The Raid review

 Number 716 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2011 Indonesian martial art, action-thriller 'The Raid.'

Rama (Iko Uwais) is a member of an elite swat team sent into a high-rise building to take down notorious crime-lord Tama Riyadi (Ray Sahetapy) and his top lieutenants Mad Dog (Yayan Ruhian) and Andi (Donny Alamsyah.) Rama is assisted by his sergeant Jaka (Joe Taslin) and lieutenant Wahyu (Pierre Gruno.)

Upon making this film, Gareth Evans said that he wanted to make a pure action film. He certainly achieved that. The Raid is non-stop action with plenty of explosions, hand-to-hand combat, gratuitous violence and non-stop gunshots. Unfortunately, Evans forgot to include any semblance of a storyline. The narrative, as far as it goes, is paper-thin and often gives way to the fight sequences. Don't get me wrong, the martial art sequences are brilliantly choregraphed. The actors are depicting the Indonesian martial art of pencak silat and they never put a foot wrong. 

It's just after one or two fight sequences, it all became very repetitive and monotonous. The fight sequences, as spectacular as they were, very quickly took over the film. And they might have looked great, but they were hardly the most realistic. The characters seem to survive endless knocks to the head that would have killed somebody like me. And this lack of realism certainly stopped me from becoming too immersed. But I guess action films are never supposed to be the most realistic. They're not documentaries.

While Gareth Evans did attempt to have emotional beats or subplots, they always felt half-done. He didn't properly develop these into anything of substance. It's implied that Wahyu is corrupt, but this is never explored in any great detail. It is revealed that Rama and Andi are estranged brothers, but this plotline is never given any chance to breathe, before we're thrust back into the action. Rama also has an expectant wife at home, yet except for a brief scene in the beginning, we hear very little of her ever again.

And the film is ridden with all the cliches we could expect from an action film: guns that never run out of ammo, bad guys who scream before attacking somebody, losing the element of surprise and giving away their position, bad guys who just when it looks like the hero is down-and-out then hesitate or monologue allowing themselves to be overpowered. It's explained that Rama and the rest of the SWAT team are a bunch of rookies so that explains why so many of them are completely useless and die quickly. But why were the bad guys such noobs?

Usually I end reviews like these with a disclaimer of "this wasn't necessarily a bad film, but it just wasn't for me." I can't do that here. Action films and martial-art films can be enjoyable to watch as long as the action is balanced with a strong storyline and the storyline was virtually non-existent. Film critic Roger Ebert panned the film giving it one out of four stars. He received a lot of criticism for his review, but I'm with him all the way here. The Raid was not a good film.

The Impossible review

 Number 689 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2012 disaster film 'The Impossible.'

Based on the true story of Spanish doctor Maria Belon and her family, The Impossible details how she and her family survived the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami that devastated South-East Asia. In the film, the family are British and their surname is Bennet. They consist of Maria (Naomi Watts,) husband Henry (Ewan Mcgregor,) oldest son Lucas (Tom Holland) in his debut role, and younger sons Thomas (Samuel Joslin) and Simon (Oaklee Pendergast.)

I was very conflicted by this film. It began brilliantly, but quickly descended into contrivances and melo-drama. The first fifteen-twenty minutes was edge-of-the-seat stuff. We are given a nice introduction to the Bennet family - they are a family like any other. Henry is worried about losing his job, Maria is wondering whether she should return to work and the three boys squabble with each other like brothers tend to do. But as they arrive at their Thai resort, they think they're in for the holiday of a lifetime.

And then the tsunami hits. And this looked spectacular. Spanish director J.A Bayona made the decision to use real waves instead of CGI. To maintain realism, he also had Naomi Watts and Tom Holland spend five gruelling weeks filming in a water tank. And it totally paid off. My heart was in my mouth the whole time. The action was immediate and the tension was high. And then it all goes downhill.

In the aftermath of the tsunami while being caught in the rushing water and battered with debris, Maria and Lucas find each other. Maria is badly injured. And they also find another little boy before they were rescued by Thai villagers and taken to hospital. Meanwhile, Henry finds his sons and sends them away to a refugee camp while he searches for Maria and Lucas in the different hospitals. And eventually the family reunite. Everything seemed too easy. I thought the characters would struggle to find one another. I thought they would be battling against the elements trying to survive. But the film skipped over all this. And that killed the narrative momentum.

I am not familiar with the real-life story, so I can only assume that this did happen in real life. But I do wonder if Bayona exaggerated or changed things for dramatic effect. Perhaps I'm just in disbelief that an entire family could survive such a devastating event. It killed over 200,000 people. But I guess that's why the film is called the Impossible.

The action was on-point. For a debut role, Tom Holland was brilliant. He was only fourteen, playing a twelve-year-old, but he acted with the maturity of somebody twice his age. After Maria is taken to hospital, Lucas gets to work helping to reunite other lost families. Maybe he acts unrealistically mature. I certainly was not as mature as him at his age. And I would not be as mature as that in his situation. But then again, I would have been dead within the first few minutes.

Naomi Watts rightfully earned a Best Actress Oscar nomination and Ewan Macgregor was great as well. A particularly touching moment sees him break down after he calls his father-in-law at home. He is lent a phone by a kindly German man Karl (Sonke Mohring) who is also trying to find his family. It was a lovely emotional beat.

Overall, I was left a little disappointed by the Impossible. It had brilliant acting and the production value, but the writing did let it down.

Lord of War review

 Number 661 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2005 crime drama 'Lord of War.'

Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) is a Ukranian-born, American international arms dealer. He and his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto) deal weapons to warlords and governments worldwide. However, he is relentlessly pursued by INTERPOL agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke.)

Although Nicolas Cage has had a prolific career, I know him more from internet memes rather than his films. In fact, I have seen very few of his films. In fact, I know him so much from clips where his acting is incredibly over-the-top, to the extent of being ridiculous, that I had forgotten that he was once a serious actor. And one that could seriously act. After all he did win the Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, which I've also not seen. But I do think Cage was a big reason why this film was so successful.

Yuri Orlov narrates the film giving a blunt and cynical take on the subject. But his narration gives 'Lord of War,' a brilliant energy that moves everything along at a blistering pace. Cage's laconic delivery provides a lot of the film's black humour which does stop things from becoming too dark. And, as you can imagine, a film about arms dealing does get pretty dark at times. However, what was great about Cage's portrayal of Orlov was the authenticity of the character. He isn't a hypocrite. He knows exactly what he's doing and he doesn't care. For him, it's just business. And this unapologetic perspective made him such a compelling character to follow.

He was far more compelling than Jared Leto as Vitaly. I have mixed thoughts of Jared Leto. Sometimes he gives great performances like in Dallas Buyers Club or Requiem for a Dream, but he was very boring here. Some of that was down to the character. Vitaly lacked much of the nuance and depth that Yuri had. Instead he is ill-disciplined and petulant leading to him gaining a cocaine addiction. And his inclusion at the end seemed like a very contrived way to generate conflict. 

*Spoiler alert* After Yuri enters retirement, an old client - Andre Baptiste Sr (Eamonn Walker) the brutal dictator of Liberia - offers him his biggest payday yet in exchange for one last deal. Yuri accepts and brings Vitaly with him. When Vitaly realises that Andre Baptiste intends to use the weapons to massacre a refugee camp, he blows up half of them before being killed himself. I don't really understand why Yuri brought Vitaly with him. It's already established that he is an unpredictable, loose-cannon. He spends much of the film addicted to cocaine. What good could he do?

Also a quick shout-out to Eamonn Walker who was great as the villainous Andre Baptiste. It's difficult to believe this was the same actor who played Kareem Said on HBO's prison-drama Oz.

I thoroughly enjoyed Lord of War. It had a delightful energy, mainly due to Nicolas Cage's great performance. Jared Leto wasn't as good, but, nevertheless, Lord of War brilliantly exposed the horrific nature of arms trafficking. It is a difficult topic that more people should know about. And the ending was the icing on the cake. We are told that rather than independent traffickers, the biggest arms traffickers are the US, the UK, Russia, France and China - the five permanent members of the UN's security council.

Midnight Express review

 Number 644 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1978 prison-drama film 'Midnight Express.'

Based on the memoir of the same name, Midnight Express follows Billy Hayes (Brad Davis.) He is an American college student who is caught trying to smuggle drugs from Turkey back to the US. He is sent to the notorious Sagmalcilar prison where he and his fellow prisoners are routinely beaten and mistreated. Realising that he will die if he stays there, he and fellow prisoners hot-headed Jimmy Booth (Randy Quaid) and quieter Max (John Hurt) plot to try and escape a.k.a catching the Midnight Express.

My biggest problem with this film was with the protagonist of Billy Hayes. Initially, he didn't seem very likeable or sympathetic. He willingly tries to smuggle drugs; it isn't like he is forced or coerced into it. He breaks the law and he is punished for it. And we're supposed to empathise with him? It was a very strange character to have as a protagonist. It might have made more sense if he were forced into the role or if like the Shawshank Redemption, he was frame and imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. This would have certainly made him more of a likeable character.

Putting this aside, this was still a thrilling and enjoyable film, despite the odd loose end and plot hole. It was a story of redemption. There is unflinching brutality but also moments of true tenderness. I guess Billy goes through a hero-arc of sorts, yet some of the other characters are tossed aside. For example, Jimmy Booth is quickly introduced as Billy's hot-headed cellmate. After an escape route goes wrong, Jimmy is taken away to never be seen again. Although I only realised this after the film had finished. It is never explicitly stated in the film. I found it odd how we never even had one line of exposition addressing that. He was an important character.

Initially, Billy is only sentenced to three years, but fifty-three days before his release, the prosecutor successfully has his sentence extended to life. Brad goes on an impassioned rant in the courtroom where he insults everybody in sight. Surely, no judge would stand for something like that. He would have been held in contempt for court and thrown out. 

What I enjoyed most about this film was the relationship between Billy Hayes and Max. John Hurt is always wonderful in everything he's in, but he was especially good as Max. I can totally understand why he was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He brought a quietness and a tenderness to the role. It made for a refreshing change to the ongoing violence. And he and Billy become very close friends. When Billy eventually escapes, he swears to come back for Max. We don't see it on-screen, but I hope he did.

This film wasn't for me. Yes, it was powerful and touching in its own way. But too many loose ends and an unlikeable protagonist made me wish I could catch the Midnight Express out of the cinema!

Traffic review

 Number 630 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Soderbergh's 2000 crime-drama 'Traffic.'

Traffic follows the drug-trafficking trade from four different perspectives in an inter-connected narrative. Ray Castro (Luis Guzman) and Montel Gordon (Don Cheadle) are two DEA agents aiming to take down drug kingpin Carlos Ayala (Stephen Bauer) through getting their witness Eduardo Ruiz (Miguel Ferrer.) Meanwhile, Bauer's wife Helena (Catherine Zeta Jones) tries to continue the business he left behind. In Ohio, Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas) is appointed the new Drug Czar only to discover his own daughter is a cocaine addict. Finally, in Mexico, corrupt cop Javier Rodriguez (Benicio del Toro) has a change of heart when he witnesses the true horrors of the drug trade.

I'm going to start this review with my usual disclaimer of not wanting to compare films with each other, before immediately comparing Traffic with Crash. Crash is also a multi-narrative, interconnected film that engages with crime and race relations, but it woefully fails where Traffic succeeds. Whereas Crash felt rushed, contrived and half-arsed, Steven Soderbergh's took the time to really explore each character and narrative. The two and a half-hour runtime was an added bonus. It was an ambitious project and anything shorter wouldn't have done it justice.

Soderbergh also made the key decision of adopting distinctive looks for each narrative: Wakefield's story is shot with a blue tungsten filter, Helena's story has an over-exposed diffusion filter and Javier's story has is harsh and yellow. Although that seems to be the case whenever American films depict Mexico. Regardless, it was a good decision that helped to distinguish each narrative. It stopped things from becoming too confusing.

And the drug-trafficking world is one of confusion and chaos. There are a lot of moving parts yet through this multi-narrative, Soderbergh is able to bring all of these parts together in one cohesive narrative. By telling the story through different perspectives, he is able to add a lot of nuance to what could have been a straight, boring black-and-white story. There is a lot more morally grey than people would like to think.

Of course it helped that Soderbergh had a star-studded, ensemble cast. Nine of the cast members have either been nominated or won an Oscar - Benicio Del toro won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this role and, deservingly so.

I thoroughly enjoyed Traffic. it is a marker of what all good multi-story narratives should be.

Arrietty Review

 Number 627 on the top 1000 films of all time is Studio Ghibli's animated fantasy film 'Arrietty.'

Based on the 1952 book of the same name, Arrietty (Mirai Shida) is one of a race of tiny people called the Borrowers. Her and her father Pod (Tomokazu Mirua) and her mother Homily (Shinobu Otake) live in the house of a sickly boy called Sho (Ryunosuke Kamiki.) They make their living through borrowing items that human beings won't miss. Terrified of humans, they live their lives in hiding. However, Sho discovers Arrietty and befriend her. Later when Sho's housekeeper Haru (Kirin Kiki) also finds the Borrowers and calls exterminators, Sho starts helping Arrietty and her parents to survive.

Mary Norton's book 'The Borrowers' has been adapted a number of times with Arrietty being the fourth adaptation. I am most familiar with the 1997 adaptation starring John Goodman, Jim Broadbent and Tom Felton among others. And I have always been a lover of Studio Ghibli films. Their animation and their music has always been second to none. Arrietty was no exception. The animation was beautiful as can be expected. It was the directorial debut of Hiromasa Yonebayashi who helped to animate Howl's Moving Castle, Ponyo and Spirited Away. Considering how gorgeous, the animation of Spirited Away is, it's no surprising that Arrietty was the same.

In Sho's home, there is a doll's house. This was installed by Sho's father who believed that there were little people living in the home. He put in the house just for them. And the detail was astounding especially within the ornate kitchen. Another scene sees a crow flying into Sho's bedroom window and getting stuck within the blind. Haru has to hit it away. It was a very funny bit of animation.

I also loved the music. French singer Cecile Corbel wrote the score and performed the theme tune and she did it justice. The music had a lovely element of mystique and wonder that can be expected within Studio Ghibli. We spoke about Spirited Away having wonderful animation. It also has a brilliant score.

However, where the film was so strong on animation and music, I do feel like it was quite light on story. Compared to other Studio Ghibli features, it felt far simpler and more basic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it did make Arrietty far less punchier than some of its predecessors. While it was lovely seeing how the Borrowers live and function, I think too much time was spent on the set-up. By the time, we got to the main story, almost half the film had gone and the rest felt a little rushed. For example, the character of Spiller (Tatsuya Fujiwara) another Borrower who rescues Pod after he falls and twists his leg is left largely undeveloped. 

And Sho and Arrietty's relationship was rushed as well. The two trust each other far too quickly. Arrietty has been raised her whole life to believe that human beings are dangerous and she should never be seen by them, but all it takes is Sho giving her a sugar cube that convinces her to trust him. And as for Haru, she was a little too comical to be taken seriously as a villain.

While Arrietty has the stylistic flair and great music that we can expect from studio Ghibli, it wasn't anywhere near on the same level in terms of storytelling power.

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.