay cowboys.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Michael Clayton ranks low on the top 1000 films at 977th. It stars George Clooney who plays a fixer un-masking a cover-up at his New York law firm.

Michael Clayton received a number of Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor/Actress. I don't think it deserved any of them.

It was a clinically, cold film which is severely lacking any heart. Although that does make sense since it is about lawyers. George Clooney's lacklustre performance did little to help things.

The Fighter (2010)

David O'Russell's biographical sports-drama ranks in as 408th on the top 1000 films.

This film follows the lives of two boxing brothers played by Mark Wahlburg and Christian Bale. Melissa Leo plays their mother and she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Although she was good, I would argue her co-star Amy Adams, who was also nominated, was even better. Amy Adams should have won instead.

She was the one redeeming feature in a film that I didn't care for at all.

Argo (October 2012) 

Ben Affleck's directed this biographical history thriller to the 445th place on the top 1000 films, as well as the Best Film Oscar.

Don't get me wrong. This is a fine film, but is it really Oscar-worthy? Is it better than its fellow nominees like Django Unchained, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook or Zero Dark Thirty. I'm not sure about that. Sure, it's thrilling enough, but then the tension dissipates in an overly-sentimental conclusion.

And while Ben Affleck is a good director, he is a rather wooden actor. Argo definitely would have been better if it had a different performer in the lead role.

Lincoln (November 2012)

Steven Spielberg's biographical drama ranks as 836th on the top 1000 list. It also netted Daniel Day-Lewis his third Best Actor Oscar win.

I haven't seen My Left Foot, but I can attest that he was magnificent in There will be Blood. Does the same magnificence transfer over into Lincoln? I'm not so sure. It certainly doesn't help that the film is 150 minutes long with a massive cast. 

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Abraham Lincoln, but I'm really not sure that his performance was Oscar-worthy. It lacked the same depth that I've seen in his other roles. I would have much rather seen Denzel Washington win his third Oscar for Flight, but we know that the Academy loves a biopic.

Captain Phillips (2013)

Paul Greenglass' Captain Phillips ranks as 302nd on the top 1000 films.

Tom Hanks stars as the eponymous Captain Phillips - a shipping captain taken prisoner by Somali prisoners.

Captain Phillips was nominated for a number of Oscars including Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor, but not Best Actor. It was a brilliant performance, so why wasn't Tom Hanks nominated. This has to be one of the most egregious snubs in Oscar history. In Captain Phillips, Tom Hanks plays an everyman who becomes an unlikely hero. The Academy loves a biopic, so why wasn't Hanks nominated?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Being released in 2022, EEAAO is seven years too late to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time. However, it still swept the Oscars winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screen, Best Editing and Best Supporting Actress.

I take issue with the Best Supporting Actress win. Jamie Lee-Curtis won this Oscar for the role of IRS inspector Deirdre Beaubeidre. While Michelle Yeoh and Key Huy Quan were well-deserving of their Oscar-wins, I can't say the same for Jamie Lee-Curtis. She was good, but definitely not Oscar-worthy. It didn't have the depth I would expect to see from an Oscar performance. I would argue that her co-star Stephanie Hsu, who was also nominated for the same role, should have won the award instead.

Have I missed out anything? Gone with the Wind? Shakespeare in Love? Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive? Don't worry. A second list will be coming soon enough. 

A Bridge too Far review

 Number 886 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Attenborough's 1977 epic war film 'A Bridge too Far.'

A Bridge too Far tells the true story of the Second World War operation Market Garden - an ambitious, if ultimately failed, attempt of the allies to create a salient in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands. The large ensemble cast includes James Caan, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier, Gene Hackman, Robert Redford and Maximilan Schell. 

Would it be fair to say that this film goes a "bridge too far?" At three hours long, some would probably have that judgement. It is a fair judgement to make. However, I think that compared to most three-hour long films it is paced incredibly well. Compared to some three-hour films, *cough cough* Gone with the Wind, it was engrossing from start to finish. 

Anybody who knows military history knows that Operation Market Garden was a massive failure that extended the war by another seven or eight months, yet it was still interesting seeing how the Allies' overconfidence proved to be their ultimate downfall.

One common flaw I find in war films with large ensemble casts is that the characters become indistinguishable from one another. They are all soldiers dressed in the same uniforms so they all look the same. things can become confusing after a while, but that wasn't the case here.

I think that was because the three-hour run time gave the film the time it needed to breathe. We didn't get any rushed character development. Instead, each character was given the time they deserved. And that allowed the actors to do the best they could. Also, let's talk about the incredible cast. There were no less than seven Oscar winners including Anthony Hopkins, Sean Connery, Michael Caine and Gene Hackman. And there wasn't a weak link in the cast. Gene Hackman was particularly good as the cynical and jaded Polish Major General Sosabowski - we just won't talk about his accent.

Only six years Richard Attenborough won an Oscar for directing Gandhi, but A Bridge Too Far displayed his early promise as one of the best film-directors of his generation. Contrary to many film critics, I quite enjoyed A Bridge too Far. I didn't find it too long or lacking at all.

Zero Dark Thirty review

 Number 865 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kathryn Bigelow's 2012 historical-drama-thriller film Zero Dark Thirty.

On the ninth of September 2001, America bore witness to its worst terrorist attack in history. And so started the war on terror as well as the man-hunt for the leader of Al-Qaeda Osama Bin Laden. Jessica Chastain stars as Maya, a CIA intelligence analyst who is in charge of the operation to bring OBL to justice. The huge ensemble cast includes Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke, Mark Strong, James Gandolfini, Chris Pratt, Harold Perrineau and John Barrowman.

In creating this film, Bigelow and writer Marc Boal wanted to highlight the efforts that women played in the catching of OBL. Maya was reportedly a composite of several female CIA analysts who spear-headed the operation. Of course the CIA have never formally acknowledged the existence of these analysts out of fears for their safety. But, either way, Bigelow and Boal did these women justice. It was a great way to showcase female representation on the screen especially because of all the obstacles Maya faces. I'm not even talking about Al Qaeda, but her male superiors constantly undermining her ideas.

Jessica Chastain received an Oscar nod for her performance. It was well-earned. She played the role of Maya with a quiet confidence. And she was very convincing. I think it was a powerful portrayal of a character who despite being constantly set back never loses faith in herself, her abilities or her mission. As for the rest of the cast, I may argue it was bloated. There were a lot of characters that blended into each other. I don't think there was need for all of them. And, unfortunately, that led to some brilliant actors being absolutely squandered e.g Mark Strong, John Barrowman or James Gandolfini. The cast could have definitely be trimmed.

Zero Dark Thirty did receive some criticism for glorifying the use of torture as an interrogation method. This refers to the opening sequence where CIA officer Dan Fuller (Jason Clarke) waterboards and otherwise brutally tortures a terrorist. Torture not being an effective method to gain information aside, I would not agree that this sequence was glorified at all. Granted, it makes for unpleasant viewing, but you can see that Dan is not a sadist. He doesn't enjoy doing what he's doing, but he has a job to do. Later on, he laments on his actions.

But I think Bigelow's direction excelled in the final half-hour of the film where we see a Navy Seal team infiltrate OBL's compound. This was a brilliantly-directed sequence that always kept the tension high. It was gripping to watch. A lesser director may have added on a cheesy and grandiose score, but Bigelow made the excellent decision to not have an incidental music at all. And that was a great way to keep me on the edge of my seat.

Yes, Zero Dark Thirty has a bloated cast - Maya was a composite of many characters, why couldn't they have done that for the other characters - but Chastain gave an Oscar-worthy performance and the final sequence was fantastic film-making.

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.

Philadelphia review

 Number 611 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal drama 'Philadelphia.'

Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) is an up-and-coming lawyer in Philadelphia. He is dismissed from his law firm. When it is revealed that he is gay and has aids, he is fired from his law firm. Believing he has been the victim of anti-gay discrimination, he sues his previous employer enlisting the help of fellow lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington.)

This was a brave film about, even now, a sensitive subject matter. In the 90's, there was a huge stigma around being gay and an even bigger one around aids. Homosexual discrimination, like what Beckett suffers from, was never far away.

Tom Hanks played the part well. He treated it with the utmost sensitivity. He also acknowledged that in today's world, he as a straight man would never be cast in such a role, but he still did it justice. He was well-deserving of his Oscar win. And that's saying something as he was up against Daniel Day-Lewis in Name of the Father and Liam Neeson in Schindler's List. Beckett's humanity is most evident when he is seen enjoying his famous opera - a scene so touching that it makes Miller question his own prejudices.

Miller freely admits that he doesn't like gay people, but he slowly realises that he shouldn't be so quick to judge people. Denzel Washington played the conflicted Miller well. This type of deep character work is what Washington does best like in Glory. He's far better here than in any big blockbuster.

Ultimately, the legal scenes is what let the film down. And this was strange considering it is a legal drama. But many of the courtroom scenes, particularly near the end, felt rushed and under-developed.

That notwithstanding, I did very much enjoy Philadelphia. It was a brave film with great performances from its two leads.

Lord of War review

 Number 661 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2005 crime drama 'Lord of War.'

Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) is a Ukranian-born, American international arms dealer. He and his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto) deal weapons to warlords and governments worldwide. However, he is relentlessly pursued by INTERPOL agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke.)

Although Nicolas Cage has had a prolific career, I know him more from internet memes rather than his films. In fact, I have seen very few of his films. In fact, I know him so much from clips where his acting is incredibly over-the-top, to the extent of being ridiculous, that I had forgotten that he was once a serious actor. And one that could seriously act. After all he did win the Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, which I've also not seen. But I do think Cage was a big reason why this film was so successful.

Yuri Orlov narrates the film giving a blunt and cynical take on the subject. But his narration gives 'Lord of War,' a brilliant energy that moves everything along at a blistering pace. Cage's laconic delivery provides a lot of the film's black humour which does stop things from becoming too dark. And, as you can imagine, a film about arms dealing does get pretty dark at times. However, what was great about Cage's portrayal of Orlov was the authenticity of the character. He isn't a hypocrite. He knows exactly what he's doing and he doesn't care. For him, it's just business. And this unapologetic perspective made him such a compelling character to follow.

He was far more compelling than Jared Leto as Vitaly. I have mixed thoughts of Jared Leto. Sometimes he gives great performances like in Dallas Buyers Club or Requiem for a Dream, but he was very boring here. Some of that was down to the character. Vitaly lacked much of the nuance and depth that Yuri had. Instead he is ill-disciplined and petulant leading to him gaining a cocaine addiction. And his inclusion at the end seemed like a very contrived way to generate conflict. 

*Spoiler alert* After Yuri enters retirement, an old client - Andre Baptiste Sr (Eamonn Walker) the brutal dictator of Liberia - offers him his biggest payday yet in exchange for one last deal. Yuri accepts and brings Vitaly with him. When Vitaly realises that Andre Baptiste intends to use the weapons to massacre a refugee camp, he blows up half of them before being killed himself. I don't really understand why Yuri brought Vitaly with him. It's already established that he is an unpredictable, loose-cannon. He spends much of the film addicted to cocaine. What good could he do?

Also a quick shout-out to Eamonn Walker who was great as the villainous Andre Baptiste. It's difficult to believe this was the same actor who played Kareem Said on HBO's prison-drama Oz.

I thoroughly enjoyed Lord of War. It had a delightful energy, mainly due to Nicolas Cage's great performance. Jared Leto wasn't as good, but, nevertheless, Lord of War brilliantly exposed the horrific nature of arms trafficking. It is a difficult topic that more people should know about. And the ending was the icing on the cake. We are told that rather than independent traffickers, the biggest arms traffickers are the US, the UK, Russia, France and China - the five permanent members of the UN's security council.

Everything Everywhere all at Once review

 I'm taking a little break from the top 1000 films of all time to review the winner of the 2023 Best Film: Everything Everywhere All At Once (EEAAO)

Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh) is a Chinese-American immigrant running a laundromat that is being audited by IRS agent Ms Deirdre (Jamie Lee Curtis.) Evelyn runs the laundry with hr meek husband Waymond (Ke Huy Quan) rebellious, gay daughter Joy (Stephanie Hsu) and ageing father 'Gong Gong' (James Hong.) But Evelyn's life is turned upside down when she is introduced to the multiverse and told that she is the only hope in defeating the evil being Jobu Tupaki.

If I could describe EEAAO in one word, it would be surreal. It is weird, absurdist but endlessly creative. Although that is very much the point of the film. And, despite this, it never lost sight of its heartfelt message of the importance of family. Things start innocently enough with the establishment of Evelyn as our overworked, stressed out laundry over en route to an audit. But things take a turn for the insane when Waymond says that he is actually a Waymond from another universe. And he is Evelyn's guide to the multiverse. cue craziness as we're introduced to universe after universe with each one more random than the next.

EEAAO not only swept up at the Oscars, but many of the other award ceremonies too. Directors Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert won Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Film Editing, and it is easy to see why. This film has its share of fantastical fight scenes which are choregraphed brilliantly. We see the Alphaverse Waymond beating up a group of security guards with his bumbag. Ridiculous, yes, but great to watch. Maybe you could argue that EEAAO indulges a little too much in its absurdism, but it was no less entertaining for it.

But it is also very heartfelt with powerful performances. Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan and Jamie Lee Curtis all picked up Acting Oscars. Curtis won for Best Supporting Actress, beating out Stephanie Hsu, who I was equally deserving of the win. But I think Ke Huy Quan was the best. He effortlessly went to meek, brow-beaten husband to badass action star. It's difficult to believe that this is the same actor who starred opposite Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones before taking an extended break from acting.

Despite the wackiness of the narrative, EEAAO still had a lot of heart. It is the story of a divided family coming together. At the beginning, Waymond wants to divorce Evelyn, while Evelyn is cracking under the pressure of running her laundry. Meanwhile, she is finding it difficult to accept Joy's lesbianism, creating a deep divide between her and her daughter. Lastly, Gong Gong has always disapproved of Waymond, even vowing to disown Evelyn if she marries him. Yet by the film's end, the family learns to love each other again; Evelyn and Joy have a tearful reunion where both actresses show off their acting talent.

EEAAO is certainly not for everyone. Its absurdism and surrealism might put off a lot of viewer, but if you look past the seemingly random weirdness, you'll be treated to one of the most creative and heartfelt films of the year. 

What's eating Gilbert Grape review

Number 525 on the top 1000 films of all time is Lasse Hallstrom's coming of age drama 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?'

Gilbert Grape (Johnny Depp) is a grocery store clerk working in a small Iowa town. When he isn't taking care of his morbidly obese mother Bonnie (Darlene Cates) or intellectually disabled younger brother Arnie (Leonardo Dicaprio,) he is navigating all the obstacles of his life.

One of the biggest running jokes of the millennium was how Leonardo Dicaprio, despite being nominated multiple times, has never won an Oscar. You could argue this is where it all starts. At nineteen-years old, he was nominated for the Best Supporting Oscar for the role of Arnie. He became the seventh-youngest nominee. True, he was up against stiff competition like Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List or Pete Poselthwaite in the Name of the Father, but he would have been well-deserving of the Oscar. Dicaprio was great in this film. He played Arnie with humanity and vulnerability. He wasn't a cliche or a caricature, but a  real, breathing human being. Many of the character's trademark tics were all Dicaprio's choice. Reportedly he was so convincing as Arnie that at the film's premiere many people were surprised to find out that he wasn't intellectually disabled in real life.

However, Dicaprio can't take all the credit. All the cast were great. Let's start with Johnny Depp who wasn't even nominated for the Best Acting Oscar. And he would have been a very deserving winner. He takes Gilbert Grape through a great story arc. His inner conflict is so clear. Despite caring deeply for his mother and brother, the pressures of being a carer soon get the best of him. At Arnie's birthday party, he ruins things by eating his cake early. Gilbert snaps and hits him. The guilt of this sends him soul searching until he finally returns home and apologises. Depp played this role with great sensitivity. Having been a carer, I am fully aware of how stressful it is.

And lastly we come to Darlene Cates, as Bonnie Grape, who was a little bit of a dark horse. This was her first acting role and she received critical acclaim and rightly so. Just like with Arnie, there was the danger of making this character a cliche or a joke, but she portrayed Bonnie brilliantly. She was such a tragic character, but never a pathetic or pitiful one.

This was a great film. I really enjoyed watching it. Yes, it kickstarted Leonardo Dicaprio's career, but let's not forget Johnny Depp as well. He might be best-known for eccentric characters like Edward Scissorhands, Captain Jack Sparrow and Sweeney Todd, but this film proved  that he can play more conventional roles roles just as well too.

Drive review

 Number 442 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action drama film 'Drive.'

Ryan Gosling plays an unnamed character only referred to as the Driver. By day he is a stuntman and a mechanic for a man named Shannon (Bryan Cranston.) By night he moonlights as a getaway driver for heists. He becomes attracted to his neighbour Irene  (Carey Mulligan.) However, her husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) has just been released from prison and owes a lot of money to the wrong people. Standard decides to rob a pawn shop to get the money. Upon learning this, the Driver becomes his wheelman. But things quickly go south.

There is no denying that this is a stylish thriller. It has a great neon aesthetic that gives it a very synthetic, timeless look. It could be in the eighties or the modern-day or the not so distant future. However, I didn't particularly like this film and that was for one simple reason: tone.

Tone is important for any film and this film's tone was overly-dark. I get it. It's a thriller. It's not a comedy. I wasn't expecting laugh-a-minute, but I was hoping for one or two jokes. All throughout the film there was a foreboding sense of doom and at times this fog became too much. It needed some comic relief to help disperse it. This could be some black humour for the audience or maybe some jokes between the characters. It would have been nice to have at least seen them smile. Everybody was so serious all the time.

And Ryan Gosling encapsulated this seriousness. The Driver is the strong, silent type. An emotionless man who finds a cause to fight for. But the Driver felt more like a robot than an actual human being. It was like the evil terminator from T2 had decided to pack in killing John Connor and start robbing banks instead. It was a difficult character to get behind. And I don't think this is Ryan Gosling's fault. Having starred in rom-coms like the Notebook or La-La land, he is obviously capable of playing lighter roles, but he didn't even get the chance here. The gratuitous violence did nothing to help the overly-dark tone either.

Earlier on, I referenced the eighties. And that was very intentional. The musical score contains a lot of synth-wave - a genre reminiscent of the eighties. But I don't think it was employed well. There were these long scenes accompanied by synth-wave music. Except for the music playing there was very little else happening within these scenes. It became very tedious after a while.

Aesthetically the film looked great. But the overly-black tone coupled with the extended instrumental sequences made it all more style over substance.