Watchmen review

 Number 662 on the top 1000 films of all time is Zack Snyder's 2009 superhero film 'Watchmen.'

Set in an alternate dystopian 1985 with cold-war tensions running high, the film focusses on a group of retired superheroes called the Watchmen. When former member 'The Comedian,' (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) his team-mate Rorschach (Jackie Earle Healey) tries warning his former comrades Dr Manhatten (Billy Crudup,) Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman,) Niteowl (Patrick Wilson) and Ozymandias (Matthew Goode,) but instead he soon stumbles upon a greater and more dangerous conspiracy theory.

Many people credit Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy for giving a darker, grittier vision of superhero films. However, I would argue that Watchmen deserves a lot of credit for this too. As somebody got bored of superhero films by Age Of Ultron and who has never cared about the Marvel/DC debate, I thoroughly enjoyed Watchmen.

Not only did I enjoy the darker, grittier tone, but it felt more grounded and realistic than other superhero films. There were no stupid puns like the infamous Batman and Robin nor any fun and whimsy that you would expect from one of the million MCU films. Everything was grounded in real life. Nothing was played for fun. Nor should it have been.  Even in the eighties, the threat of nuclear annihilation was omni-present. It was a real fear, and Zack Snyder tapped into this fear well.

I was also impressed with Zack Snyder's direction. Having seen a few of his other films, I've noticed that the he prioritises spectacle over storyline, but he was remarkably subtle here. He also released a director's cut, which was also well-received.

Out of all the characters, Dr Manhattan is the only one with any powers which added another layer of realism. These aren't super-powered beings who became heroes, but simply everyday people.

Across the board, the performances were strong as well. Jeffrey Dean Morgan showed his early 'Negan' tendencies in his role as the slimy and smarmy 'Comedian. But Jackie Early Healy was the star of the show. Rorschach was a tortured soul, but Healy made him a sympathetic anti-hero.

Sure, it is relentlessly dark, but the next time you credit the Dark Knight Trilogy for reimagining the superhero genre, please also give Watchmen its due.

Field of Dreams review

Number 715 on the top 1000 films of all time is the sports-fantasy drama film 'Field of Dreams.'

Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) is a corn farmer in Iowa. Haunted by his poor relationship with his late father, he fears growing old without achieving anything. And that's when a mysterious voice tells him to plough part of his corn farm and to build a giant baseball ring instead. Several months after building the field, ghosts of famous baseball players Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) start appearing.

"Build it and and they will come" is the famous line from this film. Let me tell you if somebody built this film in a middle corn field in Iowa, I would not come back as a ghost and see it. I am not a baseball fan, so I didn't think I would enjoy this at all. However, the real reason why I did not enjoy it was that it was cheesy, overly-sentimental and completely lacking in any type of dramatic tension.

To say it had a slow start would be an understatement. The beginning is so lacking in any conflict that it almost put me to sleep. There's a middle-aged man, whom I have no reason to sympathise with, is going through a mid-life crisis. He thinks the solution to this is to go build a baseball diamond because some random ghost told me to do so. His wife goes along with this and the diamond is built without any issue. Ghosts of baseball players start appearing and Kevin Costner starts pitching and batting with them. Everything's hunky-dory. Where's the tension? Where's the conflict? Where's any reason for me to be interested in this film?

And the lack of any central conflict was this film's biggest problem. Ray Kinsella's mid-life crisis had such little immediacy and urgency that it was not engaging at all. His wife Annie (Amy Madigan) was fully supportive of his dreams, which again removed another source of conflict. Any recognisable conflict came from Ray and Annie potentially losing their farm to the bank, but even this was mostly-glossed over. And this all eventually culminated when their daughter Karin falls or is knocked off (it isn't clear which) some beachers and tumbles down in the most unrealistic and silliest looking way possible. But then she's healed by one of the baseball - playing ghosts. Just what?

This film wasn't entirely bad - James Earl Jones was enjoyable in a supporting role. But Field of Dreams was so lacking in substance and conflict and tension that it failed to be anything other than boring.

Despicable Me review

 Number 609 on the top 1000 films of all time is the animated comedy film Despicable Me. 

Gru (Steve Carell) is a supervillain who has been usurped by his younger rival Vector (Jason Segel.) With the help of his elderly assistant Dr Nefario (Russell Brand) and his legion of yellow minions, he aims to regain his reputation in the supervillain world by stealing the moon. However, this plan is complicated by his begrudging adoption of three little girls whom he starts to deeply care for.

I didn't like this film at all. Granted, I'm not the target market; this film is meant for kids. With its eye-popping visuals and bright, vivid colours, it is sure to be appealing for younger audiences. Beyond the visual flair was juvenile, immature humour, a cheesy storyline and an over-the-top performance by Steve Carell. 

I can understand that as a child fart and poop jokes are the pinnacle of humour, but as an adult I would be expecting something a little more refined. I wouldn't have minded one or two of these kind of jokes, but not a constant, never-ending onslaught. The humour became rather tedious after a while.

As did the entire film. It was a predictable run-of-the-mill affair. We are introduced to a seemingly villainous character who we find out isn't as villainous as we first thought as they have a soft-spot for orphans. He misses an event that is very important to them and supposedly has ruined their relationship only to go through a redemption arc at the end. This kind of storyline would have made more sense if we were watching a dark or an anti-hero character, but not a self-confessed supervillain. Do we really want to see our villains be redeemed?

While I do think Steve Carell is a capable dramatic actor, he is woefully over-the-top when it comes to comedy. The silly voice and accent he did for Gru was completely unnecessary and it became very annoying after a while. He is a physically expressive actor and I could see him trying (and failing) to inject this same physical humour into this animated role.

Maybe if I was a kid I would have really liked this film, but I really did not care for it.

The Remains of the Day review

 Number 370 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1993 drama 'The Remains of the Day.'

Based on Kazuo Ishiguro's book of the same name and set in 1930's Britain, the Remains of the Day follows the life of the buttoned-up butler Mr James Stevens (Anthony Hopkins.) He serves the wealthy Lord Darlington (James Fox) an aristocrat with Nazi sympathies. However, Mr Stevens is determined to stay professional in all aspects of his life. This professionalism is gravely challenged with the appointment of the new housekeeper Miss Sally Kenton (Emma Thompson.) She is strong-willed and more than willing to challenge Mr Stevens on all aspects of his work.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I bloody hate period dramas. They're boring, tedious and focus on the problems of unrelatable characters. The Remains of the Day was no exception to this. And the unrelatability of the characters was its biggest weakness. Mr Stevens is a complete professional. He knows that his employer is a Nazi sympathiser, but he doesn't let that interfere with his work. He also develops feelings for Miss Kenton as does she for him. But again he refuses to let that interfere with his work. He is your archetypal British Keep Calm and Carry On character. And that's what made him very unrelatable and unlikeable.

By his very nature, he is a closed-off and unemotional character. Closed-off to his peers, his employer and to Miss Kenton, but also to the audience as well. How are we supposed to root for such an emotionally dead character? We were given so little to work with. Emma Thompson as Miss Kenton was far more engaging. Granted, she is supposed to be the polar opposite of Mr Stevens, but she was far more likeable. Mr Stevens was a cold fish and Miss Kenton was very warm.

Because I found it so difficult to sympathise with Mr Stevens, I found the main storyline very unengaging. I was far more interested in the film's setting: 1930's Britain in the run-up to World War Two. Lord Darlington is a diplomat with Nazi sympathies. He is hosting other German diplomats in the hopes of maintaining a peace at the chagrin of other guests such as the American Congressman Lewis (Christopher Reeve) who believes that Nazi Germany is a threat. This gave to a great dramatic tension that was far more interesting to watch.

Maybe if I didn't hate period dramas so much, I would have liked this film more, but I really did not enjoy it. 

Paprika review

Number 581 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Japanese animated sci-fi thriller Paprika.

Doctor Atsuko Chiba (Megumi Hayashibara) is a scientist working on the DC Mini - a device that allows her to view people's dreams. She uses this machine to help psychiatric patients by embracing her alter-ego of Paprika. One of these people is Detective Toshimi Konakawa (Akio Otsuka.) However, the DC Mini is then stolen by a dream terrorist.

This film was like if Christopher Nolan decided to make Inception as an anime. Surely, Paprika was as equally confusing and convoluted and complicated. I'm sure this was supposed to be the point, but I struggled in following the film. It jumped so often between dream and reality that I wasn't sure which was supposed to be which. And then when the dreams started bleeding through to the real world, all hope was lost for me. There's no denying it was a good concept though and the animation was great, but I really wasn't sure what I was supposed to be watching.

I think another problem was that Paprika felt very unfocussed. There weren't that many characters, but there also wasn't a clear protagonist. Paprika is supposed to be the main character - she is billed first in the credits, yet there was also considerable time spent on Detective Konakawa as well as other characters like Doctor Tokita who invented the DC Mini. It did give the film an uncertain tone. I also thought that the DC Mini was a strange name for a device like this. It kept make me thinking of a car that was made in the DC universe.

While slogging through this list, I have encountered many films that haven't personally been for me. I'm sure to anime-lovers this would be the 581st greatest film of all time. But I did not care for it at all.

Ray review

 Number 522 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biographical musical drama 'Ray.'

Telling the real-life story of the blind R&B musician Ray Charles, Ray stars Jamie Foxx as the titular singer from his humble beginnings in rural Georgia to his touring on the Chitlin Circuit to his blending of Gospel and R&B and eventual rise to absolute superstar.

To echo Roger Ebert, it would be worth watching this just for the music alone. Ray Charles has done so many iconic songs from Hit the Road Jack to the gorgeous Georgia on My Mind. And it is the legendary Brother Ray who does all the singing in the film. Jamie Foxx didn't think he could ever do the Genius justice so elected to have all his singing dubbed. Although Jamie Foxx does play the piano, as well as the Ray Charles songs that he covered later in his career notably I got a Woman. 

But otherwise I thought Jamie Foxx was excellent as Ray Charles. He thoroughly deserved the Best Actor Oscar win for the part. He brought the legendary musician to life. At times I forgot I was watching an actor, Jamie Foxx was that convincing. The voice, the mannerisms were all completely on-point. 

Beyond that, Ray was a thoroughly interesting film. It helped to peel back the layers of such a legendary superstar. I don't know much about the singer, so it was fascinating learning about his heroin addiction that so plagued much of his life. No doubt this would have been a deeply sensitive topic, but it was treated with great sensitivity. Ray Charles was sent a braille version of the screenplay and he loved it, but sadly he died before he had a chance to attend a cinema screening. 

I've spoken about Jamie Foxx, but the rest of the cast were also very engrossing. I very much enjoyed Kerry Washington as Ray's wife Della Bea - she captured the morally conflicted wife wanting to support her tortured husband, but struggles in looking past his heroin habits.

I could have done without the expository transition slides and there could have been more distinction between Ray's various mistresses - I did get a bit mixed up at times, but overall I thoroughly enjoyed Ray. Ray Charles was a hell of a singer. 

Lost in Translation review

 Number 485 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sofia Coppola's romantic comedy-drama 'Lost in Translation.'

Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is a fading movie-star shooting Suntory whisky commercials in Tokyo, Japan. While there he starts to question his own direction in life. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is also in Tokyo for her husband's photography work. Feeling neglected, she starts looking for something more and finds Bob. The two characters form an unlikely relationship.

Sofia Coppola is a much better director than she ever was an actress. If you've read my Godfather Part III review, you would know that I despised Sofia Coppola in that. However, with Lost in Translation, she crafted a touching, moving and wonderfully understated film. It had moments of levity, but it also left us with plenty to think about. Engaging with themes like isolation and alienation, she creates a subtle, but powerful narrative. There was also some gorgeous cinematography. I particularly loved the shot which shows Bob and Charlotte reflected in a window while Tokyo's nightline is in a bokeh. 

In many ways, Lost in Translation  reminded me of Spike Jonze's film Her. This was an excellent film that engages with similar themes, albeit with more of a science-fiction twist. It also had a similar cinematography that made it so pretty to watch. And, of course, both films star Scarlett Johansson. Considering Coppola was married to Jonze at the time she filmed Lost in Translation, it shouldn't be any surprise that the films were so similar.

I have to admit I don't much care for Bill Murray as an actor. I find that he generally always takes the same role - a cynical, miserly, grumpy old man. In many ways that's what Bob Harris is, but this character did have much more depth than many of other Murray's roles. And I think he did a good job in making Bob Harris quite sympathetic. More impressive though was Scarlett Johansson. At only seventeen, she was incredibly charming. Granted, she was still quite rough around the edges, but she showed her raw potential.

Overall, I did enjoy Lost in Translation. It had some great direction from Sofia Coppola, as well as some gorgeous cinematography. But it was just a moving and understated experience.