High Plains Drifter review

 Number 652 on the top 1000 films of all time is Clint Eastwood's Western film 'High Plains Drifter.'

Clint Eastwood plays an unnamed lone gunslinger who becomes the unlikely saviour of a frontier mining town who are under threat from a trio of dangerous outlaws.

High Plains Drifter was definitely one of Eastwood's weaker Westerns and weaker films overall. It was a formulative, repetitive affair that followed the all-too familiar pattern of cowboy films: a mysterious stranger is drifting through a quiet sleepy town, when suddenly he turns into an unlikely hero. Throw in some equally unlikely love interests and lots of gun-shooting for good measure.

Clint Eastwood's unnamed character was little different to any other character he's played in any Western film or at all to be honest. He played similar characters in the Dollars Trilogy or The Outlaw Josey Wales, But in every film he basically plays a grumpy old man. This was the case here.

Yet he wasn't the only strange casting choice. None of the cast were particularly memorable especially Geoffrey Lewis, Dan Vadis and Anthony James who played the outlaws without any nuance or charisma. They were your daily villains. The female characters were pretty vapid too.

I could see Eastwood attempting to distinguish this film from its predecessors by leaning into a supernatural element. Was the mysterious gunslinger actually a ghost wreaking rightful vengeance? This was largely left up to the reader so who knows the truth?

But what is true is that this was definitely one of Eastwood's worse films.

National Lampoon's Animal House review

 Number 651 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Landis' comedy Animal House.

National Lampoon's Animal House follows the antics of the Delta Tau Chi fraternity as they cause chaos at Faber university. Their members include freshmen Lawrence "Larry" Kroger (Thomas Hulce) Kent Dorfman (Stephen Furst) lothario Eric Stratton (Tim Matheson) president Robert Hoover (James Widdoes) and drunken idiot John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi.)

This was quite possibly one of the worse comedies I've seen in a while. During the 109 minute runtime, I think I only smiled once or twice. There was no laughing in the aisles for me. Rather I was rolling my eyes so far back into my skull that you would think I was possessed. Christ, it was tedious rubbish.

It didn't help that the characters were all insufferable and indistinguishable from one another. I couldn't tell them apart. Not that I really cared. They were all so annoying from the new pledges to the experienced members and even the teachers were annoying. It reminded me of The Breakfast Club where I didn't have one memorable character to root for.

Maybe it's because I'm a damn limey, but I've never understood the American obsession with fraternities. They just seem like an excuse to get drunk and act like little dickheads all while being hidden under the bullshit facade of brotherhood. At least that was the case here.

Yet it wasn't even funny. So much of the humour seemed to be that typical, crude American rubbish. This was especially true of John Belushi whose performance here was a thousand miles away from his winning performance in the The Blues Brothers.

I just hated this film so much and it's best that we leave it there.

The Legend of Drunken Master review

 Number 650 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hong Kong comedy-Wuxia film 'The Legend of Drunken Master.'

Jackie Chan plays the real-life Wong Fei-Hung - a skilled practioner of the Hung Ga style of martial arts. While he and his father are travelling home to Canton, they accidentally switch boxes with a top diplomat, leading to Fei-Hung inadvertently stealing the imperial seal destined for the British consul. And the consul will stop at nothing to get it back.

As I'm sure you're aware of by now, I am not a fan of Wuxia films. Too often, I find they are style-over-substance. These are films are an excuse to show albeit well-choregraphed, but ultimately repetitive kung fu sequences.

The Legend of Drunken Master did little to move the needle. The real-life Fei-Hung was a pioneer of the Hung Ga branch of martial arts - a martial art designed to replicate the chaotic actions of a drunk person - I am not a Kung Fu connoisseur so correct me if I'm wrong. And the fictional Fei-Hung was a big drunk, which I guess was supposed to be some type of comedic irony.

Except there was nothing funny seeing Jackie Chan make a buffoon out of himself. Obviously, he can be very good at doing slapstick humour especially in Kung Fu sequences. However, it wasn't funny to see such a legendary action and comedy figure reduced to an imbecile. It also cheapened the terrific martial art sequences.

Like I say, I'm not a fan of kung fu/wuxia films. Judging by my reaction to the Legend of Drunken Master, that's not going to change anytime soon.

Munich review

 Number 649 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's historical thriller 'Munich.'

Munich dramatises the aftermath of the Munich Massacre where at the 1972 Munich Olympics Palestineans terrorists stormed the Israeli camp and took the team hostage, ultimately resulting in 11 Israeli athletes dying. In response, Israel launched a covert operation to hunt down the Palestineans. The film stars Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Ciaran Hinds and Daniel Craig.

Spoilers

We're starting with the film's most polarising scene which takes place at the conclusion. In my Garden State review, I said that if a director has his characters have a sex scene to show they're in there, they're not in love. Unfortunately, the great Spielberg fell into this trap.

Avner Kaufman (Eric Bana) is the head of the mission to kill the Palestineans. This is an operation which leads to him being apart from his wife for years. At the film's conclusion, he finally reunites with her in the form of a cringy sex scene that is juxtaposed with footage of the Israeli athletes being massacred. Some critics loved it. Others hated it.

I am in the latter camp. It was weird, unnecessary and cheap. It also detracted from the tragedy of the Israelis being killed. I can't even say it was titillation, as there was nothing titillating about it. A strange directorial choice from Spielberg.

He also made strange casting choices. I found Eric Bana less than convincing as the morally conflicted Avner Kaufman - one moment he was steadfast in his commitment to the Zionist state - the next he was questioning everything. Meanwhile, the usually charismatic Daniel Craig was reduced to the odd snappy one-liner.

The pacing was also off - we already talked about the weird sex scene, but clips of the massacre were interspersed through the film. One solid flashback either at the beginning or the end would have been less disruptive to the film's structure. It might also have reduced Munich's overly-long 160 minute run-time.

Odd scene choices, miscasting and bad pacing all contributed to a rare misfire from Spielberg.

Garden State review

 Number 646 on the top 1000 films of all time is the romantic-comedy drama 'Garden State.'

Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) is a failed actor who returns time after his mother dies. There he tries to mend his damaged relationship with his father Gideon (Ian Holm.) Natalie Portman co-stars as Andrew's compulsive-lying love interest Sam.

Garden State marked the directorial debut of Zach Braff. It was a very good debut. I was impressed particularly with the delicate and understated nature of the film. Perhaps this was down to the film's small budget, but it also showed Braff's confidence in his directorial skills.

This was most prominent in Andrew's relationship with Sam. It seems like in every film there's a gratuitous and out-of-place sex scene to prove that the characters are in love. Of course, if you need to do this, to show your characters are in love, they're not in love. However, Zach Braff deliberately chose not to include a sex scene between him and Natalie Portman's character of Sam believing it would detract from their relationship. I completely agree.

Instead their relationship grew organically and naturally. Sure you can argue that Sam was your average manic pixie dreamgirl cliche, but Natalie Portman was still good. She brought a charming charisma to the role.

Zach Braff was also very good in the lead role. He is best known for his starring role in the sitcom Scrubs, but he was adept at drama too. As a director, he balanced the drama and comedy well. It was emotional without being sentimental and comedic without being ridiculous.

Overall, I really enjoyed Garden State. It was a quiet, understated but strong film.

Dracula review

 Number 645 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 adaptation of the classic horror story 'Dracula.'

Dracula (Bela Lugosi) - a vampire from Transylvannia decides to emigrate to England in the hunt of fresh meat. Or, should I say, blood?

There is no denying Dracula's place in the pantheon of horror. Bram Stoker's original book was a pioneer of gothic literary horror for a reason. The same goes for the film. It is a titan of early horror and the horror genre in general. The hammer horror films of the sixties wouldn't have existed without this pioneering film.

As much as Legosi tried, he could never escape the shadow of his most famous character. A bit like a vampire, he was doomed to repeat himself for eternity. No doubt this type-casting led to his deteriorating mental health and drug addiction.

Dracula was also a film of its time with it slow pacing, shorter run-time and tiny budget being indicative of the early decades of cinema. The lack of musical score hurt the film's pacing. Its lack could be attributed to the high cost of adding music, as well as it still being too novel for audiences. Either way, it made the film quite dull.

Perhaps I'm being unfair in comparing Dracula to modern-horror films. Obviously, it has earned its place in the horror-movie canon, but it wasn't for me.

Nil By Mouth review

 Nil By Mouth does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

Nil by Mouth marked Gary Oldman's directorial and screen-writing debut. The film follows a highly dysfunctional family living on a South-East London estate. Ray (Ray Winstone) is the family's violent, bad-tempered patriarch, as well as petty crook. Val (Kathy Burke) is his long-suffering wife. Her brother Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) is a junkie. Rounding out the family is Ray's equally violent and aggressive best friend Mark (Jamie Foreman.)

Although Nil by Mouth does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time, it will surely be number one on the bleakest, most depressing, relentlessly dark films of all time. I might add it to my future lists of the films too traumatic to watch again. 

Why was it so depressing and bleak? I think the main reason was its unflinching authenticity. It had an unmatched gritty realism. It was like one of the kitchen-sink dramas of the sixties which would star Albert Finney and be written by John Usborne. 

Rumours abounded that Nil by Mouth was based on Gary Oldman's own life and family. This is only partly true. It wasn't based on Gary Oldman's own family but of people he knew and grew up with. Either way, the violence and aggression were difficult to stomach. 

This was only emphasised by the film-making itself. A lot of the camerawork seemed hand-held lit only by natural or dull lighting. This was a mile away from the bright glitz and glamour of Hollywood. There were also plenty of shots of Ray and Mark walking through Central London which looked like they were shot with ultra-long lenses. Far from extras, it seemed like they were filming unwitting locals out on a Friday or a Saturday night. Even if that wasn't the case, it still looked very authentic.

At the heart of this, we had the proto-typical hard man Ray Winston giving a brilliant performance as the psychotic Ray. Every bit his equal was Kathy Burke. I know she is primarily known as a comedienne, but she is just as good in dramatic performances. As Val, she cut the most pathetic and tragic of characters. Again maybe that's because of how pitifully real she was. There are far too many beaten wives screwed over by their hot-tempered husbands in the world.

I know I've been harping on about the realism, but Oldman definitely dropped the ball a couple of times with the script. On these occasions, the film's authenticity was undercut. One scene sees Billy and his mate running away from a guy they just robbed. They run and hide in a launderette. The guy looks ready to stab them. The next scene? Billy and his mate are locked safely away in jail. The audience is obviously supposed to infer what happened in the in-between but it was still a sudden cut.

But this was nothing compared to the film's ending which almost undercut the entire film. Spoilers

After Ray almost beats Val to death and she leaves him, the final scene sees them back together again all playing happy families. We're supposed to infer that Ray has turned over a new leaf and has left his beating days behind him. I hadn't seen enough evidence of that to be convinced. 

On a final note, I loved the film's score though. It shouldn't be a surprise it was so good as it was composed by Eric Clapton.

Those minor gripes aside, this was an impressive directorial debut from Gary Oldman. It was also a damn depressing one.