Spellbound review

 Number 634 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's psychological thriller Spellbound.

Dr Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is a reportedly icy and cold psychoanalyst at Green Manors mental hospital in Vermont. Upon the retirement of her old director, he is replaced by the far younger Dr Anthony Edwardes (Gregory Peck.) The two of them immediately fall in love, but then Dr Edwardes reveals that he is really an imposter who killed the real Dr Edwardes and is masquerading as him. Dr Petersen refuses to let this be the truth and two of them resolve to find the real killer.

In terms of Alfred Hitchcock thrillers, this wasn't one of his best. His thrillers are never the most believable - you can just look at Rope or the Lady Vanishes, and these types of films aren't supposed to be taken that seriously, but Spellbound was really pushing my suspension of disbelief to its absolute max.

The biggest problem? The central relationship between Doctors Petersen and Edwardes. Bergman and Peck didn't really have any chemistry together and neither of them had the charisma to lead such a big picture. I couldn't believe the two of them being together at all. This was strange for a number of reasons, least of all, as reportedly Bergman and Peck had an affair while filming. Obviously this off-screen chemistry didn't translate to the on-screen. 

Neither did the charisma or talent that Peck and Bergman showed in other films and performances. Peck was great opposite Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday and, of course, he went onto win an Acting Oscar for To Kill a Mockingbird. Meanwhile, Bergman was an accomplished actress in her own right starring opposite Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. She went onto become just one of a handful of actors to win three Acting Oscars. Separately, Bergman and Peck were legends in their own rights. Together? They were boring.

Unfortunately, as their relationship was the centrepiece of the film, it didn't make for interesting watching at all. Everything was just so unlikely. It's a shame as Hitchcock is often known as the master of suspense. But there was little suspense here...I really wasn't invested in learning how everything turned out at all. And with a psychological thriller like this? That's a major faux pas.

Blood Simple review

 Number 586 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir 'Blood Simple.'

Barman Ray (John Getz) is having an affair with his boss Marty's (Dan Hedaya) wife Abby (Frances Mcdormand.) Upon discovering this, Marty arranges sleazy PI Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh) to kill them both.

Blood Simple was the directorial debut of the Coen Brothers. They also wrote and produced the film. And they certainly laid the groundwork for their future careers. This was long before they were winning Academy Awards or creating the most surreal of cinema, but they set the stage for things to come.

Often I find Coen Brothers' films too zany and weird, but Blood Simple was relatively straightforward. Or as straightforward as any noir film can be. As one can expect, Blood Simple has many twists and turns although it all makes sense in the end. I think...kinda...

Speaking of debuts, this was also the screen debut of the always terrific Frances Mcdormand. Just like the Coen Brothers, she was laying the groundwork for her future career. What an illustrious career it has been. She remains one of only three actors to win three Best Acting Oscars - sharing the honour with Katherine Hepburn and Daniel Day-Lewis. Standing on shoulders of giants to say the least... 

Along with Katy Hepburn, Frances Mcdormand has really improved representation of women characters on-screen. Long gone are the days of women either being dumb blondes, sex objects or scream queens. The likes of Mcdormand and Hepburn proved that women are capable of playing just as interesting, tough and fully-formed characters as men do. 

Abby is no exception. She's more than capable of protecting herself from all the sleazy men in her life - you only need to look at how she deals with the sleazy PI Visser. He is just one of the many sleazy men in Abby's life - all played by relatively unknown actors who haven't gone onto have the same careers as Frances Mcdormand.

It's a credit to the Coen Brothers that they were able to write, produce and direct, such a thrilling and inventive neo-noir film with such an unknown cast.

Dancer in the Dark review

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

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

*Spoilers to follow*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk to Her review

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

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

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

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

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

*Spoilers*

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

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

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

Rope review

 Number 267 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 psychological thriller 'Rope.'

Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger)  have just strangled to death their former classmate David believing they have committed the perfect murder. But before they can dispose of the body, they host a dinner party where the guests include David's parents, his girlfriend and their old prep-school teacher Rupert (James Stewart.)

From a content standpoint, Rope is classic Hitchcock. it is a tense, thrilling affair despite only having one set and a minimal cast. Despite being low on spectacle, it is high on suspense. Considering it was based on a stage play and we get little in the way of action, this might be a surprise, but it's true.

The acting talent is high. Despite how James Stewart disliked his performance, I thought that he was great as Rupert. He soon starts to suspect something is amiss with his old students. When he discovers the worst, his righteous indignation is plain to see. But John Dall and Farley Granger were the true stars. John Dall had a horrible smarm which made him one of Hitchcock's slimiest villains while Farley Granger soon becomes a bag of nerves.

Rope was also one of Hitchcock's most experimental films, as it is essentially a one-take film. It was filmed in a handful of long takes. I don't think this was an experiment that worked. The camerawork would track characters as they walked from room to room before shuddering to a stop. When Hitchcock wanted to do a hidden cut, he would zoom into a dark background and then zoom back out. All this left me with motion sickness.

I would also question the story's believability. I didn't understand why Brandon didn't just kill Rupert, as he started to uncover the murder. Brandon has a loaded gun for this reason, yet he doesn't use it.

Despite the plot holes and dodgy camerawork, I did enjoy Rope. It was a tense, suspenseful thriller.

Lolita review

Number 600 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick’s black-comedy, psychological thriller ‘Lolita.’ 

English academic Humbert Humbert (James Mason) arrives in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, to spend the summer there before staring work. He soon marries his landlady Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) but then becomes infatuated with her fourteen-year-old daughter Dolores “Lolita” Haze (Sue Lyons.)

This is a film that needs no introduction. It, and Vladamir Nabokov’s book it was based upon, are highly controversial due to their themes of paedophilia. The film was even considered ‘unfilmable,’ so I was surprised by its underwhelming nature. Admittedly, I haven’t read the book nor am I fully familiar with the story, but I was expecting something more lurid.

Compared to modern-day films, Lolita was incredibly tame. Granted, Kubrick was up against the strict production code and studio restrictions meaning he had to tone down the erotic aspects of Humbert and Lolita’s relationship, but I was still expecting something more. I understand that Kubrick couldn’t be explicit, but I thought there would be more subtle references to the film’s darker themes.

Perhaps I’ve been misled by the film’s sensational reputation. If I had been more familiar with the original story, I would know differently, but I can only judge the film based on what I’ve seen.

The characterisation of Humbert and Lolita also surprised me. Mason played Humbert as a retiring and reserved academic, which he was, but he seemed an unlikely candidate to be attracted to his step-daughter. I understand that depicting him as an unshaven, over-weight slob in a singlet would be a cliché, but I did not find Mason to be a believable nonce.

To get round the censors, Kubrick upped Lolita’s age from twelve, as she originally was in the book (I know that much at least) to fourteen. Sue Lyon was fourteen, but was cast, because she looked older. The producers wanted audiences to believe that Lolita could be a sex object. I can understand why they would change her age, but I don’t agree with deliberately casting an actress who looks older than her years.

It changed the dynamic of her character and the dynamic of her relationship with Humbert. Compared from fourteen to twelve, you’re slightly more mature and aware of your surroundings and of your own sexual desires. This added sentience transformed Lolita from an innocent victim to even an unrealising participant of Humbert’s predatory behaviour.

But as I’ve said ad nauseum, I am not familiar with the original text, so I could very well be mis-reading the film. I do think that my opinion might be different if I had read the book first, but based on what I’ve seen, I wasn’t a fan of Lolita.

The Machinist review

 Number 542 on the top 1000 films of all time is Brad Anderson's 2004 psychological thriller 'The Machinist.'

Trevor Reznik (Christian Bale) is a machinist who hasn't slept in over a year. Dangerously underweight, he starts having a paranoid delusions as he wonders whether somebody is playing games with him. But are these delusions or real or not?

This is the David Fincher film that David Fincher never made. It's easy to draw connections to Fight Club, most notably, with the theme of insomnia. Of course, it's impossible for anybody to stay awake for a year, so this film is pure hokum. I was certainly willing to suspend my disbelief for a good film.

And the Machinist was a good film. Up until the final reveal, Brad Anderson drip-fed us twist after twist. You could never tell what was going to happen next. He certainly created an atmosphere of dread with creepy imagery. Case in point that freaky ghost-train scene. Seriously, what was that? Although I'm not sure how much it works now that I know the final twist.

But Anderson also made great use of colour contrasting a cold, industrial blue-light for Reznik's present-day scenes and a warmer hue for all his flashbacks.

One thing I will admit is that I have never been keen on Christian Bale's acting ability. Sure he takes method-acting to an extreme evidenced by the intense amount of weight he lost for this role, but I don't think he has great emotional range. Trevor Reznik was just one of the many dark, brooding, moody men that he plays. Sure, he does it well, but I want to see something else.

Nevertheless, the Machinist was an incredibly creepy, and well-directed thriller. Although it's obviously pure hokum. Who's up for a game of hangman? 

Black Swan review

 Number 291 on the top 1000 films of all time is Darren Aronofsky's psychological thriller 'Black Swan.'

Nina (Natalie Portman) is a timid, but talented ballerina who has just been cast as the swan queen in Swan lake. Believing she isn't suitable to play the Black Swan, director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) pushes her to her limits. When rival ballerina Lily (Mila Kunis) enters the scene, Nina's sanity is pushed to breaking point.

If there was ever a director who made horror films that aren't actually horror films, it's Darren Aronofsky. There was the terrifying Requiem for a Dream. And Black Swan was equally scary. It was creepy, insidious with masterful camerawork that not only had Nina, but the viewer questioning their sanity. Aronofsky direction is to be praised. He depicted Nina's fleeting sanity very well. It could have been all too easy to show her in an all-out meltdown, but he was far more subtle than that. He was equally subtle with all the scares as well. We just see allusions and clips that something isn't quite right with her, but nothing grossly overt.

Natalie Portman won the Best Actress Oscar for her role. But I'm not sure how much I liked her characterisation of Nina. While Aronofsky directed the film well, I don't think I can apply the same praise to his direction of Portman. Under his direction, she played Nina with a high-pitched, girly voice. Reportedly, Portman wasn't happy about this. Past directors have criticised her for her natural voice being too girly. Having worked hard to lose it, she felt playing Nina was very regressive. 

I understand that she is supposed to be a naturally timid character, but giving her such a girly voice made her quite infantalising. Surely there could have been other ways to portray this. And I would argue this was more of a problem with Aronofsky's direction than Portman's acting.

And a quick shoutout to Vincent Cassel who played the sleazy, borderline abusive Thomas Leroy to a tee. He was an ugly, villainous character.

Nina declared her final performance as being perfect. I wouldn't apply the same praise to Black Swan, but it was one of the scariest non-horror films that I've seen.

House of Sand and Fog review

 Number 656 on the top 1000 films of all time is Vadim Perelman's psychological thriller 'House of Sand and Fog.'

Kathy Nicolo (Jennifer Connelly) is a recovering addict who is evicted from her San Fransisco house by the country office. She maintains the county has made a mistake, but her home is repossessed nonetheless. Moving are the Iranian Behrani family led by patriarch former Colonel Massoud Amir Behrani (Ben Kingsley.) Kathy is determined to get her home back by any means necessary.

This was an intense, psychological thriller that doesn't let up for a minute. It is taut and gripping with a whole host of morally dubious characters. I enjoyed the deep characterisations. No character was simply black or white - they are all complicated with their own troubled pasts. But these complexities are what made them so fascinating to watch.

Kathy is adamant to regain her house and deliberately disobeys her lawyer to directly confront the Behranis. She is a deeply troubled woman whose drug-addled past has estranged her from her family and husband. Her house is the only thing she has left. Conversely, rather than sticking to the past, Massoud Behrani is determined to make a fresh start for his family in the US. He is a proud man who refuses to show any weakness in front of his wife and son.

Ben Kingsley is brilliant in the role taking us through the journey of a broken man trying to start again. having once commanded considerable respect, he is forced to work menial jobs to make ends meet. Kingsley's star was so bright that he even blotted out Jennifer Connelly. This is no disrespect to Connelly, but I don't think her writing was anywhere as compelling as Kingsley's.

She lacked the same agency as Massoud had - much of her battles are fought by her self-styled knight in shining armour - sheriff's deputy Lestor Burden (Ron Eldard.) As the narrative momentum built, Kingsley's story took over. This culminated with Connelly being all but absent in the final act. A failed suicide attempt sees her lose consciousness and, instead, the final confrontation takes place between Massoud and Lester. Jennifer Connelly receives star billing and Kathy is the protagonist, but she is somewhat relegated to a side character.

Also a quick shoutout to Eldard. He was great as the sheriff's deputy Lestor Burnham. You could argue his over-protective nature of Kathy was a little over-the-top - he even leaves his family to start an affair with her. But when everything goes wrong at the end, he is more than happy to pay the price for his crimes. This did help him go through a redemption arc of sorts.

This is a tragic, but a thrilling film. It was a great watch with a masterful performance of Ben Kingsley. it's just a shame that Connelly wasn't afforded the same chance to shine.

Persona review

 Number 172 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ingmar Bergman's psychological thriller Persona.

Alma (Bibi Andersson) is a nurse charged with looking after Elisabet Volgar (Liv Ullman) who has inexplicably become muter. Alma's matron believes Elisabet will better heal in a remote seaside cottage and send her and Alma there. Alma starts losing her minds as she finds it more and more difficult to distinguish between herself and Elisabet.

Film critic Thomas Elsaesser described Persona as "besides Citizen Kane, the most written about film in the canon," and it is easy to see why. Having watched The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries and Fanny and Alexander, I would characterise Bergman's films as classic arthouse that only diehard cinephiles would understand. Persona is no exception to this.

As the film begins, we are treated to an abstract collection of images including a tarantula, a crucifixion, all culminating with a young boy waking up in hospital. From there, we cut to Nurse Alma in the most minimalist hospital ever, being assigned her new charge of Elisabet. We then immediately see Alma's self-doubt about being able to care for her.

Things only get weirder when Alma and Elisabet move to the seaside cottage and Alma begins confiding in Elisabet about her own anxieties before eventually confessing to cheating on her husband by having an orgy with some teenage boys, one of them impregnating her which she later aborts. Elisabet then tells her that she should go to bed, but Alma dismisses this as a dream.

Upon delivering the mail, Alma reads a letter that Elisabet has written and find that her charge is silently studying and mocking her behaviour and a fight ensues. What was also interesting was Bergman's minimalist soundtrack. In pivotal scenes, such as the fight scene, where you might expect there to be music, Bergman solely employed silence. This did wonders for raising the suspense.

As did Bergman's minimalist style. Everything was so plain from the costumes to the interior set designs to even the seaside location. There was nothing there to distract you from the action happening on screen. 

As Alma's mental health deteriorates, she finds it harder to distinguish herself from Elisabet. At the film's conclusion, Elisabet's husband arrives and confuses Alma for his wife. Despite Alma initially correcting him, she eventually accepts her new identity and makes love with Mr Vogler. The film climaxes with Alma narrating Elisabet's tragic backstory. She became pregnant with Mr Vogler, but believing she lacked motherliness, she started hating her unborn child and repeatedly tried to abort it without success. When the child was born, she continued to hate it and prayed for its death.

The monologue is then repeated, but with the focus on Alma before a split screen shows both women's faces side-by-side, symbolising the changes of identity. Both women are also dressed very similarly in black dresses with the same hairstyle and they are very difficult to distinguish, all further symbolising Alma's deteriorating mind. After the monologue, Elisabet becomes completely catatonic and Alma later leaves with the camera showing that she is being filmed by a cameraman and a director. I thought that the two would undertake a full role reversal with Alma becoming catatonic and Elisabet regaining the ability to speak - whether she actually lost it in the first place is still up for debate.

As are many different aspects of this film. Why the imagery of the crucifixion? Why the footage of Buddist Monks self-imolating or the infamous Stroop Report photograph? Why did Alma force Elisabet to drink her blood? And why was Alma being filmed at the end? All of these questions and more have been analysed with no conclusive answer given. And I cannot offer any more answers here. For I am not a cinophile or film critic. I guess I liked the film, but it was also very surreal and very confusing. Instead, I'll concur with Bergman who has refused to give any concrete interpretations in favour of viewers making their own opinions. 

Review for M

So number 62 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 German drama-thriller M.

Set in Berlin, Germany, Hans Beckert, (Peter Lorre) a peadophile and child killer is on the prowl.  After the police are unable to stop him, the citizens led by crime bosses band together.

This film is a great exploration of mob psychology and vigilante justice.  After it becomes obvious that the police aren't going to do anything, the people take the law into their own hands.  There is something poetical in how it is crime bosses who are leading the charge in catching this killer, as if they are any better than him.  Although their motivations for doing so make sense.  They want to stop this killer, as he is driving away business.  To catch him, they use the city's homeless population is used.

When a blind beggar recognises the familiar whistle of Hans Beckert, the people take him to stand trail at a Kangaroo Court that is strongly biased against him.  The jury are the townspeople and the judges are the criminal bosses.  However, despite this, Beckert still receives a defence lawyer.  This is where the film's best scene takes place.  Beckert gives an impassioned speech claiming that he was not conscious of his killings; something inside of him made him do it.  

From here the lawyer argues that Beckert is criminally insane and should therefore be sent to hospital instead of prison or being executed.  This touches upon the incredibly sensitive and hotly-debated issue of mental illness and crime.  If somebody is insane, are they really aware of that they're doing? Or is something deeper compelling them to do it? I'm not claiming to provide an answer, but the way this film engages with this theme is one of its driving forces.

Despite the power of the last scene, I did not enjoy the film, as much as I thought I would.  It flitted about a lot from scene to scene and the characters weren't as memorable, as they could have been.  Even as I am writing this review, I'm having trouble remembering the names of any of the characters. There seemed to be a distinct lack of a main character.

This notwithstanding, the film is still a fascinating examination of the human psyche.  It becomes even more poignant with the recent case of Anders Breivik who was denied the status of criminally insane.  If he had been declared insane though, would this have excused the deaths of seventy-seven people? I'll leave you to think about that.

Se7en Review

SPOILER ALERT

Number 25 on the top 1000 films ofall time is this psychological horror/thriller film, David Fincher’s 1995 film Se7en.

Morgan Freeman plays the soon-to-retire William Somerset, an old and wise police detective and Brad Pitt is the cocky, young and arrogant Detective Mills.  Together they pursue a sadistic serial killer dubbed John Doe, played brilliantly by Kevin Spacey, who murders people in conjunction with seven deadly sins: lust, pride, greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath and envy. 

I really liked the premise behind this film and how it delved in deep into the psyche of a serial killer.  I’ve noticed that in society, there is a strong fascination with serial killers and their motivations.  Whilst we don’t necessarily condone their actions, they are definitely interesting to learn about.  This is one reason why I liked this film: it really took the time to explore John Doe’s character and his motivations for killing.  It delved well into his backstory and his psyche.  

This fleshed him out better as a character and added a sense of intrigue to the film.  Kevin Spacey was once again great as the serial killer: John Doe.  Playing the role with a deadpan seriousness, he conveyed himself, as a cool, calm and collected character.  This is what made him so scary; the fact that he doesn’t show any emotion or remorse for his actions makes him truly frightening.  I also quite liked the idea of John Doe using the seven deadly sins as a template for his kills.  I felt that this was creative and original enough to keep the film memorable.

However, Kevin Spacey is just one of a magnificent cast. As well as Spacey, you have Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman and Gwyneth Paltrow. These four actors share six Oscars between them - Best Actor Oscars for Paltrow and Spacey. Pitt and Freeman had a great chemistry together with Freeman acting as a begrudging mentor to the young hotshot Pitt. And I didn't even mind Gwyneth Paltrow who played Pitt's wife Tracey. 

Finally, there was some great cinematography which showed the drab and depressing city that the characters inhabit. A city deserving of the awful people who live inside it.