Yet another ten films that have no business being on the top 1000 films of all time

 There are 1000 films that IMDB rated as the best of all time, but there not just ten or twenty, but, at least thirty films that shouldn't be on this list. Here are another ten awful films. Prepare to be triggered. This list is in no other list, but chronology.

Citizen Kane (1941)

Why is Citizen Kane number 73 on this list? While it has remained a critical darling for over eighty years, I didn't care for it at all. Plus it hasn't aged well.

It may have been ground-breaking at the time, but that was eighty years ago. We've seen it all before. Not to mention Kane is a jerk. Why should we care about him or Rosebud or this overrated film?

The Hustler (1961)

The Hustler features at 266th on this list, but it really should be -1000th.

This film was so dull. The lack of music makes it incredibly boring. I want to say it would only appeal to pool enthusiasts, but even that seems unlikely. Light on action, spectacle or anything interesting, this was a tedious watch. Not even the iconic Paul Newman could save it.

Blowup (1966)

This blow-out of a film features at 629th on the top 1000 list.

It was pretentious, monotonous nonsense. Supposedly, a photographer is trying to solve a murder he's unwittingly photographed, so why is it so boring? Why doesn't this guy care about solving the crime? Why are we watching him developing photos? Why are watching mimes miming playing tennis?

It was like Fellini stopped making La Dolce Vita and transplanted his annoying artistic genius characters into the least suspenseful murder mystery ever.

2001: a Space Odyssey (1968)

I'm going to come out and say it. This film is overrated. It's Kubrick's most overrated film. And it's certainly not the 116th greatest of all time.

Come at me sci-fi nerds, I don't care. 2001: a Space Odyssey falls into the classic sci-fi cliche of an overly-clever writer showing off how clever they are, by writing an overly-complicated script full of big ideas, but generic characters. I remember Hal, but I don't remember any of the humans.

And I don't think that even Kubrick knew what he was doing with that pretentious ending.

The Name of the Rose (1986)

If you're wondering what Sean Connery was doing after James Bond, the answer is that he was acting in one of the most boring murder-mysteries ever. I say he was acting, but he was just being himself.

His co-star Christian Slater was equally insipid. Top tip film-makers. If you're going to make a murder-mystery don't set it in some middle-aged monastery complete with monks singing in Latin. The people who ranked this as 506th on this list must have quickly fallen asleep. I could have fallen asleep and not missed anything.

The Godfather Part 3 (1990)

The Godfather Part 3 has to be one of the worse third instalments of any trilogy ever. It ranks as 663rd on the top 1000 films: the Godfather and the Godfather Part 2 rank 2nd and 3rd respectively. That tells you everything you need to know.

The Godfather is one of the best films of all time; it's my favourite film ever. But the third part has no right existing.

Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo only made it because they had fallen on hard times and needed a hit. The Godfather part 3 with its convoluted plot and Sofia Coppola's god-awful performance was not this hit.

Gosford Park (2001)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I hate period dramas. Turning it into a murder mystery doesn't make it anymore interesting especially when you take an hour to get to the actual murder.

Yes, Gosford Park stars the creme da la creme of British acting royalty including Eileen Atkins, Richard E Grant, Derek Jacobi, Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Stephen Fry and Kelly Macdonald, but it is still full of annoying rich people having annoying rich people problems. No wonder it's 992nd on the top 1000 list.

Match Point (2005)

Match Point was like every American's wet dream about London. The American in question is writer/director Woody Allen. I thought that his rom-com Manhattan was God awful. I don't find his comedies very funny.

His psychological thrillers aren't much better. Match Point features one of the most predatory protagonists ever and one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen on-screen.

It's puzzling that IMDB ranked this at 568th on the top 1000 films of all time.

A Single Man (2009)

A Single Man was directed by fashion-designer and perfume-maker Tom Ford. And it had all the feel and look of an extended perfume advert.

It was artistic, pretentious rubbish. Despite starring Oscar-winners Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, it was a painfully slow watch. Why was it rated the 725th best film of all time?

The Raid (2011)

Upon making this film, director Gareth Evans wanted to make a straight, honest action film. In fairness, that was he did.

It's just a shame that he couldn't have made a decent film in the process. Endless martial art fights, gunfire and explosions are no substitute for interesting characters (of which there were none.) I think the same twelve-year-old boys who ranked Running Scared and the Boondock Saints within the top 1000 films also voted for the Raid. It clocks in at a shockingly high 716th.

Have I made your blood pressure rise yet? Are you ready to cus me out in those comments? Why don't you calm down before you have a stroke? There'll be another list coming soon enough.

Another ten films on the top 1000 films of all time too traumatic to watch again

 On the list of the top 1000 films of all time there are plenty of films too upsetting, heart-break or downright traumatic for a rewatch. I've already done one list on the subject. Here's the second. This list is in no order but chronology.

The Wicker Man (1973)

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the original film - not the Nicholas Cage remake.

Some have said that the Wicker Man is one of the scariest horror films ever made and for good reason. It follows a policeman investigating the disappearance of a little girl on a remote Scottish island, but here he finds the residents practise an obscure form of paganism.

The ending scene where the residents gaily sing while the Wicker man effigy burns is so chilling that it warrants a place on this list. Modern-day folk-horror films like the Witch and Midsommar owe a lot to the pioneering Wicker Man. It ranks 620th on the top 1000 film list.

Mississippi Burning (1988) 

Mississippi Burning is 470th on the top 1000 films list. It is simple to dismiss America's fascination with race relations, as a perverse obsession, but when you watch this film it's easy to see why it's such a big deal.

Two FBI agents, played Wilhelm Dafoe and Gene Hackman, are investigating  the disappearance of three Civil Rights activists in a small Mississippi town. But the town's residents are horrifically racist to the town's black population. This racial violence is what makes this film so disturbing to watch - all the more so, when you realise it is all based on a true story.

American History X (1998)

Ranking at 37th, American History X is the highest ranked film on this list. It also highlights America's modern-day struggle with race relations.

Edward Norton plays a reformed neo-Nazi who is trying to stop his little brother going down the same route. It is a brutally upsetting film with the infamous curb-stomp scene making it too traumatic for a rewatch.

The Pianist (2002)

At 48, the Pianist is the second-highest film on this list.

Holocaust films are always a difficult watch. The Pianist is no exception. It is an unflinching look at one of humanity's darkest moments.

But it also has an Oscar-winning performance from Adrian Brody. Yet its unrelenting look at the depravity of humanity makes it too upsetting to watch again. This is particularly relevant, as it is based on a true story.

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

Hotel Rwanda ranks 169th on the top 1000 films of all time.

From genocide in Europe, we go to the Rwandan Genocide where the Tutsi were systematically executed by the Hutu. We are a violent, self-destructive species.

However, in all this darkness, we see some hope in the form of the real-life Paul Rusesabagina who sheltered one thousand refugees in his hotel. There are some who question the true nature of heroism, but that doesn't take anything away from this brilliant if tear-jerking film. With great performances from Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo and Joaquin Phoenix, it even made me cry.

United 93 (2006)

Paul Greengrass' docudrama ranks 632nd on the top 1000 films of all time.

From heroism to Africa, we go to heroism in the US. More specifically heroism on 9/11. Yes, that 9/11. If you know anything about 9/11, you already know what this film is about. That's what makes this film so tragic.

It is a true tale of courage and valour, which is told powerfully. It's the only film on this list I've been brave enough to watch twice, but I'm definitely not brave enough to watch it for a third time. Now, let's take a moment to remember all the heroes on the United 93 flight.

The Kite Runner (2007)

Number 655 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Kite Runner.

Although not as traumatic as is source material, the Kite Runner is still a rough watch. It details an adult man returning to his childhood home of Afghanistan, so that he can right the wrongs of the past. However, Afghanistan has since been taken over by the Taliban and the country he knew has long gone.

If you're wondering why this film is so upsetting, it wasn't just the horrific stoning scene, but the complete loss of childhood innocence.

Incendies (2010)

Denis Villeneuve's drama ranks as number 160 on the top 1000 films of all time.

This film sees two siblings on a discovery of self-identity which has horrifying consequences for all involved.

I once said that Old Boy has one of the most shocking plot-twists of all time, but Incendies is a close second.

Set against the backdrop of the Lebanese Civil War, it's guaranteed to give you PTSD.

The Flowers of War (2011)

Clocking in at 674th on the top 1000 list, we have the Flowers of War.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more people need to know about the Rape of Nanking. The Japanese massacred a Chinese city, shooting the men and raping the women.

The Flowers of War captures this horror in stark detail. It also looks gorgeous on screen. And it's certainly not style over substance. Along with Hotel Rwanda, it's one of the few films that made me cry. There are some who argue that Christian Bale, as a white man, had no business being in a Chinese story, but that takes nothing away from the excellent child actors or the terrifying social context.

12 Years a Slave (2013)

12 Years a Slave is the third-highest ranked film on this list at number 72.

Is there any wonder why 12 Years a Slave won the Best film Oscar? It is a fantastic if harrowing depiction of one of America's darkest periods.

With Chiwetel Eijofar giving the performance of his career, this film pulls absolutely no punches. Every time it raises your soul up, it then punches it back down.

Have I missed any films? Let me know in the comments below.

Hoosiers review

 Number 702 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1986 sports-drama film 'Hoosiers.'

Norman Dale (Gene Hackman) is a washed-up, former college basketball coach who arrives in a small Indiana town to start teaching high-school basketball. To aid him, he recruits the alcoholic Shooter Flatch (Dennis Hopper). However, with the entire team dead-set against outsiders, Dale's task to train the team becomes easier said than done.

I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would, which was a surprise as I am not a basketball fan. Where this film succeeded and (arguably failed) was its focus on Dale and Shooter. Hackman and Hopper were great in the lead roles. Dale was obviously a maverick with crazy ideas. This earns him the distrust of the fellow teachers and the resentment of his students. However, he remains steadfast in his methods, grudgingly earning the respect of those around him. Despite Hackman's dismissiveness of the film's success, he performed well.

Dennis Hopper, who earned his only acting nomination from this film also performed well. He was great as the alcoholic, down-and-out Shooter Flatch. It was a stark contrast to the larger-than-life Frank Booth that he played in Blue Velvet. This role was far more human and understated. Hopper gave the character of Shooter a great vulnerability.

But while Dale and Shooter were great characters played by great actors, I cannot say the same about the rest of the cast. Many of them blurred into one including the many teachers dismissive of Dale's methods, but, in particularly, the actual basketball team. The film is about basketball so why don't we see more of the actual basketball players? Even as I'm writing this, I'm struggling to remember their names or any of their distinguishing features. There was someone called Ollie or Will who introduces himself as being too short and not very good at basketball. This begs the questions about why he is even on the team. Surely, everybody on the team has to be good. It made no sense that they would have any bad players on the team.

Moreover, there was the character of Jimmy. He is regarded as some type of wunderkund who left the team after the death of the previous coach. After much umming and urring, he finally decides to return. You think he would be a massive player, but then he fades into the rest of the team. He barely has any dialogue. It was like he was a plot device rather than an actual character.

Although the film does focus on basketball with lots of slow-motion and corny music, it needed to focus on the actual players, as much as the game itself. For me that a complete technical foul.

Blow review

 Number 681 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ted Demme's 2001 biographical crime-drama 'Blow.'

Blow tells the story of George Jung (Johnny Depp), one of the biggest drug-traffickers in American History. We see his meteoric rise to infamy, including working with Pablo Escobar (Cliff Curtis) to his momentous downfall. Penelope Cruz, Rachel Griffiths and Ray Liotta co-star.

Is it far to say that film blows? Not quite, but there was definitely more bad than good. Things start interestingly enough, as we see George's rise - his relationship with his parents, his graduation from selling weed to trafficking cocaine, and his introduction to some of the biggest narco-traffickers ever. Despite the awful wigs he had to wear, Johnny Depp was charismatic as usual.

Then it all came crashing down in a second half that was founded on unlikelihoods. It stopped being an interesting look into criminality and became a hokey family-drama.

Firstly, let's start with Penelope Cruz who played George Jung's second wife Mirtha. Granted, the two had better chemistry than Depp and Framke Potente who played his first wife, but the relationship was difficult to believe. We are introduced to Mirtha, as the fiancee of a Colombian gangster who takes an instant disliking to Jung. Yet Jung is able to steal away his wife, no questions asked. In this criminal underworld, people get killed for lesser offences, yet George Jung faces no repercussions. 

But this is nothing compared to what's to come. After Jung is betrayed by his criminal associates, he decides to pack it all in and retire from crime and live a normal life. It sounds great except it's a load of rubbish. You don't just retire from a life like this; you're in it until you die. The mob doesn't let you retire; why should the cartel be any different? How do they know you won't be spilling your guts to the FBI? This is based on a real story, so I guess it must be true, but it was still difficult to stomach. 

The same goes for Penelope Cruz who was quite rightly nominated for a Golden Raspberry award. Her portrayal of Mirtha was just annoying and whiny. Also, Cliff Curtis wasn't physically imposing enough to pull off playing Pablo Escobar. He lacked the aura of menace that Wagner Mourra had on Narcos. Lastly, Rachel Griffths was badly miscast as George Jung's mother. She's five years younger than Johnny Depp and no amount of grey hair dye could convince me otherwise. Ray Liotta was more convincing as Jung's father.

It's a shame that this film's second half was so bad. It had all the potential of being another Goodfellas, but it was just a blow-out.

The Flowers of War review

 Number 647 on the top 1000 films of all time is Zhang Yimou's 2011 Chinese historical drama-war film - 'The Flowers of War.'

Set during the rape of Nanking, we see a group of Chinese school girls led by Shu (Zhang Xinyi) taking cover in a church led by Father Ingleman. But with this priest's recent death, the responsibility falls to his young apprentice George Chen (Huang Tianyuan.) They are soon joined by a group of high-class prostitutes led by Mi Yo (Ni Ni) and American mortician John Miller (Christian Bale).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more people need to know about the atrocities that Japan committed against China in the run-up to the Second World War. In the West, this has always been over-shadowed in favour of the Western Front, but the rape of Nanking is one of Japan's most heinous crimes. An entire city was decimated with its men shot and women raped.

Zhang Yimou quite rightly did not shy away from showcasing the sadism of the Japanese. We saw their brutality in unflinching detail. It was upsetting to watch, but it was only being honest to what happened in real life. I thought the acting from all the child actors was very good.

The actresses playing the schoolgirls were excellent, displaying a maturity beyond their years. Despite the terrible things done to them, they never cry and complain. This was especially true of Zhang Xinyi who excelled as their leader Shu. But it also applied to Huang Tinyuan who portrayed George Chen. Despite not being much older than them, he tries his best to protect the school girls. Yet it is obvious that he is quickly out of his depth. It was difficult not to feel sorry for him as he tackled his insurmountable task. The characterisation and the acting all round was good.

The Flowers of War received a mixed reception from critics with most criticism centring on John Miller being an unnecessary distraction who was playing a white saviour. Initially, I was tempted to agree with this. John Miller was a cliched, predictable character who added so little to the first half of the film that it could have survived without him. Up until the forty-five minute mark, much of the Flowers of War focussed on the school girls with Shu taking centre-stage. She also narrates the film.

However, I did enjoy watching John Miller fulfil his reluctant hero character arc. Yes, it is predictable, but it is still enjoyable to watch. I also don't agree with him being a white saviour. How much saving does he actually do? Despite his best efforts, he does little to stop a rogue squad of Japanese soldiers attacking the church; instead it is the lone Chinese Major Li who saves everybody.

And when the Japanese demand that the girls sing at a special play it isn't Miller who suggests a solution, but Mi Yo. And when two of the prostitutes sneak out of the church, needlessly putting themselves into danger, Miller does not bring them back safe and sound. If anything he is a white failure - trying to save everybody but mostly failing. Not to mention, he was based on the real-life American missionary Minnie Vautrin.

There was also some who argue that the film was style over substance. Yes, while there was a lot of spectacle with plenty of slow-motion and vivid colours, it never detracted from the plot. This is in comparison to most Wuxia films which place spectacle front-and-centre. While the Flowers of War did focus on myth and legend, it was always tied to the plot. Even the sequence of the prostitutes singing to the schoolgirls enhanced rather than detracted from the film.

Zhang Yimou wanted to separate the Flowers of War from other similar films by highlighting and celebrating the efforts of women in the war. He certainly achieved that goal. Despite their best efforts, George and John are largely useless - yes they show remarkable bravery and self-sacrifice at the film's conclusion, but this is after four of their number have been killed.

Instead, we see the incredible strength and resourcefulness of the female characters. I've already spoken about the schoolgirls, but the prostitutes were equally intelligent and tough. Yes, the two groups quarrel on occasion - you get tiffs, arguments and fights, but, in the end they work together for the greater good.

Ultimately, I think the Flowers of War was a triumph. It looked gorgeous while also having strong writing, acting and characters. It's just way too traumatic to watch for a second time.  

After Hours review

 Number 625 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's 1985 black-comedy 'After Hours.'

Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) is an office worker trying to get home from Manhattan's Soho district. However, a series of misadventures makes this task more difficult than it sounds.

What do you think when you think of a Martin Scorsesee film? Endless swear words? Gangster flicks? Robert De Niro? I bet you wouldn't think of this 1980's black-comedy. Compared to the likes of Raging Bull or Taxi Driver, it's definitely not as explosive or well-known.

It was definitely one of his zaniest, most-off-the-wall films with plenty of off-beat humour to keep the plot running along nicely. The premise is simple enough: an office worker desperate to get home keeps coming up against increasingly outlandish barriers. Yes, the film does stray into the world of absurdist fiction, but you're willing to suspend your disbelief.

It helps that you had Griffin Dunne who gave Paul Hackett an everyman quality, which kept the film grounded. He was in a relatable situation; I'm sure there are many of us have had desperate journeys trying to get home after a late night. I certainly have, although I haven't remained as affable as Paul did, despite everything happening to him.

It certainly might not be as memorable as the Departed, but it might be a nice palette-cleanser after Scorsesee's more violent efforts like Gangs of New York. Either way, this is one of Scorsesee's more overlooked efforts with a great ending that brought everything full-circle.

Blowup Review

 Number 629 on the top 1000 films of all time is Michelangelo Antonioni's 1966 psychological mystery drama 'Blowup.'

Thomas (David Hemmings) is a photographer during the London's Swinging sixties. He believes he has unwittingly photographed a murder that is somehow connected to the mysterious woman Jane (Vanessa Redgrave.) This was Italian Antonioni's first English-language film.

Blowup? More like blow-out. This film was boring and tedious. If you looked up dull in the dictionary, you would see a picture of Blowup. It revolves around Thomas discovering a murder, yet this doesn't occur until an hour into the film. You get some movies that take a while to get going and then you have this...maybe if this film was three hours long (thank God it wasn't) the slow start would have been justifiable, but Blowup was under two hours.

There was no reason to have an hour of Thomas photographing models or photographing Jane and her lover in the park. I get it, the film is about photography, Thomas is a photographer, but seeing photos being developed hardly makes for the most entertaining or dramatic of cinema.

Not to mention that Thomas is one of the most unlikeable protagonists that I have seen on film. In the creative world, you get the pretentious, artistic genius archetype. Thomas embodies this and more. He is arrogant, spoiled, creepy and incredibly predatory. When he is photographing the model Verushka, he is constantly licking her ear. He has a weird sexual dalliance with two aspiring models, this scene went on for far longer than it should have, and there is an unwelcome sexual tension between him and Jane.

Thomas also seems remarkably uncaring about whether he solves the mystery or not. For some reason, he goes to a dope house to bring his obviously intoxicated friend to see the dead body. But by the time he actually gets there, the body has disappeared and he's more concerned with watching a group of mimes miming playing tennis. What was up with that? Why were we watching that?

It was like they had wandered off the set of La Dolce Vita and onto the set of Blowup. In fact, this whole film was like if Fellini had taken his existentially lost, young, annoying, artistic characters and transplanted them into a Hitchcock thriller.

But Blowup had none of the tension or suspense of a Hitchcock thriller. The severe lack of non-diegetic music did not help. Instead, we got a strange and unnecessary scene of the Yardbirds playing out a gig, and Jeff Beck smashing his guitar.

*spoiler alert*

The mystery is never solved. We never find out who killed this man or why, which I think was supposed to be the point, but it also made the film pointless. It left a lot of annoying plot holes. When Jane spots Thomas taking photos of her, she complains vehemently and visits his studio multiple times to get a copy of them. Why is she so interested? Who knows? And who cares? Obviously Antonioni didn't.

And I know this was the sixties, but Thomas' photos are so grainy and blurred, I don't know how he spotted any dead body in them. it was a bit like the so-called photos that prove the existence of Bigfoot or aliens.

Blowup was a tedious film. Not enough drama, tension or likeable characters. And too many shots of characters standing around staring into the middle-distance and bloody mimes playing tennis.