The Fugitive review

 Number 505 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action-thriller 'The Fugitive.'

The Fugitive is based on the famous TV show of the same name. It tells the story of respected Chicago surgeon Dr Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) who is sentenced to death for the murder of his wife, despite protesting his innocence. He escapes from custody and aims to prove his innocence while evading recapture by US Marshal Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones.) Joe Pantoliano and Julianne Moore co-star.

At the 1993 Academy Awards, Tommy Lee Jones controversially won Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He beat out the likes of Leonardo Dicaprio for What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Pete Poselthwaite for in the Name of the Father, Ralph Fiennes for Schindler's List and John Malkovich for In the Line of Fire - with Fiennes being a shoe-in for the award. Having seen all but Malkovich's performance, I agree that the controversy was justified. Any one of the other actors would have been justified in winning the award.

Tommy Lee Jones was certainly a charismatic and entertaining presence as Sam Gerard. Was he Oscar-worthy? Absolutely not.

If anybody did deserve an Oscar nod, it would have been Harrison Ford who was great as the leading man Dr Richard Kimble. Yet despite the emotional pathos he brought to the role, he wasn't even nominated. It was a great shame, as I'm tempted to call it some of his best work. Unlike Star Wars, Indiana Jones or Blade Runner, where he played a roguish hero, Dr Ricard Kimble was an everyman.

Speaking of a shame, Julianne Moore was largely wasted in a supporting role. She plays a doctor in the hospital where Kimble hides as a fugitive. He pretends to be a janitor there. Despite scenes being shot giving her a much larger role including being Kimble's new love interest, these were eventually cut.

While we're talking about supporting actors, I've yet to see Joe Pantoliano in a leading man role. He plays supporting characters like the police detective here with so much gusto and energy. It's a shame he's always relegated to the supporting cast.

Questionable editing choices aside, I did enjoy the Fugitive. Granted, it was pure nonsense especially with Kimble surviving his jump from the dam, I was willing to suspend my disbelief. It helped that you could see it was so obviously a dummy. Maybe there were some Tommy Lee Jones' fans adamant that he was fully deserving of his Oscar, to quote Sam Gerard: "I don't care."

No Country for Old Men review

 Number 204 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men.

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is a Vietnam war veteran and welder who stumbles upon a big bag of drug money in the desert. He takes the money in the hopes of giving him and his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Mcdonald) a better life. However, he is being hotly pursued by mysterious hitman Anton Chigurin (Javier Bardem) who leaves a trail of chaos in his wake. Investigating this is local sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Woody Harrelson co-stars as a bounty hunter who is also tracking down Chirgurin.

Since I started this challenge, I've watched a fair few films by the Coen Brothers and they all contain the same offbeat, surreal humour. At times it did make things funny and at times it was tiresome. I was glad that No Country for Old Men was far more straightforward. It was more of a neo-western/thriller rather than an off-the-wall comedy. Everything was direct and easy to follow. Chigurin made a scary villain and I do think Bardem deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar. I loved the cinematography that was reminiscent of the old Spaghetti Westerns; the sweeping shots of the desert were great to see. You felt the isolation of all the characters. They were in this expanse all alone. Nobody was going to help them.

But despite all that, the film felt lacking. I was expecting so much more, but I was left short-changed. And I think that's because the film never really provided closure on anything. Our hero Llewelyn Moss dies off-screen. He isn't even killed by the bad guy, but by a Mexican drug cartel. There is no build-up and no payoff. He's our protagonist - the main character and he doesn't even have the dignity of an on-screen death. Sure, kill him off, but show it to us. He doesn't even have a confrontation with Chigurin. The sheer psychopathy behind Chigurin's character made him frightening to watch, but we don't even get to see him have a showdown with Llewelyn.

I was also sorely disappointed with Woody Harrelson's contribution. It looked like the film was setting up a confrontation between he and Chirgurin. And while the two meet, it's hardly the most thrilling of encounters. And shortly after, Chigurin kills him. Harrelson felt very underused.

But, perhaps this is supposed to be the point of the film. Times have changed. The days when films provide you closure and wrap everything up are long over. This is no country for old men, but also not a country for reviewers who like all their films neatly wrapped up with a pretty pink bow.

Natural Born Killers review

 Surprisingly this film isn't on the top 1000 films of all time although considering how controversial it is, perhaps this isn't so surprising. However, it is one of my girlfriend's favourite films so I thought I would give it a watch.

Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) are a couple deeply in love. Both having abusive childhoods, they become mass murderers who go on a lethal rampage killing anybody who stands in their way. All the while their actions are glorified by the media, most notably by journalist Wayne Gale (Robert Downey JR) Their rampage culminates in them being arrested and sent to a prison controlled by the maniacal warden Dwight Mckluskey ( Tommy Lee Jones)

Penned by Quentin Tarantino, although he has since disowned the film, and directed by Oliver Stone, NBK is what I lovingly refer to as 'True Romance' on acid.  It is a surreal, abstract and bizarre two-hour rollercoaster with more cuts than you can shake a fist at. And enough filters and visual effects to keep film majors analysing for years. But the film's unique visual style is its greatest strength with every colour scheme and visual composition peeling away another layer of Mickey and Mallory's psychotic mindset. For example, my girlfriend argues that the use of black and white at the beginning signifies how Mickey and Mallory see the world and everybody in it. Some people are good. Some are bad. There is no in-between.

Later, Mickey and Mallory become lost on in the desert while tripping on mushrooms. They encounter a Navajo chief Red Cloud who feeds and shelters them.  As their trip takes a bad turn and Mickey's dark past surfaces, he shoots Red Cloud. Upon fleeing, the couple find themselves surrounded in a field of rattlesnakes, unsure of which are real, and which are hallucinations. An apt metaphor for the paranoia they're feeling.

As I've said earlier, this film is highly controversial due to how its portrayal of ultra-violence has been blamed for numerous copycat killings, most notably, the Columbine High School Massacre which Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris code-named as NBK. But Oliver Stone has argued that those who say this have completely misunderstood the point of the film. Rather he argues the film is a satire of how the mass media glorify serial killers and mass murderers. And this is a theme that Stone absolutely nails.

NBK regularly references cult leader Charles Manson and serial killer Richard Ramirez who both received huge followings upon their incarcerations, even going so far as to marry their fans. Over the decades, Hollywood has displayed a perverse fascination with serial killers, making many films about Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac killer just to name a few. The TV series Criminal Minds draws inspiration from many real-life crime stories. More recently, Tarantino himself depicted Charles Manson and his murderous cult in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Netflix also produced a series about Ted Bundy starring Zach Effron. And let's not forget my favourite film, The Godfather which utterly and totally romanticises and glorifies the Mafia.

But as a society, we have always had this twisted interest in serial killers and mass murderers - seeing how they ick and how they become the way they are.  Nowhere is this more present than in the film's arguably greatest scene which explores Mallory's backstory and how she and Mickey meet. Framed as a campy, 70s sitcom complete with laugh track, we bear witness to Mallory's horrific homelife. Her father (Rodney Dangerfield) who wrote most of his own dialogue, sexually abuses her and is also physically abusive to his wife who allows him to abuse their daughter. Mickey delivers meat to Mallory's family and helps her to kill them. But the sit-com's laugh track is quite obviously a proxy for the audience-cum-armchair therapists who obsess over analysing every single detail of a serial killer's/mass murderer's childhood.

Robert Downey JR also shines as brash, vulgar and sleazy journalist Wayne Gale. This despicable man will do anything to get an interview with Mickey and Mallory as he knows the ratings will go through the roof - even if that means helping them escape from prison during a riot. The violence even excites him as he starts to gain a vicarious thrill through the violence he witnesses. Not to mention, the violence also fuels his massive ego. He starts getting off on all the monstrosities that he sees and even begins participating in it. He is very much a proxy of how the media can manipulate the actions of these depraved killers to turn them into some type of twisted symbol or god. 

I must admit, I'm a little puzzled as to why this film was omitted from the top 1000 films of all-time list as it is well-deserving of a place. Its memorable visual style and nuanced exploration of complicated themes makes it very compelling and entertaining to watch. But then again, equally controversial films such as a Clockwork Orange have made the list, so who knows why one film is okay and the other one isn't. Perhaps it's not the ultra-violence that bothered audiences but more how Stone argues that through our own glorification and fascination of real-life ultra-violence, we are indirectly responsible for its creation and continuation.