Eastern Promises review

 Number 605 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Cronenberg's crime-drama 'Eastern Promises.'

Anna Khitrova (Naomi Watts) is an English-Russian midwife whose next patient is Russian sexual-trafficking victim Tatiana. Tatiana is pregnant and dies in childbirth but her daughter survives. When Anna tries to locate the newborn baby's family, she is drawn into the Russian criminal underworld spearheaded by Nikolai Luzhin - driver for the Russian mafia boss Sermyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) and his loose cannon son Kiril (Vincent Cassel.)

There was a lot to like about this film and I was definitely all in up until the film's final act where it lost me. But before we get too negative let's talk about the positives of the film. I would be doing a major disservice if I didn't speak about Viggo Mortenson - one of the most chameleonic and versatile actors working in Hollywood today. And he was terrific as the morally grey Nikolai - driver to the Russian mafia. There is a reason he received a whole slieu of nominations (including an Oscar nod) and Best Actor awards like the Bafta for the role. 

I also very much enjoyed Armin Mueller-Stahl as the villainous Sermyon - he is a character living a double life. On the outside, he is a charming and amicable restauranter but on the inside he is a vicious criminal. Mueller-Stahl played both parts of the role very well. At first he didn't seem anymore dangerous than a lovable grandpa, but scratch beneath the surface and he was a chilling psychopath. Vincent Cassel also brought a great chaotic energy to the unpredictable Kiril - even if this did border on the unbelievable at times.

David Cronenberg is well-known for being a master of body-horror and Eastern Promise is certainly no exception. It had its share of violence and throat-slitting which, while being stomach-churning, also had a feeling of authenticity. Cronenberg rejected the gangsters using guns, as in real life they tend to use knives. The two Chechen assassins have linolem cutting knives which could easily be disguised as tools. It is more difficult to do that with guns. Speaking of the two Chechen assassins, their fight with Nikolai has to be the highlight of the film. It was a thrilling, exciting climax, but also one that arrived too early. Everything that came after was anticlimatic and disappointing. Spoiler territory to follow.

The two Chechens try to kill Nikolai after mistakenly believing that he is Kiril. Why do they think this? Nikolai was set up by a rival capo after both he and Kiril were involved in the killing of an associate. This was a brilliantly-choregraphed fight scene, but largely inconsequential. What happens to the capo who set up Nikolai? We don't know because the film jumps to the reveal that Nikolai is actually an undercover Russian agent on loan to the London police. He then provides them evidence to arrest Sermyon for the earlier statuory rape of Tatiana. The arrest itself is left off-screen.

Instead we see Kiril attempt to kidnap and murder Tatiana's baby on his father's orders before being talked around by Nikolai. Compared to the thrilling fight scene, it was a damp squib of an ending. It was building toward a big bang but instead finished with a whisper. Naomi Watts was also less than convincing in her role of Anna very much lacking the intensity of her co-stars.

Eastern Promises is definitely a good example of a film that started stronger than it finished. It had so much potential that was just wasted.

Solaris (1972) review

 Number 250 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Russian science-fiction epic Solaris.

Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is a psychologist tasked with deciding whether a Soviet Union space station should continue its research. Upon arriving, he realises that something dreadful has happened to the skeleton crew assigned there.

Last year, I watched the 2002 American remake of Solaris starring George Clooney. To be honest, I think watching paint dry would have been more interesting. The remake was so boring that I fell asleep in the first half hour and missed the rest of the film. Things were never quite that bad here, but they weren't far off either.

In making Solaris, director Andrei Tarkovsky wanted to bring more emotional depth back to science fiction believing that films like 2001: A Space Odyssey focussed too much on technical innovation as opposed to interesting characters or a good story. I certainly admire his vision. Too often I find science fiction to be a vehicle for writers to show off how clever they are by exploring big themes, but forgetting to include any interesting characters. There are few science-fiction films I can think of which balance these two ideas well.

However, while I respect Tarkovsky's goal, I think he went too far in the opposite direction. In his aims to make a character-centric narrative, he forgot to include an interesting plot or any big ideas. Solaris reminded me of his 1979 effort Stalker, which was another film that was as dull as dishwater. Too much talking and not enough happening.

I am also doubtful whether Tarkobsky achieved his goal in creating emotional depth or memorable characters. Even as I write this review, I am struggling to remember any of the character's names at all. I had to look up Kelvin's name and I can't remember any other names at all.

I'm sure there are some of you out there who will say that I do not have the necessary brain power to understand science-fiction. Maybe you're right. But when they're as boring as Solaris, do I really want to understand them?

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.

Limitless review

 Number 926 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction thriller 'Limitless.'

Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) is a writer who is struggling to make ends meet. Out of desperation, he begins taking an experimental new drug called NZT which will enable him to access 100% of his brain instead of only 10%. While things start to improve, he quickly finds his life spiralling out of control.

Firstly, I need to say that the premise of this film is fundamentally flawed. We use far more than 10 or 20% of our brains. Certainly not 100%, but far more than the mythical 10% that Limitless propagates. Bearing that in mind, this film is definitely more science-fiction than science fact.

Nonetheless, it is still an entertaining if rather uneven watch. As a writer myself, the protagonist is scarily relatable to me. And Bradley Cooper is charismatic enough to pull off the transformation from shabby artist to suave, financial investor. I also enjoyed his narration. It helped to move the film along at a steady pace.

Unfortunately, he also makes a number of silly decisions for no other reason than to affect the plot. He borrows money from a dangerous Russian loan shark who was one of the more over-the-top, two dimensional villains I've seen in a while. Secondly, Eddie Morra is due to give advice to tycoon Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro.) Van Loon wants to merge his company with another and seeks Eddie's help. He sends him a bunch of files to review. But he has allowed himself to run out of NZT and goes ahead and reviews the files anyway. This would make sense if he was an average person like you and I. But this wonder drug is supposed to make him hyper-intelligent. Surely, he would be smart enough to know he can't trust shady loan-sharks or allow his supply to run low.

Robert De Niro was good as Van Loon who was a far more effective villain than the Russian loan shark. It's never explicitly clear why Eddie is borrowing money from him, but he is little more than a thug in a suit.

This film isn't necessarily bad. It gives a chance for Bradley Cooper to show off his many talents such as languages. I can only assume he learned Mandarin for the role, but I know he learned French after studying in the south of France for six months during college, and he also learned Italian form his mother. The script had plenty of humour and the soundtrack was good too. I also enjoyed the editing and camerawork. When Eddie is off the drug, the picture is greyscale, but when he's on it, it's oversaturated.

Although Limitless is built on a false premise, it is still an entertaining ride.

Running Scared review

 Number 849 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir crime thriller 'Running Scared.'

Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker) is a low-level mafioso present at a drug-deal gone wrong. A group of masked, dirty cops turn up and a shoot-out happens. Gazelle and his other mobsters shoot dead all the cops. Gazelle is then tasked with hiding the gun. He takes it home and hides it in the basement. It is later discovered by his son Nicky (Alex Neuberger) and his son's best friend Oleg Yugorsky (Cameron Bright.) Oleg steals the gun and uses it to shoot his abusive, Russian mobster stepfather Anzor Yugorsky (Karel Roden.) Gazelle is in a race against time to find Oleg and the gun before his mob, the Russian mob and the corrupt coppers.

Who decided this should be on the top 1000 films of all time? Was it a group of twelve-year-old boys? Because it looked like it had been written, filmed, edited and directed by a group of twelve-year-old boys. It was all so immature and juvenile. I'm talking gratuitous violence, cliched characters, absurd plot developments, ridiculous action scenes, terrible dialogue, objectified women - Joey's wife Teresa (Vera Farmiga) spent much of the film with her thong poking out of her jeans - and the effects, filters and grainy colour scheme that look like they're out of a 90's rap video.

Let's break these down in more detail. The film starts badly with the drug-deal going wrong. The corrupt coppers turn up and the violence ramps up. Gangsters and ex-coppers are flying across the screen in slow-motion. We see bloody mists and weird filters. It all just looked ridiculous. But this was nothing compared to the final sequence where Gazelle confronts the Russian and Italian mob at an ice-hockey stadium. The Russians hold him down on the rink and have one of their players shoot pucks at his face until he tells them what he wants to know. It was all just so laughable. And of course there was another of these stupid filters - this time, a blue-light filter. Eventually this breaks down into another chaotic shoot-out where you have no idea what's happening and don't know who is shooting who.

I did criticise Teresa's character, but that's not a criticism of Farmiga, but rather her writing. She is immediately portrayed as a sex object. Her introduction is her rubbing up against Gazelle on the washing machine with her senile father in the living room and son in her basement. And as previously stated, she then spends the rest of the film with her thong sticking out of jeans. It didn't seem like a very empowering role for Farmiga, but I think she did the best she could. 

In fairness, she did have some agency. It's just a shame it happened with such a crazy plot development. When Oleg is on the run after having shot by his stepfather, he is kidnapped by these two paedophiles Dez Hansel (Bruce Altman) and Edele Hansel (Elizabeth Burke.) They take him to their flat where they're going to film a snuff film. He is later rescued by Teresa who murders the two paedophiles.  But this was just absurd. It comes out of nowhere and the vivid colour scheme didn't fit into the grainy visuals of the rest of the film. Obviously, I'm sure this stuff does happen, but it just didn't fit into the film. I do wish they had given Farmiga much better material. She was very much a cliche.

But so were the rest of the characters. Gazelle is your standard hot-headed mobster, Chaz Palminteri is your corrupt cop and the Italian and Russian mobsters are complete run-of-the-mill. And there was also the weird side character of Lester-the-Pimp. Oleg stumbles upon the pimp abusing one of his workers. He was just another silly addition to an already bloated cast. The only character I really felt any sympathy for was Oleg's mother Mila (Ivana Milicevic.) Unlike most of the other characters she actually had some depth. She worked as a prostitute in Moscow before her pimp brought her to the United States. After getting pregnant, she is told to abort her child. She refuses and her pimp sends Anzor to kill her. Instead he marries her. Unlike everybody else, I actually felt sorry for her.

The ending was also super cheesy. There is a fake-out death with Joey Gazelle. He and Farmiga share lots of tears, but I didn't feel anything. Both characters were complete cliches and it didn't help that he and Farmiga lacked any real chemistry. Other than them having sex and yelling at each other, you never see any real relationship or any reason why you should root for them.

I've been working through this list for years now and I've seen a lot of films that I can acknowledge as being good films in their own right, but not for me. Running Scared is one of the first films I've watched that I can say was objectively bad.