Mad Max review

 Mad Max does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time. However, its sequel does. It only made sense that at some point I would go back and watch the original.

Mad Max is set in a post-apocalyptic, near-future Australia where law and order has all but collapsed. Motorcycle gangs rule the road while the few remaining police try to keep control. One such officer is the maverick Max (Mel Gibson) who swears revenge on the bikers after they kill the policeman. 

Upon watching this I could see why it wasn't on the top 1000 films of all time. Granted some of my criticisms can be attributed to the film's meagre 350k budget, but a film doesn't need a large budget to be a good film.

Firstly, the genre of the film didn't match the content. For the post-apocalyptic film, the Australian roads and infrastructure was remarkably intact. Reportedly this was because the post-apocalyptic aspect was little more than an after-thought. Director George Miller couldn't afford lots of extras and half-destroyed set pieces, so he made the film post-apocalyptic. He also couldn't afford stunt performs, so the lead actors largely did this own stunts.

Speaking of lead actors, Miller also lacked the budget for high-profile stars hence why a twenty-one year old Mel Gibson was cast as Max. I think there's a reason why Mel Gibson has won Oscars for directing and producing. Like other directors/actors, he is much better as the former than the latter. He was rather hammy as Max.

Across the board, the acting wasn't great. The villains in the motorcycle gang soon blended into one. It didn't help they were also lumbered with clunky dialogue and strange acting choices like how the bikers would make weird animal noises. Joanne Samuel was also pretty bland as Max's wife Jessica, but in fairness, Jessica had all the charisma of a stale ham sandwich.

Ultimately, I was left disappointed by Max Max. Considering it launched a massive world-wide franchise I was expecting something more but I was left with very little.  

The Purple Rose of Cairo review

 Number 562 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's fantasy romantic-drama 'The Purple Rose of Cairo.'

Set in Depression-era New-Jersey, 'the Purple Rose of Cairo' follows cinephile Cecilia (Mia Farrow) seeking escapism from her abusive marriage to brutal husband Monk (Danny Aiello) through frequent visits to the movies. While watching the Purple Rose of Cairo, she falls in love with archaeologist Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) who also falls in love with her and leaves the film world to see her.

My long-term reader(s) will know that I'm not a fan of Woody Allen films. They're not funny and Woody Allen always plays the same character. And we're not even going into his numerous controversies. Sufficed to ay, I was not expecting to enjoy the Purple Rose of Cairo. However, I was pleasantly surprised.

I wouldn't go so far to say I enjoyed the Purple Rose, but I also didn't outright despise it. It helped that Woody Allen didn't appear in his film like he usually does. And, when he does, he is always playing the same character - a middle-aged, neurotic, Jewish comedian/writer. Basically he's playing himself.

Instead you had Mia Farrow in the lead and she was fine. She was inoffensive and rather charming. She brought an enjoyable wide-eyed innocence to Cecilia. But despite starring a naive starlet, she soon found the courage to lead her abusive husband Monk.

Monk was played by Danny Aiello who I found disappointing. This was six years before he gave an Oscar-nominated performance in Spike Lee's 'Do the Right Thing.' He was much more convincing there than here. Sure he was menacing, but only in so far as romantic-comedy villains can be. At least he had more charisma than Jeff Daniels who was a bit of a wet blanket as Tom Baxter.

Although the film's concept was novel enough with plenty of meta-humour - not only does Tom Baxter become self-aware, but so do the rest of the characters in Purple Cairo. I don't think it was enough to sustain a whole film. Despite how the runtime was only a paltry eighty-two minutes, I was longing for it to finish by the end. Some of that was down to the clunky dialogue too.

Like I say, I actually liked the Purple Rose of Cairo. It was one of Woody Allen's least inoffensive films, but that isn't saying much really.

The King of Comedy review

 Number 556 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's black-comedy film 'The King of Comedy.'

Rupert Pupkin (Robert De Niro) is an up-and-coming stand-up comedian. He wants nothing more than to be a world-wide comedy star. After a chance encounter with successful comedian and talk-show host Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis) which results in Pupkin being invited onto his show, Pupkin then develops a dangerous obsession with the comedy star.

In 2019, Todd Philipps made Joker with Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role. Upon release, it was instantly compared to the King of Comedy and with good reason. Both main characters are paranoid comedians. Both have Robert De Niro, although in Joker, he is playing the Jerry Lewis role. And both films were absolutely terrific.

Just like Arthur Fleck in Joker, Rupert Pupkin is a dangerously unreliable narrator. How much can you trust anything he says? He goes through the film in a paranoid delusion believing that he is Jerry Langford's' best friend when that is far from the case at all. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wonder whether Rupert met Langford at all or whether it was just another paranoid delusion. Either way, it was a great comment on society's obsession with celebrity culture that has always existed.

And that leads me to Jerry Lewis' perfect casting as Jerry Langford. As one half of the iconic Martin and Lewis partnership, you can't imagine anyone else playing one of the US' greatest comedians. Or rather I should say a disaffected comedian who no longer has the patience for crazed fans.

Speaking of crazed fans, that brings us to Robert De Niro who, in some ways, played a similar role to his earlier Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. Both men were dangerously unhinged, but Pupkin was all too believable. De Niro was convincing as the crazy superfan who would stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He was the literal embodiment of every toxic fandom ever.

I thoroughly enjoyed the King of Comedy. The lead actors were great and I loved the delicious dramatic irony. One of Scorsesee's best films for sure.

Barton Fink review

 Number 548 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen Brothers' black-comedy Barton Fink.

Barton Fink (John Turturro) is an aspiring screen-writer who finally gets his big break in Hollywood. However, the true reality of Hollywood screen-writing is far removed from the dream. Jon Polito and John Goodman co-star.

In the pantheon of Coen Brothers' films, I would rank this as one of their lower-tiered efforts. The brothers are well-known for their surreal films like Oh brother, wherefore art thou or The Big Lebowski, as well as more straightforward films like Miller's Crossing and No Country for Old Men. Barton Fink seemed to straddle both worlds without really landing in either.

Barton soon becomes mixed-up in a murder which sees him strike up an unusual friendship with the gregarious Charlie Meadows (John Goodman) which, in fairness, does finish in a fiery and dreamscape climax. Yet the earlier parts of the film deal with more grounded ideas like Barton trying to write a script to appease the big-shot Hollywood producer Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner.) If the film could have been surreal or straightforward, I would have been okay with it, but not both.

John Turturro and Jon Polito also starred in Miller's Crossing - a prohibition-era gangster film. Both of them were terrific bringing frenetic energy to the role. They were memorable. Here I can't say the same. Granted Jon Polito was only a supporting character - a lackey to Michael Lerner, but he didn't bring the same energy to the role. Neither did Turturro. They played the roles with restraint when excess would have been better.

That summarises my criticism of this film really: it tried to be too many things and ended up being hardly anything.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas review

 Number 555 on the top 1000 films of all time is Terry Gilliam's black-comedy 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.'

Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp) is a journalist sent to Las Vegas to cover an important motorcycle race. He is joined by his friend and laywer Dr Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro.) Once there, they get high on every drug doing and get into all manner of chaos.

Terry Gilliam is well-known for his surreal, incomprehensible films like Brazil and Twelve Monkeys. However, while those films had some semblance of a storyline 'Fear and Loathing' was an exercise in excess. 'Brazil was about a civil servant looking for love in a hellscape world while Twelve Monkeys focussed on trying to reverse an apocalypse. Sure these films were weird, but I think there was at least supposed to be a point. Or for Twelve Monkeys anyway. Like Brazil, Fear and Loathing seemed to be weird for the sake of weird.

The antics of Raoul Duke and Dr Gonzo soon became tiresome especially as Dr Gonzo is a pretty nasty psychopath. It didn't help that neither Depp or Del Toro were particularly memorable in their roles. And this is saying something considering the calibre of the actors: Del Toro went onto win a Best Supporting Oscar for Stephen Soderbergh's Traffic a few years later. Depp also has a few Oscar nods under his belt. Yet he was just boring lacking any of the usual charisma he brings to a role. And I didn't like Dr Gonzo so I didn't care for Del Toro's performance.

In terms of comedy, it didn't make me laugh very much. Sure, the situations are black and we're supposed to be laughing at and not with the characters, but I spent much of the film rolling my eyes rather than laughing out loud. None of the psychadelic visuals or quirky camera angles could do anything to make the film more interesting.

Instead this was a tedious, overly-indulgent affair which was about two hours too long. I was very glad when the credits started rolling.

25th Hour review

 Number 558 on the top 1000 films of all time is Spike Lee's crime-thriller '25th Hour.'

Monty Brogan (Edward Norton) is a crime lord twenty-five hours away from going to prison. In that time, he has to settle affairs with his girlfriend Naturelle (Rosario Dawson) friends - the obnoxious stockbroker Frank Slaughtery (Barry Pepper) and English teacher Jacob (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and father James (Brian Cox.)

This film had Spike Lee written all over it. It strongly reminded me of Lee's earlier film Do the Right Thing. Similarly, to arguably one of his most famous films, 25th Hour was very heavy-handed in its storytelling. Much of the dialogue had a hammy, over-the-top quality from Ukrainian crime-lord Uncle Nikolai to the obnoxious Frank speaking about closing deals to Ed Norton's famous tirade in the mirror.

This famous diatribe decrying basically any and every ethnic group in New York was ripped straight from David Benioff's source material, except for the addition of Al Qaeda - probably to reflect the changing post 9/11 climate. Maybe my indignation should really be with Ed Norton's delivery instead.

This was definitely one of his worst performances. He was unconvincing as the crime lord Monty because Monty himself was unbelievable. A hardened crime lord was caught by the police because they find his drug money stuffed down the sofa. It's less Pablo Escobar and more world's dumbest criminals. I had to remind myself this was a Tony Soprano type character and not your average hood. 

Similarly, how was Monty so naive about the realities of jail? He is terrified about the thought of going there, which I would understand if he were your average petty crook, but he is high-ranking enough to justify a sit-down with the Ukrainian mob. Surely a man in Monty's position would be able to look after himself in prison or at least be well-connected with those who could protect him.

Norton also lacked a lot of chemistry between co-stars Barry Pepper and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I couldn't believe the three were best friends least of all as Frank and Jacob spend more time together than with Monty. Jacob was also very creepy as he entertained a sexual attraction to his seventeen-year-old student Mary (Anna Paquin) This was an ultimately pointless subplot that went nowhere. All this culminated in a rather laughable climax where Monty goads Frank into beating him up to deter any prison rapists. Pepper was less than convincing than his emotional anguish here.

Finally, Norton also lacked romantic chemistry with Rosario Dawson. They weren't believable together. He was okay opposite Brian Cox, but not even the formidable shoulders of Brian Cox could carry the whole film on his back.

I want to like 25th Hour, but it was just a ham-fisted, eye-rolling affair,.

The Bourne Supremacy

 Number 553 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action-thriller The Bourne Supremacy.

Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is a former CIA agent with amnesia. After the events of the last film, he is trying to live a normal life in India with his girlfriend Maria (Franka Potente.) However, he is forced out of hiding when he is framed for a crime he didn't commit. Joan Allen, Julia styles, Brian Cox and Karl urban co star.

I've never been a fan of this film series and this film did little to move the needle. The main reason was that the characterisations and characters were paper-thin. Julia Styles's character of technician Nicky Parsons was little more than a snivelling wreck. Was she this much of a wet blanket in the first film? Or did director Paul Greengrass want to do Julie Styles dirty? Karl Urban wasn't particularly menacing as a Russian hit man either. He had more of a look of an overgrown emo rather than a ruthless murderer.

This brings me onto the film's plot focussing on Jason and Marie or rather Jason as Marie

*spoilers*

is killed by mistake early in the film. Emo Karl Urban was trying to kill Jason but he killed Marie instead. In the Bourne Identity I was highly critical of their relationship, declaring they had no romantic chemistry. The same applied here. 

As well as trying to clear his name, Bourne also wants to revenge on emo Karl Urban which I would have found believable if their relationship was more believable. It doesn't help that he doesn't seem that cut up about her death. He doesn't even shed one tear and only remembers her death when it's convenient. It was very much the fridging the wife cliche done very badly. 

Matt Damon was nothing special as Bourne. I guess he did the action sequences well enough but he was fairly wooden when it came to anything more emotional. Any redeeming factors? Brian Cox's inclusion as a corrupt CIA chief? Cox is usually very good in whatever he's in but not even he could save this generic action film.

The Bourne Supremacy? There was nothing supreme about this film at all.