School of Rock review

 This musical-comedy does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

It follows Dewey Finn (Jack Black) a slovenly rock musician who has just been fired from his band. To pay rent, he impersonates his teacher roommate Ned Schneebley (Mike White) and poses as a substitute at the Horace Green private school. He then mentors his class of third-graders into a rock band. Joan Cusack and Sarah Silverman co-star.

Jack Black was probably one of the best choices for this role. He is famed for his work with the comedy-rock band Tenacious D, as well as his larger-than-life comedy persona. Although like so many American comedians, he has the tendency to be over-the-top, Dewey Finn was the perfect role for channelling his comedy into a genuinely-funny character.

School of Rock was directed by Richard Lintlaker best-known for his "Before Trilogy." I loved this series for its authenticity and realism. School of Rock definitely begs belief at times, but there are also moments of realism, which all aid the narrative. Most notably, all the child actors are genuinely singing or playing their instruments.

We also see Dewey Finn transform from a disinterested poser into a teacher who genuinely cares about his students. He rescues his drummer Freddy from a bunch of rock stars who strangely want to chill with a ten-year-old, as well as convincing Lawrence and Tomika to be in his band despite their protests that they're not cool enough. These were some nice tender moments which balanced out the farce.

Lastly, Joan Cusack and Sarah Silverman were great too. Joan Cusack was super as the uptight principle who is able to let go and have some fun especially when Fleetwood Mac are playing. Sarah Silverman who played Ned's girlfriend Patty - did well as the film's antagonist.

Yes, School of Rock is a complete farce - one that wouldn't work if Dewey was teaching in a Detroit state comprehensive, but it was still a funny watch with good musical performances and tender moments.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind review

Number 582 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg’s science-fiction drama ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind.’

Close Encounters tells the story of two characters: electrical linesman and family man, Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) and single mother Jillian (Melinda Dillon) as their lives change forever after encounters with UFOs and aliens.

Spielberg is one of the most famous film directors in history. From The Colour Purple, to Jurassic Park, to Lincoln, Schindler’s List, he has done everything from period piece to tragedy to biopic. In the seventies, he is credited to kicking off the summer blockbuster trend with the iconic Jaws. I was expecting big things from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but I was left disappointed. I would definitely say it was one of Spielberg’s weaker efforts. The key reason was its pace. It was just slow.

It lacked the same narrative tension that Jaws or Jurassic Park contained. Far from being an edge-of-your seat thriller, I found myself sinking back into my sofa. The suspense was lacking. That’s because I didn’t really care for the characters. Richard Dreyfuss maybe best known for his role Matt Hooper in Jaws, where he was a far more interesting character. Spielberg demanded that Roy be an every-man character instead of a copper or a man in uniform and that’s where this character failed. In anything, he was too normal. There wasn’t too much to distinguish him from any other character. Dreyfuss wasn’t particularly memorable.

His wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) was equally annoying, but I think that was more down to how her character was written. After Roy encounters the aliens, he starts becoming obsessed with them. Ronnie initially indulges his fantasies before she loses his patience with him. She functions as an antagonist stopping Roy from achieving his goals. It was a necessary role, I guess, but not a likeable one. And it did slow up the story. I really didn’t care about Roy’s failing relationship with his family.

The actual interesting part of the story lay with the single mother Jillian whose three-year-old son Barry is abducted by the aliens. This is preceded by a particularly scary sequence where the aliens set off every appliance in Jillian’s home, as she desperately tries to stop Barry from walking toward the light. This was probably one of the best-executed scenes in the film: if the rest of Close Encounters was like this, it would have been more interesting to watch.

However, one aspect of Spielberg’s films that can never be criticised is John William’s film score. Similar to Jaws, he composed a simple five-tone motif that the aliens use to communicate with humans. And just like Jaws, this motif has become iconic throughout the film world.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call Close Encounters of the Third Kind a bad film. It isn’t bad, but in comparison to some of Spielberg’s most popular hits, it definitely struggles to leave the ground.

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.

The Visitor review

 Number 589 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tom McCarthy's 2007 drama 'The Visitor.'

Walter Vale (Richard Jenkins) is a widowed academic living a lonely life in Connecticut. Upon his arrival in his New York flat, he meets an immigrant couple already living there - the Syrian Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and the Senegalese Zainab (Danai Gurira) and he forms an unlikely friendship with them.

This film completely flew under my radar. If it hadn't been for this list, I would never have heard of it, but it really surprised me. It was an understated, touching, but powerful story of human communication and connection.

It helped having Richard Jenkins at the helm. he really brought a lot of vulnerability and humanity to the role. It would have been all too easy to have portrayed Walter Vale, as a bitter, old recluse - like Jack Nicholson in as Good as it Gets, but instead he was a lonely old man, living an unsatisfactory existence. It is through his friendship with Tarek and Zainab that he starts to enjoy life again. No wonder that Jenkins received an Oscar nod for this film.

Nowhere is this more present than through the theme of music. The film begins with Jenkins trying and failing to learn the piano. He later bonds with Tarek when the latter teaches him how to play the Djembe - a West African goblet drum. The two even play together in Central Park.

Haaz Sleiman and Danai Gurira were very good as Tarek and Zainab. Tarek's optimism made him charismatic and likeable whereas Zainab's initial distrust and hostility made her realistic. They had good chemistry together and they worked well with Walter Vale. Initially Zainab distrusts Walter, but over time the two become closer.

I think that a film like the Visitor could have fallen into so many pitfalls, but McCarthy navigated all these with ease. Despite the film focussing on the immigrant experience in the US, it is never preachy or condescending. McCarthy told a nicely well-rounded story that gave a three-dimensional aspect to the conversation.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with the relationship between Walter and Tarek's mother Mouna (Hiam Abbass.) After he is arrested, she comes to New York to help him. In the process, he forms a close relationship with Walter. In the hands of a lesser director, their platonic relationship could have become romantic or even sexual. Thank god, that did not happen. Although the two share plenty of intimate moments, they are not sexual in nature. There were hints of a romantic interest between the two, but nothing more than that. Not that it was necessary. Their relationship was wonderfully understated.

The Visitor also lacked your classic Hollywood happy ever after ending, which made things even the more bittersweet. Instead things were sad, sobre but also painfully realistic.

As was the film. The Visitor came out of nowhere, but it surprised me in the process. This is definitely a film I could watch over and over again. 

The Adventures of Robin Hood review

 Number 297 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1938 swashbuckling adventure 'The Adventures of Robin Hood.'

Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) is an outlaw living in Sherwood forest while King Richard I is fighting in the crusades. In his absence, the villainous Prince John (Claude Rains) rules the country along with the evil Guy of Gisborne (Basil Rathbone) and Sheriff of Nottingham (Melville Cooper.) When the trip start exploiting the poor, it is up to Robin Hood and his merry men to save the day.

Unlike other films where Robin Hood does not speak with an English accent, the Adventures of Robin Hood succeeds, because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's complete nonsense, but that's what Robin Hood should be. It shouldn't be dour and broody like Prince of Thieves or a block-buster like the Russell Crowe adaptation. Robin Hood should be fun, gaudy and colourful and this film fit the bill perfectly.

A lot of that was down to Errol Flynn's energetic and irreverent portrayal of Robin Hood. He played the outlaw with a brash aloofness that meshed well with the light-hearted nature of the film. In many ways, it reminded me of Cary Elwes' portrayal of our roguish outlaw almost fifty years later. 

Although, reportedly, Errol Flynn was a nightmare on set, being difficult to work with and acting with a level of unjustified arrogance. Perhaps his portrayal of Robin Hood was Flynn being his usual rude self.

I've never been accused of being a SJW, but I definitely depicted some queer-coding within Claude Rains' portrayal of Prince John. I'm not sure whether this was historically accurate, but I can understand why modern audiences might find that problematic.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy the light-hearted romp that was the Adventures of Robin Hood.

Elizabeth review

 Number 763 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shekhar Kapur's 1998 biographical period-drama 'Elizabeth.'

The year is 1558, and following the death of Mary I (Kathy Burke) Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) becomes the queen of England. However, her early days are met with many obstacles, least of all, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plotting to overthrow her, as well as pressure from her advisors Francis Wolsingham (Geoffrey Rush) and William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) to marry.

For this film, Cate Blanchett was nominated for her first of eight acting Oscars. She ultimately lost out to Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love. Many people thought Blanchett should have won instead. I haven't seen the latter film, so I can't comment, but Blanchett was impressive in this film.

It was a nuanced performance showing the slow transformation from a weak-willed queen into a powerful force of nature. When Mary of Guise stations four thousand French troops in Scotland, Elizabeth allows Norfolk to bully her into sending a conscript army of peasants to stop the French. Of course, they are all massacred.

But by the film's conclusion, she is strong enough to execute all those plotting her downfall. That isn't a spoiler by the way. Like many historical dramas, Elizabeth plays fast and loose with history, but it sticks to the fact that Elizabeth was not overthrown.

Shekhar Kapur intended the final scene of Elizabeth's would-be assassins being put to death to mirror the end of the Godfather where Michael Corleone orders for his enemies to be killed. I would also argue that in some ways Elizabeth's transformation mirrors Michael Corleone's.

Furthermore, I think that Blanchett gave a great performance in an otherwise average film. I have never been a fan of period dramas, and Elizabeth did little to move the needle. I certainly didn't find it that engaging or easy to follow. It wasn't very interesting either.

While the supporting cast were good - it was fun seeing Vincent Cassel in a more comedic role - the narrative didn't match up.

But, as is often the case, with period dramas, Elizabeth just wasn't for me.

The Count of Monte Christo review

 Number 572 on the top 1000 films of all time is the swash-bucking adventure 'The Count of Monte Christo.'

Based on Alexander Dumas' novel of the same name, 'The Count of Monte Christo' follows Edmond Dantes (Jim Caviezel,) a French sailor wrongly imprisoned due to a collusion between his so-called friend Fernand (Guy Pearce) and the corrupt magistrate Villefort (James Frain.) With the help of fellow prisoner Abbe Faria (Richard Harris,) Edmund swears revenge on all who wronged him.

I enjoyed this film a lot more than I thought I would. Before watching it, I had unfairly written it off as another tedious period drama, but I was pleasantly wrong.

This was an entertaining, fun-filled drama, albeit often straying into nonsense territory, but it was good fun nonetheless. Richard Harris only appeared in a supporting role, but he provided some much-needed light relief to what else could have been an overly-serious revenge story.

Guy Pearce was very good as the slimy Fernand. With friends like him, who needs enemies. And Jim Caviezel was likeable enough as our eponymous count. But can we just talk about his accent? I think it was supposed to be an English accent, but on many occasions it strayed back into his native American accent.

But both of them were far more convincing than Luis Guzman who played Dantes' loyal manservant Jacopo. He was completely out-of-place. He also stars in Narcos and Oz as gangsters and he was far more convincing there than here. Henry Cavill also plays Fernand's son Albert. And he was such a wet blanket, it's difficult to believe that Cavill is now one of the hottest men in Hollywood.

Nevertheless, the Count of Monte Christo was a fun, swashbuckling adventure albeit with awful accents and a miscast Luis Guzman.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof review

 Number 235 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Brook's drama 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.'

Based on Tennessee Williams' play of the same name, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof focusses on the dynamics of the self-destructive Pollitt family in Eastern Mississippi. Brick (Paul Newman) is a drunk, former high-school athlete who hurts himself trying to recapture his glory days. His long-suffering wife is Maggie (Elizabeth Taylor) who is still deeply in love with him, but there is still plenty of tension between the pair. There is also Harvey "Big Daddy" who is the ageing patriarch of the family. In ill-health, his other son Cooper "Gooper" (Jack Carson) and his wife Mae "Sister Woman" (Madelaine Sherwood) are desperate to be written into his will.

I am not particularly familiar with Tennessee Williams' source material. but I am given to understand that Brooks did not make a faithful adaptation. Within the original play, there was a strong homosexual subtext including an implied romantic attraction between Brick and his unseen friend Skipper who committed suicide a few years before. Due to production codes, this was largely admitted. And by production codes, I, of course, mean institutionalised homophobia. And that's ironic as that subtext was supposed to be a critique of homophobia.

But I do think that the film suffered from the omission of this subtext. Without it, everything felt very superficial and bland. And it wasn't just this subtext, but it felt like there was little behind the curtain. Being based on a stage-play, it is a small and intimate film. There is a tiny cast, although with two massive names - Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman - and the film is largely limited to the one set of the Pollitt family mansion. Obviously, I wasn't expecting a major spectacle or massive explosions, but everything still felt very lacking.

Much of the play was everybody shouting at each other, which all became rather tedious after a while. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which also starred Elizabeth Taylor, was similar, yet it still had an apparent but subtle subtext. And so there was a point to all the yelling. But there was no discernible point here. It's a shame, because it sounds like Tennessee Williams was making a great point about the homophobia of the time, yet Richard Brooks wasn't able to convey the same ideas in his adaptation, whatever the reason might be. And this ultimately diluted the potency of the film.

I can only speculate that the fault of this film lies with the actual studio or film industry itself rather than with the film makers and actors - Paul Newman was brilliant as was Taylor - perhaps if they were given a chance, they could have made a very faithful adaptation of the American classic that is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Primal Fear review

 Number 615 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 legal thriller 'Primal Fear.'

Martin Vail (Richard Gere) is an arrogant Chicago lawyer who is well-known for taking high-profile cases, because of the publicity they generate. That's why he takes the case of Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) - a simple-minded 19-year-old former altar boy accused of murdering the beloved Archbishop Rushman - head of Chicago's diocese. However, Vail slowly starts to prove that Aaron is innocent. And he has to prove that in court against the prosecution led by former flame Janet Venable (Laura Linney.)

Based on the 1993 book of the same name, Primal Fear was good enough. That is to say that it is as good as legal dramas go. Legal dramas have a tendency to be overlong with too much talking and exposition. By their very nature, not a lot happens outside of a courtroom, so they're not always the most interesting to watch. And if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I don't think I would have found this film very entertaining. This was his feature-film debut and he received widespread praise for it. I may argue that he was better than Gere and Linney.

I don't think either actor was particularly bad in isolation, but I don't think they were great together. I especially didn't like the plotpoint of them having a past relationship. Vail still has feelings for Venable and tries rekindling the relationship, but is constantly rejected. It all seemed very contrived and forced to me. Gere and Linney didn't have the best on-screen chemistry. And it wasn't believable that the two of them used to be romantically involved. True, it was an obvious source of conflict, but I don't think it worked. Their shared past was left too unexplained and enigmatic. 

To Vail, their relationship was something serious, but Venable thought it was a one-night stand that happened to last for six months. Perhaps if their relationship had been left more professional, I would have enjoyed it more. Instead of romantic feelings, one of them could have done something to have professionally screwed over the other. And that would have been a better explanation for Venable's resentment for her former colleague.

And I didn't particularly like Linney's character. This is no fault of the actress, but I think that Janet Venable was overly-cold, harsh and condescending. She's not supposed to be the devil, but the devil's advocate. There were moments where she could have been portrayed sympathetically, but any of these emotional beats fell flat on their face. 

Like I said, if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I think this entire film could have fallen flat on its face. *spoiler alert* It is initially revealed that he is schizophrenic - he has an alternate personality called Roy who surfaces whenever Aaron is felt threatened. Instead of Aaron who always denied killing Archbishop Rushman, it was actually Roy. Roy and Aaron are polar opposites to each other. Aaron is shy, simple-minded and speaks with a stutter. Whereas, Roy is arrogant, violent and a sociopath. They are completely different, but Ed Norton played the double-role with aplomb. He was convincing as both characters.

Ed Norton was very much the saving grace of this film. It fell short of its massive potential. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't good. 

Gandhi review

 Number 217 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Attenborough's epic biopic 'Gandhi.'

This biopic focusses on the life of historical figure Mohandas 'Mahatma' Gandhi - the man who led India to independence from the British Empire. Ben Kingsley plays the man himself from his humble beginnings as a lawyer being thrown off a train in South Africa to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre to gaining Indian independence to his eventual assassination.

This was a difficult film for me to review. While I'm no expert on Gandhi, I certainly know his reputation. He is a veritable hero in India - well not to everybody, but we won't get into that now - some will go so far to call him the Father of the Country. There is no denying that Gandhi tackles the important subject matter of what was in effect the beginning of the end of the British Empire. For his expansive and comprehensive perspective, Richard Attenborough won the Best Director and the Best Film Oscars. This is no surprise really. The Academy loves a biopic, especially an epic biopic. 

Through his direction and Ben Kingsley's Oscar winning performance, they helped to demystify the legendary figure of Gandhi. Gandhi kicks off with the titular character being racially discriminated against. Despite having a first-class ticket, he is kicked off a train in South Africa for no other reason than the colour of his skin. This injustice ignites a fire inside of him and he starts non-violent protests for all Indians in South Africa. His protests win many important rights for his compatriots and later he heads home to join other Indian revolutionaries in gaining independence. 

Despite its significant subject matter, the film struggled to hold my attention. And that isn't a fair criticism of the film itself, but it's my own personal preference. I don't care for period dramas. And I certainly don't care for epic period dramas that exceed three hours. They don't grip me and they don't hook me in. There's no denying that Kingsley isn't a talented actor. There is a reason he won the Oscar. But perhaps Attenborough could have been a bit choppier with the pacing. I think it was a little inconsistent. At times, it blistered along, most notably with the Jallianwala Massacre, but at others it was slow especially toward the ending. 

I think everything came a bit bogged down in the denouement. Gandhi is building toward Indian independence. But when India gets its independence, there are further problems with the Partition of India. While this is important to set up, Gandhi's death, I think it could have been shortened and simplified.

So, like I said, I had trouble in reviewing this film. I think I should have liked it more than I did. There's no doubt that it tackles difficult subject matters, I just bloody hate three-hour long period dramas.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf review

 Number 194 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama, based on the play of the same name, 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?'

George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) are two squabbling, middle-aged academics stuck in a loveless, hateful marriage. After returning home from a late-night soiree, they are joined by two of their juniors Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis.) But as the alcohol begins to pour, lies become unravelled and secrets are revealed.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? I am, George. I am. No, I'm not just quoting the film's famous ending lines, but I'm referring to my own time spent in academia. At university, I studied both To The Lighthouse and Mrs Dalloway. And that's enough Virginia Woolf to last a lifetime. In some ways, this film is reminiscent of a Woolf book - low on spectacle and high on subtext.

As previously mentioned, this film is based on a play and it's easy to imagine it on the stage - there are two or three sets and only four principle parts. The action doesn't happen on-screen, but rather in the actor's dialogue. Rather than being a high-octane thriller, this is a toned-down character study. And with simple character studies, you need the best actors available. In this case, we have Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Can you believe that in all these years this is the first Dick and Liz film that I've seen?

But both these actors did the roles justice. They're both more than bitter, old academics. While there is a lot of yelling, they say far more in their silences. Both characters are hiding a big secret which becomes apparent in the film's final act. The tension is palpable throughout the film - with the junior academics as uncomfortable as any audience is sure to be. Burton gave a particularly captivating performance especially his monologue where he recounts a story of his childhood where a boy he knew accidentally killed his father in a car crash - heavily implied to be about George himself.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf isn't the easiest film to follow. It is deeply uncomfortable and demands all your attention, but its subtle script and lead performances truly earn it a place on this list.

The Goonies review

Number 519 on the top 1000 films of all time is the adventure-comedy the Goonies.

The Goonies are a gang of misfits in Oregon. They are led by the asthmatic Mikey Walsh (Sean Astin) and consist of "Chunk" (Jeff Cohen,) the poison-tongued "Mouth" (Corey Feldman) and amateur gadgeteer "Data" (Jonathan Ke Huy Quan.) When they find a treasure map in their house, they set off to find it, but little do they know that the Fratelli crime family is also looking for the treasure.

This had all the hallmarks of a coming-of-age drama - a pre-teen cast, adult villains, a magical plot and lots of practical effects, but it lacked all the comedy, soul and charm of its contemporaries. Stand By Me, also starring Corey Feldman, is one that comes to mind. Even though, it was billed as a comedy it just wasn't that funny. A lot of humour seemed juvenile and billed toward a much younger audience than myself. You had Chunk doing a silly dance to gain entry to the clubhouse or literal toilet humour when a jet of water from a toilet lifts a man into the air.  

Much of the dialogue seemed very contrived and forced especially from the female characters "Andy" (Kerri Green) and Stef (Martha Plimpton.) Andy is the love interest of Mikey's older brother and Stef is her best friend. But neither girl did little more than scream or give snide comments to the boys. And many of these problems stem from Chris Columbus' script and Richard Donner's poor direction. It really seemed like the kids had little direction other than to talk over one another. I am reminded of critic Colin Greenland's assessment of the film: "The Goonies I was unable to enjoy because of a bunch of kids yelling and screaming all the way through. Not the audience, the actors." The constant screaming became tedious after a while and it made things difficult to follow.

This was a shame as there is some big acting talent in this film. Corey Feldman was great in Stand by Me and Sean Astin went onto star in the Lord of the Rings Franchise. Despite Ke Huy Quan taking a break from acting, he starred in the one of the biggest films of 2022: Everything Everywhere all at Once. 

Another big problem of this film was that the villains had no menace at all. Kiefer Sutherland made a great villain in Stand By Me, because he was scary. We see him play mailbox baseball, chicken with other road users and he even threatens our heroes with a flick knife. Conversely, the Fratelli family sing opera and squabble amongst each other. Joe Pantoliano played one of these villains, but he is also known for the traitorous Cypher in the Matrix and the slimy Ralph Cifaretto in The Sopranos. He is great in both these roles, so it was a shame his talent was squandered so much here.

But the biggest problem of this coming-of-age drama was that there was no maturation. The characters didn't grow or change at all. They start and end in the same place. It doesn't matter what genre your film is, but your characters need to progress by the end of it. That didn't happen here. The Goonies start as misfits and they end as misfits. All of the characters in Stand By Me have traumatic backstories, but their collective experience helps them to overcome this trauma. However, this wasn't the case here. Granted, the asthmatic Mikey casually throws away his inhaler at the end of the film, suggesting his condition was all in his mind, yet we didn't see enough inner conflict to justify such a decision.

If I were to compliment the film for anything it would be its great use of practical effects. I loved seeing all the imaginative and ingenious inventions from Data's cute gadgets to the Indiana Jones-esque booby traps even to the fancy contraption that allows entry to the Goonies' club house. They were all great.

It's safe to say that the Goonies was one of the biggest cult films of the eighties. But it's safer to say that I am never going to become part of this cult.

La Strada review

 Number 184 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fellini's drama: La Strada.

Gelsomina (Giuletta Masina) is a young woman from a poor family. When her sister Rosa, and wife to travelling strong man Zampono (Anthony Quinn) dies, Zampono returns to buy Gelsomina as his new wife. However, Gelsomina finds herself attracted to fellow circus performer Il Matto, (Richard Baseheart.)

Compared to 8 1/2, I much preferred La Strada for one clear reason: its simplicity. There was no surrealism, dream sequences or introspective monologues. Only a love triangle between three tragic characters and you don't get anymore tragic than Gelsomina, Zampono and Il Matto.

Firstly, you have Gelsomina who is a victim of circumstance. After her Rosa dies, Gelsomina is sold to Zambono as his new wife. The brutish Zambono derides and humiliates her by coercing her into becoming part of his act. He is also cruel, intimidating and regularly forces himself onto her. But worst of all, he derives her of her true love - the high-wire artist Il Matto. A rivalrly between the two men ends tragically when Zambono murders Il Matto. A despondent Gelsomina falls into despair until Zambono abandons her on the road or the street, if you will. It revealed that she later died from a broken heart.

As for Zambono, while he is an animal, you wander if this is only a facade. As a travelling strongman, he lives a lonely existence. The only way he can get through the day is by putting on a front. And despite everything, I think he really cared for Gelsomina. After he finds out she's died, he breaks down in tears on a beach. To be honest, I thought he was going to walk into the sea.

Finally, we come to the high-wire artist Il Matto who is part of the circus that Gelsomina and Zambono join. Il Matto and Gelsomina develop a connection, leading to a bitter rivalry between Il Matto and Zambono with the former always playing pranks on the latter - this eventually ends up in both of them being fired and Zambono later killing Il Matto. 

If I were to criticise the film for everything it would be the dubbing. I understand that it was standard practice for Italian films to be recorded without sound and dubbed later on, but I don't understand why. Quinn and Baseheart were both speaking English when they were being filmed, so the dubbed Italian looks so obviously fake. That notwithstanding, I'm just glad to have overcome the art-film bump in the road.