Moulin Rouge! review

Number 612 on the top 1000 films of all time is the jukebox musical romantic drama Moulin Rouge!

Christian (Ewan Macgregor) is a poet and romantic who wants to become a bohemian revolutionary. He moves to Paris' Montmarte District where he falls in love with Satine (Nicole Kidman) who is the star burlesque performer in the Moulin Rouge! But the course of true love never did run smooth.

Moulin Rouge was pure chaotic energy. It was bright, vibrant, colourful; a total spectacle. It won Oscars for Best Production and Best Costume design which was no surprise. To say it was a treat for the eyes would be an understatement. It would be easy to dismiss Moulin Rouge as style over substance.

In many ways it is, jumping from shoe-horned song to shoe-horned song with the thinnest of storylines connecting everything. But I also think that was the point. Burlesque and Cabaret are genres which are all about excess. They're all about putting on a show and being over-the-top. They're theatrical. And that's all part of the fun.

I admit that after a while the film's novelty wore off, but I still don't think it's fair to criticise the film for its very nature. What I was less keen on was Ewan Macgregor's singing voice. Obviously he isn't known as a singer, and I'm tone-death, but Ewan's singing voice bordered on screeching. His acting was fine, but his singing grated on me.

Moulin Rouge was a highly entertaining film. It had great visual flair. Was it more style than substance? Absolutely. But it was definitely a film that you won't forget in a hurry.

Philadelphia review

 Number 611 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal drama 'Philadelphia.'

Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) is an up-and-coming lawyer in Philadelphia. He is dismissed from his law firm. When it is revealed that he is gay and has aids, he is fired from his law firm. Believing he has been the victim of anti-gay discrimination, he sues his previous employer enlisting the help of fellow lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington.)

This was a brave film about, even now, a sensitive subject matter. In the 90's, there was a huge stigma around being gay and an even bigger one around aids. Homosexual discrimination, like what Beckett suffers from, was never far away.

Tom Hanks played the part well. He treated it with the utmost sensitivity. He also acknowledged that in today's world, he as a straight man would never be cast in such a role, but he still did it justice. He was well-deserving of his Oscar win. And that's saying something as he was up against Daniel Day-Lewis in Name of the Father and Liam Neeson in Schindler's List. Beckett's humanity is most evident when he is seen enjoying his famous opera - a scene so touching that it makes Miller question his own prejudices.

Miller freely admits that he doesn't like gay people, but he slowly realises that he shouldn't be so quick to judge people. Denzel Washington played the conflicted Miller well. This type of deep character work is what Washington does best like in Glory. He's far better here than in any big blockbuster.

Ultimately, the legal scenes is what let the film down. And this was strange considering it is a legal drama. But many of the courtroom scenes, particularly near the end, felt rushed and under-developed.

That notwithstanding, I did very much enjoy Philadelphia. It was a brave film with great performances from its two leads.

Big Fish review

 Number 296 on the top 1000 films of all the time is Tim Burton's fantasy-drama 'Big Fish.'

Edward Bloom (Albert Finney) is a man who has always had a story to tell. Sometimes these stories border on the surreal. And sometimes they're difficult to take seriously. As Edward nears the end of his life, his estranged son Will decides to start sitting the fact from the fiction. This is where we see a younger Edward Bloom (Ewan Macgregor) live out these stories.

This is possibly one of the most Burtonesque films I've ever seen. It was pure absurdism, surrealism and just plain weird. However, it wasn't just weirdness for the sake of weirdness. Everything was underpinned by two intertwining themes: relationship between father and son, and the art of storytelling.

As Will delves deeper into his father's life, he discovers weird and wonderful stories. These range from meeting a one-eyed witch who can tell you how you're going to die to befriending a giant who is rampaging around the local community. It doesn't matter whether these stories happened exactly the way they were told, as long as they are still told.

Stories have a wonderful way of uniting people. Nowhere is this more apparent than father and son. Sick of his father's ridiculous stories, son breaks off contact for three years. It's only his father's ailing health that reunites them. But it is Edward Bloom's love of story-telling that helps them to make amends. Bloom helps his son realises the joy which storytelling can bring everybody.

Did Edward Bloom really befriend a giant? Did he run away and join a circus ran by Danny Devito? Probably not. But it doesn't matter as long as we enjoyed the journey. And this was a weird and surreal journey that I certainly enjoyed. 

Black Swan review

 Number 291 on the top 1000 films of all time is Darren Aronofsky's psychological thriller 'Black Swan.'

Nina (Natalie Portman) is a timid, but talented ballerina who has just been cast as the swan queen in Swan lake. Believing she isn't suitable to play the Black Swan, director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) pushes her to her limits. When rival ballerina Lily (Mila Kunis) enters the scene, Nina's sanity is pushed to breaking point.

If there was ever a director who made horror films that aren't actually horror films, it's Darren Aronofsky. There was the terrifying Requiem for a Dream. And Black Swan was equally scary. It was creepy, insidious with masterful camerawork that not only had Nina, but the viewer questioning their sanity. Aronofsky direction is to be praised. He depicted Nina's fleeting sanity very well. It could have been all too easy to show her in an all-out meltdown, but he was far more subtle than that. He was equally subtle with all the scares as well. We just see allusions and clips that something isn't quite right with her, but nothing grossly overt.

Natalie Portman won the Best Actress Oscar for her role. But I'm not sure how much I liked her characterisation of Nina. While Aronofsky directed the film well, I don't think I can apply the same praise to his direction of Portman. Under his direction, she played Nina with a high-pitched, girly voice. Reportedly, Portman wasn't happy about this. Past directors have criticised her for her natural voice being too girly. Having worked hard to lose it, she felt playing Nina was very regressive. 

I understand that she is supposed to be a naturally timid character, but giving her such a girly voice made her quite infantalising. Surely there could have been other ways to portray this. And I would argue this was more of a problem with Aronofsky's direction than Portman's acting.

And a quick shoutout to Vincent Cassel who played the sleazy, borderline abusive Thomas Leroy to a tee. He was an ugly, villainous character.

Nina declared her final performance as being perfect. I wouldn't apply the same praise to Black Swan, but it was one of the scariest non-horror films that I've seen.

Ben-Hur review

 Number 203 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1959 biblical epic Ben-hur.

Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) was once a noble Jewish man who finds that Ancient Roman is quickly turning against the Jewish people. When Judah refuses to swear allegiance to the new Roman commander and his childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd,) he makes an enemy of the Roman people. Later on, to seek redemption, he escapes from slavery and becomes a champion charioteer. Meanwhile, a new religious leader is making waves as he begins preaching across the Roman empire.

Ben-Hur? A cinematic masterpiece? Or a four-hour snooze-fest? I'm tempted to say the latter. It wasn't completely boring, but it dragged on. Maybe I'm just a philistine, but why does a film need to have a six-minute overture? Or an intermission? We're not at the theatre. Any film that has to be cut into half is too damn long.

Obviously the Academy didn't agree with me as they awarded Ben-Hur with eleven Oscars including Best Picture and Best Actor for Charlton Heston. This was a puzzling choice for me as his range was incredibly limited. It was like William Wyler had directed him to be either angry or bitter with nothing in between. He reminded me a lot of Clint Eastwood who I've always thought was a better director than an actor.

The plus side of historical epics like Ben-Hur is that the set production is always on-point. Two big examples come to mind. The first is when Ben-Hur is serving on the slave-ship that is then attacked by Macedonian pirates which leads to his escape. The second is, of course, the famous chariot race scene that employed thousands of extras. Both of these looked great on-screen.

Ben-Hur wasn't a particularly awful film. It was watchable enough despite its unnecessary length and Heston's wooden performance.

The Bucket List review

 Number 869 on the top 1000 films of all time is Rob Reiner's comedy-drama 'The Bucket List.'

The blue-collar mechanic Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman) and the grumpy old billionaire Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) meet in hospital after both are diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. With only months left to live, the two embark on a trip to complete their own respective bucket lists.

This film had lots of potential. It had two great actors in the form of Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. Between them, they share four Oscars. It's a fun plot-line with plenty of opportunity for laughs and tears. And it was very funny. Jack Nicholson was very good as the grumpy, old, misanthropic billionaire. It might be a overly-familiar role for him, but he does it very well. Much of this humour comes from his constant abuse of his poor valet Thomas (Sean Hayes.) But Nicholson and Freeman had very good chemistry with the characters being polar opposites of each other. I may also argue Freeman is now type-cast as the wise, old mentor, but again he is always great.

Yet despite all this potential, the film felt very lacking. I feel like they could have done a lot more. Its runtime is just under one hundred minutes and it spends most of that on the beginning and the ending meaning that the middle is rushed. Considering the middle is the characters fulfilling their titular bucket lists, I was expecting much more. Some key character beats were reduced to a simple montage. There were lots of funny moments like Chambers and Cole sky-diving, but it felt like a very small, unimportant footnote. An extra half hour or even twenty minutes might have helped to bring things together more. 

Also what was with the awful CGI? Obviously I wouldn't expect Nicholson and Freeman to really be on top of the great pyramids of Giza, but I also wouldn't expect it to look so fake either. Maybe Reiner spent the film's budget on Nicholson and Freeman's salaries?

The Bucket List isn't a bad film per se. There are good performances and plenty of hilarious and heart-breaking moments. But they could have done a lot more than they did.

United 93 review

 Number 632 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Greengrass' docudrama 'United 93.'

United 93 is based on the true story of the fourth plane that was hijacked during the 9/11 terror attack. The other three planes found their target. The fourth didn't due to the passengers and crew revolting and attempting to take back control resulting in the plane crash-landing which killed everybody on board.

Firstly, I have to salute the heroism of everybody on board the real-life United 93. They showed a bravery that I never could have done. These were people with lives of their own who had no intention on dying that day. But they died as heroes. You might notice that I'm speaking very generally, and, alas, I have to, as Paul Greengrass was similarly vague in his depiction of the passengers. He made the directorial decision to not reveal any of the names of the passengers. This was because he wanted to elevate the group heroism above any individual heroism. Plus aeroplane passengers wouldn't know each other's names. 

True, it probably wouldn't have been very realistic for Tom Burnett (Christian Clemenson) and Mark Bingham (Cheyenne Jackson) to shake hands and say their names for the audience, but I would have gladly suspended my disbelief. Keeping the passengers' identities deliberately vague kept me at arm's length. I felt somewhat detached from their struggles and problems, because I knew so little about them. And it also did a disservice to the actors playing them. I saw some great acting, but because I didn't know the characters' names, I can't match an actor to the character. I only know Christian Clemenson and Cheyenne Jackson, because I looked them up on Wikipedia, but I'm not entirely sure who Tom Burnett and Mark Bingham were.

Otherwise Paul Greengrass made a great film. It was brilliantly paced with handheld-camera helping to keep the tension at a high. I was already familiar with this story, so I knew how it ended, but even if I didn't, I would have been kept on the edge of my seat. I prayed that there would be a happy ending, although I knew it would be impossible. And that's what made this such a good film. It was horribly doomy, but also powerful and touching.

Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and to all the other crew and passengers of United 93, you never knew and I never knew you, but you all died as heroes.