The Killer review

Number 359 on the top 1000 films of all time John Woo's Hong Kong action film 'the Killer.'

Ah Jong (Chow Yun-Fat) is a hitman who accidentally blinds nightclub singer Jennie (Sally Yeh) in a mob hit gone wrong. Wanting to raise money for an operation that can cure her sight, he embarks on one last hit, but disgraced policeman Li Yang (Danny Lee) is determined to send him to prison.

If there was a list for the cheesiest 1980's, popcorn-munching action films then the Killer would surely top the list. If you love those types of films then you would love the Killer. But if you're looking for something more than pretty much every single cliche in the action genre, then you'll be disappointed. And I was left sorely disappointed by this film.

I know it was an action film, but it was so absurd that it bordered on the ridiculous. Like I say, it is absolutely bursting with cliches. Where do we even start? There's the infinite ammo cliche. In the numerous gun fights that litter the film, Ah Jong and Li Yang never seem to run out of bullets even when they're using handguns. And the characters get shot multiple times but rarely show any distress. Plus there's a silly amount of slow motion too.

The character of Jennie is little more than a damsel-in-distress having little identity beyond being a screaming woman to be saved. Hardly the most complicated of characters. Not knowing that he is the one who blinded her, she falls in love with Ah Jong and the two begin a relationship which also seemed pretty unlikely.

As for the villains, Triad boss Wong Hoi (Shing Fui-on) was one of the most two-dimensional villains I've seen in a while. Like the rest of the film, he was just so over the top that it really hurt his credibility as a scary enemy. However, I also think that the exaggerated reality was very much the point of the film. Everything was supposed to be over-the-top. 

Yet that didn't make it any more entertaining. The gunfights became tedious after a while. And they detracted from the rest of the film particularly from the central three characters of Ah Jong, Jennie and Li Hang. Beyond their roles in the film, there was little depth to any of them. The whole film is about Ah Jong raising money to help Jennie's sight yet she ends up completely blind by the end. It was rather a disappointing end to that storyline.

You should only watch the Killer if you love cheesy action films. If you don't, then I would sorely recommend you find something else to watch instead.

Breathless review

 Number 358 on the top 1000 films of all time is Jean-Luc Goddard's French crime-drama film 'Breathless.'

Michel (Jean-Paul Bermondo) is a petty-crook who after stealing a car and killing a policeman in Marseille hides out in Paris where he quickly starts up a relationship with American exchange-student Patricia (Jean Seberg.) In love with her, he tries convincing her to run away with him, but she has other ideas.

Breathless received much fanfare for its visual style which was pioneered by none other than by leader of the French New Wave movement - Jean-Luc Goddard. When it came to editing down the film rather than cutting whole scenes, Goddard instead cut out parts of the scenes themselves employing what has come to be known as jump cuts. Watch any Youtube video from the 2010's and you'll understand what I mean. Reportedly, Goddard improvised most of the film writing most of the dialogue in a journal that only he was allowed to see. As for the actors, he told them the dialogue while filming. It was all very experimental.

Was it an experiment that worked? In my opinion, no. Unless the experiment was to see whether Goddard could make the most boring film known to man. Mother-in-heaven I have seen 3 or 4 - hour long films that have more life than this 90-minute snooze fest. At least Ben-Hur had the exciting chariot race and things actually happen in Gone with the Wind. Granted, not the best things but things nonetheless.

Very little happens in Breathless. The film starts interestingly enough with Michel killing the police officer, but the narrative tension screeches to a halt when he reaches Paris. Goddard then mostly treats us to thrilling scenes of Michel and Patricia arguing in a smoky Parisian bedroom. Fascinating...not. Nothing was happening and there was a sense that nothing was going to happen. It was all so boring.

It didn't help that Michel wasn't a likeable character. Yes, he is a petty crook, thief and cop-killer, but he isn't even interesting to watch. Patrick Bateman in American Psycho is a freaking serial killer, but I was actually interested in reading about him. I had no interest at all about following Michel's journey.

And I had no interest in this film either. 358th on the 1000 best films of all time? More like 358th on the 1000 most boring films of all time.

King Kong (1933) review

 Number 356 on the top 1000 films of all time is the pre-code adventure, horror-monster film 'King Kong.'

New York film maker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is making preparations to film his next project on a mysterious island. Casting Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) as his leading lady, they along with the crew of Captain Englehorn (Frank Reicher) and First Mate Jack Driscoll's (Bruce Cabot) ship, they sail to skull island where they find all kinds of impossible creatures such as dinosaurs and King Kong himself - a gigantic gorilla.

There's no doubt that this film was technically ground-breaking. It was a pioneering force in special effects blending together stop-motion, matte and live-action to create a stylistically brilliant experience. It's just a shame that it was all spent on a thoroughly boring film. Seriously, King Kong was tedious, repetitive and populated with unlikeable characters.

Film-maker Carl Denham only cares about making his film regardless of the cost to human life, Driscoll is your standard hothead with a heart of gold and Ann Darrow was little more than your proto-typical damsel-in-distress. I get this was the thirties but Darrow embodying the helpless female character became very old very quickly. Fay Wray gained a reputation for being the first scream queen and with good reason. Even when she isn't being attacked by any monsters she still spends most of her time screaming.

And there are a lot of monsters in this. From a T-Rex to a Brontosaurus to a Stegosaurus to a Pteranodon and even a massive snake-like thing, it all became too much after a while. It was monotonous seeing Kong having to save Ann from these monsters. I kept asking myself when was this going to end. It seemed to go on forever. By the time Denham captures Kong and takes him back to New York I had almost fallen asleep - not that I would have missed much. Due to how much time had been spent on the bloated beginning, the ending, which saw Kong become a freak show on Broadway, was rushed. The film was only 100 minutes but could have been shorter.

I'm sure King Kong was ground-breaking at the time, but I don't think it holds up well 92 years later.

The Untouchables review

Spoilers ahead 

Number 355 on the top 1000 films of all time is Brian De Palma's 1987 crime film 'The Untouchables.'

The Untouchables tells the true-life story of Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) a prohibition agent who forms a team of untouchable, incorruptible men to bring down the era's biggest gangster and bootlegger Al Capone (Robert De Niro.) Ness' team consists of the veteran Irish-American cop James Malone (Sean Connery) young hot-shot George Stone (born Giuseppe Petri - Andy Garcia) and accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith.)

Firstly, let's address the Sean Connery in the room. Despite Malone being an Irish-American character, Connery's accent is neither Irish nor American. Like he does in every other role, he stubbornly played the role with his native Scottish accent. This was quite distracting to say the least, but what else can you expect from Sean Connery? He won the Best Supporting Oscar for his role and, despite the accent, I think it was a well-earned win. Malone acted as a mentor-cum-father figure for Ness helping to coach him on the best way to take down Al Capone. Connery played the role well bringing a great energy and life to the character.

The rest of the performances were fine, but none of them matched Sean Connery. Garcia was never really given the chance to exercise his acting chops - granted Stone IS a supporting character, but I don't think he was really fleshed out beyond being the best shot in his class. Charles Martin Smith was also good, but, alas, Oscar Wallace was the first of the Untouchables to prematurely die. It was a sad death as due to his accountant background he was the least suited for the way of life, but he still proved his worth for the team, being the one who suggests prosecuting Capone for tax evasion. 

Hell, I even liked Kevin Costner - Elliot Ness wasn't a character with a lot of depth, but he made for a good action hero and Costner played the role well. I was particularly surprised with Robert De Niro as Al Capone and I don't mean surprised in a good way. Considering I'm speaking about Robert FREAKING De Niro, I thought his portrayal of Capone was rather simplistic. There was none of the depth or complexity that I would expect from one of De Niro's roles. To paraphrase Capone himself, he was nothing but a receding hairline and a baseball bat.

Brian De Palma also played fast-and-loose with history often fictionalising or completely making up most of the film's key events. Ness's team had very little to do with Capone's tax evasion case and the train station shootout or the Canadian border raid never happened in real life. But that didn't matter as it all made for dramatic, entertaining viewing. The train station shootout was inspired by the Russian step scene in Battleship Potemkin with the parallels being obvious to see. Despite being pretty unbelievable/cheesy, it was still good fun to watch.

And that is a good summary of this film. It is an incredibly loose retelling of historical events but was still a thrilling watch. The acting wasn't fantastic except for Sean Connery, yet it still earned its place on the top 1000 films of all time.

Mulholland Drive review

*Spoilers ahead* 

Number 354 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's surrealist neo-noir mystery horror film Mulholland Drive.

Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) is an actress arriving in Hollywood to start her career. She befriends amnesiac Rita (Laura Harring) who is the only survivor of a terrible car crash. Betty resolves to help her new friend regain her lost memory to horrifying consequences. A separate storyline sees director Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux) struggle to maintain control of his latest film project, as both studio executives and mobsters try to interfere.

David Lynch regarded this film as his magnus opus. It takes surrealism to a whole new level - far more so than previous efforts like Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. This isn't any understatement. Mulholland Drive is one of the weirdest films I have seen since Dark City or even Blue Velvet. I'm not sure it's worth trying to figure out the meaning behind Mulholland Drive - considering there is any meaning at all. Perhaps it's weird for purely the sake of being weird. Justin Theroux said that Lynch was happy for viewers to arrive at any interpretation they wished. As for Lynch, he has never elaborated on the deeper meanings behind the weirdness of Mulholland Drive. 

There is a lot of weirdness from the strange opening scene that looked to be from another film to Kesher meeting a mysterious cowboy to everything that happened at Club Silencio. And who can forget that awful decaying corpse believed to be Diane Selwyn. I was with the film until the final act where Rita unlocks a mysterious box leading to both her and Betty disappearing. Betty then reawakens as struggling actress Diane Selwyn. Rita is now Camilla who is playing the lead in Adam Kesher's new film. Oh and there's a weird old crone character uttering abstract prophecies. At this point it all became incomprehensible to me. I'm not even going to try and decipher the various oddities.

Instead, I will say this is one of the scariest, most unsettling films I have seen. The final scene where Diana, being terrorised by hallucinations, runs into her bedroom and shoots herself, was terrifying to watch. But it was also masterfully shot. The lighting and camerawork were brilliant. Watts and Harring were also great as the two leads. Mulholland Drive was very much Watts' breakout role and she really acted her socks off. Her terror in the above scene was palpable. Harring was also very good - playing her role as the amnesiac Rita with all the confusion, panic and fear that you would expect.

Yes, Mulholland Drive is a WEIRD film. It is surreal, abstract and confusing, but that's exactly what David Lynch intended. And he wouldn't want it any other way. It was also gripping, terrifying and thrilling. A good film all around. 

The African Queen review

 Number 348 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Huston's 1951 adventure film 'The African Queen.

Charlie Allnut (Humphrey Bogart) is the alcoholic captain of the steamboat: 'The African Queen' who delivers mail and supplies to a Methodist mission in 1914 German East Africa. The mission is manned by brother and sister Samuel (Robert Morley) and Rosemary (Katherine Hepburn.) When WW1 breaks out, German colonial troops conscript the African natives and kill Samuel in the chaos. Rosemary urges Charlie to use the African Queen to attack a German gunship.

If you think this film sounds similar to the iconic 1942 Casablanca, you would be right. Both films star Humphrey Bogart as an alcoholic rogue who only looks out for himself. This is despite the protests of the attractive female lead urging him to take a side in the wider-world conflict. Swap Morocco for Tanzania and Ingrid Bergman for Katherine Hepburn and you basically have the same film.

However, the biggest similarity is that The African Queen is just as good and iconic, if not more, than Casablanca. A lot of this comes down to the chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn. It is undeniable that both of them were titans of the acting industry - it's difficult to think of two actors more emblematic of the Golden Age of Hollywood. They were brilliant together. Unlike other female leads, like Ingrid Bergman, who disliked Bogart, and Audrey Hepburn, who was disliked by Bogart, Katherine Hepburn was every bit his equal. 

Katherine Hepburn was well-known for her fiery, outspoken demeanour which made her the perfect match for the cynical Charlie Allnut. She brought a great firecracker energy to her role as Rosemary Sayer, but also portrayed a soft, sensitive side for when her brother was killed. Yet she is also persuasive enough to convince the old, gnarled cinnamon-bun Allnut to jump down from the fence and pick a side. The two of them soon develop a romance. And, unlike other films, I could totally believe the two characters being together.

True, I'm not sure how much Hepburn got on with Bogart off-set - reportedly, she made a point about only drinking water after being appalled at seeing how much whisky old Bogey and director John Huston were drinking, but the two of them were great on-screen. Bogart earned his only Oscar for this performance, but I would argue that Hepburn truly earned her Oscar nomination as well. 

The African Queen was mainly filmed in Uganda or, what was, the Belgian Congo, and it looked brilliant. The cinematography was great. John Huston made a terrific film that blended humour, tragedy and important ideas about standing up and fighting for what was right. It also didn't hurt that you had the excellent pairing of Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn.

Rosemary's Baby review

 Number 345 on the top 1000 films of all time is Roman Polanski's 1968 psychological-horror film 'Rosemary's Baby.'

Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) and her husband, stage-actor, Guy (John Cassavetes) are two newlyweds who have just moved to New York. Looking to settle down and start a family, they are soon expecting a baby. But Rosemary suspects that her husband and her neighbours have sinister intentions for her unborn child.

Production designer Richard Sylbert deemed this the "greatest horror film without any horror in it." I don't think I could have described this film any better. Despite not having any gore, jump scares or big, bad villain, Polanski still created an overwhelming sense of dread. True, the villains are a coven of witches, but it's not like Halloween, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the Wickerman where you can identify one key villain. 

You know that things are going to hit the fan - it's just a question of when. This is a film comprised of small, scary jigsaw pieces like the apparent suicide of Rosemary's neighbour or Guy getting the main part in a play, by virtue of another actor going inexplicably blind, which all add up to a frightening picture - Rosemary has been impregnated with the anti-Christ. All of these small parts culminate in a fever dream where Rosemary imagines that she is being raped by a demonic presence - perhaps even the devil himself. When she wakes up, she discovers that Guy actually raped her while she was asleep.

During production, Mia Farrow was undergoing with some marital problems with then-husband Frank Sinatra. He wanted her to leave the film and she was about to relent, before a studio executive convinced her to stay saying that she would win an Oscar for her performance. She stayed, Sinatra divorced her and Farrow wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award. Some have labelled this an egregious snub. I would agree. Farrow was great. She portrayed the fear, terror, but also resoluteness that you would expect from somebody like Rosemary.

I found it strange that Farrow wasn't nominated yet her co-star Ruth Gordon was not only nominated, but went onto win for Best Supporting Actress. Gordon played Farrow's neighbour Minnie Castevet - a busy body who becomes a little too involved in Rosemary and her unborn baby. It was a fine performance. It certainly wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. Was it Oscar-worthy? Was it memorable enough to justify winning an Academy Award? I'm not too sure about that.

Nonetheless, Rosemary's Baby was probably one of the scariest horror films I've seen that didn't have any actual horror in it - other than Farrow being snubbed by the Academy, of course.