Rope review

 Number 267 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 psychological thriller 'Rope.'

Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger)  have just strangled to death their former classmate David believing they have committed the perfect murder. But before they can dispose of the body, they host a dinner party where the guests include David's parents, his girlfriend and their old prep-school teacher Rupert (James Stewart.)

From a content standpoint, Rope is classic Hitchcock. it is a tense, thrilling affair despite only having one set and a minimal cast. Despite being low on spectacle, it is high on suspense. Considering it was based on a stage play and we get little in the way of action, this might be a surprise, but it's true.

The acting talent is high. Despite how James Stewart disliked his performance, I thought that he was great as Rupert. He soon starts to suspect something is amiss with his old students. when he discovers the worst, his righteous indignation is plain to see. But John Dall and Farley Granger were the true stars. John Dall had a horrible smarm which made him one of Hitchcock's slimiest villains while Farley Granger soon becomes a bag of nerves.

Rope was also one of Hitchcock's most experimental films, as it is essentially a one-take film. It was filmed in a handful of long takes. I don't think this was an experiment that worked. The camerawork would track characters as they walked from room to room before shuddering to a stop. When Hitchcock wanted to do a hidden cut, he would zoom into a dark background and then zoom back out. All this left me with motion sickness.

I would also question the story's believability. I didn't understand why Brandon didn't just kill Rupert, as he started to uncover the murder. Brandon has a loaded gun for this reason, yet he doesn't use it.

Despite the plot holes and dodgy camerawork, I did enjoy Rope. It was a tense, suspenseful thriller.

Dog Day Afternoon review

 Number 262 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sidney Lumet's 1975 biographical crime-drama 'Dog Day Afternoon.'

Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino) and Sal Naturile (John Cazale) have plans to rob a Brooklyn bank on one hot afternoon. But their plans quickly go awry, as what should have be a simple heist descends into chaos. This is all based on a true story.

It's been a while since I've watched a film that's had me on the edge of my seat, but Dog Day Afternoon fitted the bill. It was a terrific experience with a ferocious energy that made two hours fly by. There wasn't a dull moment and you couldn't look away for a minute.

Like I say, it was based on a true story, so it was highly authentic. This was only bettered through the brilliant use of improvisation. Much of the dialogue was ad-libbed by the actors themselves which only added to the energy and realism. It's now wonder this received a Best-Film nod.

Al Pacino and John Cazale were fantastic in the lead roles. As Sonny, Al Pacino demonstrated a nervous charisma, as he desperately tried to keep control of the volatile situation. It isn't helped that he also has to look after the unpredictable Sal. John Cazale was a real talent who died far too young. All five of the films he starred in received Best Film nominations. It's just a shame that he himself never received any Oscar nods.

Set during a slow, boring day, Dog Day Afternoon was anything but. It was an excellent piece of film-making.

Duck Soup review

 Number 261 on the top 1000 films of all time is Leo McCarey's pre-code musical black comedy starring the Marx Brothers - Duck Soup.

Rufus T Firefly (Groucho Marx) has just been elected president of the country of Freedonia. However, his bumbling antics soon bring his country into conflict with the neighbouring Sylvania. It isn't helped by how its ambassador Trentino has sent his own spies Pinky (Harpo Marx) and Chicolini (Chico Marx) into Freedonia.

A common rebuttal of any criticism of older films revolves around how it was a different time and they haven't aged well. Yet Charlie Chaplin, arguably the Marx Brothers' biggest contemporary, released a number of comedies that hold up to this day. They are funny, unlike Duck Soup.

I barely laughed. If I'm being generous, I may have chuckled once or twice, but only because of how badly the film was trying and failing to be funny. Running jokes are all well and good along as they aren't done to death. Duck Soup hammered all its jokes into the ground. It was funny seeing the grand fanfare for President Firefly only to not have him appear - or it would have been if we had this joke once. Not three or four times. It became old very quickly.

And rather than a comedy film, it seemed like an eternal set-up for jokes that weren't funny and really predictable. Sure, comedies like Airplane are choc-a-block with cheesy jokes, but at least those were funny. There wasn't anything funny about Pinky squirting water at people only to have it squirted down his trousers or how he kept winding up the popcorn seller by taking his hat. Pinky's constant tooting of his horn was irritating too.

Also, what was with the weird songs? I know this was a musical, but the songs didn't seem to fit at all. They added nothing to the film except emphasising its cheesiness.

This film was only sixty-eight minutes long, but it felt so much longer due to its unnecessary musical numbers and running jokes. Was it just a different time? I'm not so sure. I think this film would have been just as unfunny in the 1930's as it is now.

Wings of Desire review

 Number 258 on the top 1000 films of all time is Wim Wenders 1987 romantic fantasy 'Wings of Desire.'

Damiel (Bruno Ganz) and Cassiel (Otto Sander) are two angels watching over the citizens of Berlin able to hear thoughts but unable to engage in the human world. That all changes when Damiel falls in love with acrobat Marion (Solveig Dommartin) and decides to give up being an angel and become human.

It's been a while since I've fallen asleep watching a film, but it has also been a while since I've watched a film as slow, boring or pretentious as Wings of Desire. It had a lot of potential, which was all ultimately squandered in faux-philosophy.

The angels have the ability to hear people's thoughts and all the people they hear are thinking deep, profound thoughts. It's complete nonsense. Nobody thinks like that in real life. I'm sure we all like to think we're the next John Locke, but we're really not. Myself included. And their telepathy seems ultimately pointless as they have little positive effective in the human world. Cassiel hears the thoughts of a suicidal young man, but is unable to stop him from jumping to his death.

And when Damiel meets and falls in love with Marion - of which he decides to turn human for, I had all but lost interest. The film's redeeming feature was Peter Falk who played a human who had once been an angel. He provided some warmth into what was otherwise a cold, soulless film.

Harold and Maude review

Number 255 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1971 black romantic-comedy 'Harold and Maude.'

Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is a young man who has a morbid fascination with death. He regularly enjoys staging his own suicide much to the dislike of his mother who is worried about her social status. But Harold then meets the carefree seventy-nine year old Maude (Ruth Gordon.) The two form an unlikely relationship.

I didn't care for this film at all. I did not like Harold's character. It would be fair to describe him as a nihilist. He is spiritually deadened and struggles to find any meaning in life. it can be difficult to write these characters so they're not annoying, spoiled or entitles, which is exactly how I would define Harold.

It didn't help that he had no discernible reason for his nihilism. You can argue that his relative affluence and wealth has left him spiritually deadened. The disconnected relationship with his shallow mother has probably done little to help matters. But I can't pinpoint a specific catalyst. Harold didn't have any defined reason for being so dead. Bud Cort also played the role with a smugness that made him irritating.

I also didn't like the film's depiction of suicide. It was gratuitous. Harold stages his suicide in multiple ways from immolation, to blowing his brains out to hanging and even slitting his wrists in a vivid display of red. It was all horribly romanticised. This is even more so considering how the only meaning he finds in his life is through death. His mother constantly dismisses his behaviours too; true she sends him to a shrink, but he is equally dismissive.

I would say that this film's redeeming feature is Ruth Gordon as Maude. She was enjoyable as a hedonistic, ageing hippy who gives no second though to breaking the rules. Despite how charming she was, it is difficult to deny that her relationship with Harold was weird. Director Hal Ashby always insisted that there was nothing untoward about it, but I don't agree. She's sixty years older than him. Flip the genders and see whether it's still the same.

I didn't care for Harold and Maude. Ruth Gordon was a delight, but Hal Ashby's treatment of suicide was off-putting.

Harvey (1950) review

 Number 254 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1950 comedy-drama 'Harvey.'

Elwood Dowd (James Stewart) is a peculiar young man who lives with his aunt Veta Louise Simmons (Josephine Hull). What's so peculiar about him? He believes in a 6 foot tall white rabbit called Harvey. Harvey is his best friend, but he's imaginary. Considered a quack by his queers, it is possible that Elwood is wiser than us all.

In my last review, I reviewed the courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder starring James Stewart as the charming and whimsical lawyer Paul Biegler. However, Harvey, made a mere nine years earlier, lacked a lot oft he same charm and whimsy. Far from being a heart-warming, comedy drama, it was a soulless affair.

James Stewart lacked a lot of the charisma I saw him display in Anatomy of a Murder and the Philadelphia Story. Rather, with Elwood, he seemed to be in a mindless daze for the entire film. if anything, he was just a vessel for the imaginary Harvey. It wasn't the most compelling of characters or performances. I'm not really sure why he was nominated for an Oscar.

While Jimmy Stewart was nominated for an Oscar, Josephine Hull won for Best Supporting Actress. I was confused as to why Stewart was nominated, but I was shocked at how Hull won. Her performance was fine, but it was hardly Oscar-worthy. For one thing, she disappears halfway through the film only to reappear later. I know this was only a Supporting Oscar, but her screentime didn't seem to warrant such a prestigious award.

Going into this film, I was expecting this to be something similar to It's a Wonderful Life, where a character, in this case, Harvey, has an unexpected/unrealised effect on those around him. Yet, I saw little evidence of this. Dr Sanderson (Charles Drake) and Nurse Kelly (Peggy Dow) are a couple working at the sanitorium that Veta wants to commit Elwood to; it is also implied they are having marital problems. The head of the sanitorium Dr Charles (Cecil Kedaway) is lamentful that he never had a chance to holiday in Akron with a beautiful woman. However, after a supposed encounter with Harvey, the couple sort out their problems and Dr Chumley resolves to carry out his wish. Rubbish. There wasn't enough foundation for these emotional beats to land.

And I could very well say the same for the film Harvey. What should have been a fun feel-good affair left me feeling indifferent.

Anatomy of a Murder review

 Number 248 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1959 courtroom drama 'Anatomy of a Murder.'

Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a down-on-his-luck lawyer who has found his next case of Lt. Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) who shot dead the man who raped his wife Laura (Lee Remick.) The question isn't whether he did it, but why. The prosecution argues it was pre-meditated, but Frederick argues it was a case of 'irresistible impulse.' It is up to Biegler to prove the latter. Assisting him is his sardonic secretary Maida Rutledge (Eve Arden) and his drunk partner Parnell McCarthy (Arthur O'Connell.)

Courtroom dramas by their very nature can have the tendency to be dull. They are low on spectacle and sets - often it's two or two and a half hours of characters just droning on at one another. This is especially true, as we don't often see the crime, but, rather, its aftermath.

I was surprised to find Anatomy of a Murder was highly interesting. It was a watchable affair that moved along nicely. It helped that you had the charismatic Jimmy Stewart in the lead role who breathed a lot of life into what could have been an incredibly stuffy role. Real-life courts and barristers probably aren't as theatrical as he is, but they're probably a lot less interesting too.

I thought there was something fishy going on between the Manion couple. Maybe we would be surprised by concluding plot twist, so you can only imagine my disappointment when the story remained incredibly straightforward. Not that there is anything wrong with a straightforward plot. I think I'm just too used to the courtroom dramas being overly-complicated.

Thankfully, that wasn't the case with Anatomy of a Murder. It wasn't quite as good as 12 Angry Men, but it is certainly up there.