Thank you for Smoking review

 Number 637 on the top 1000 films of all time is the black-comedy Thank you for Smoking.

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a high-ranking cigarette exec who lobbies for the tobacco industry. He must carefully balance his job and his relationship with his estranged 12-year-old son Joey (Cameron Bright.) Sam Elliot, Katie Holmes, Rob Lowe, JK Simmons and Robert Duvall co-star.

This wasn't an absolutely awful movie. I could see its intention to be a satire and it definitely had its funny moments, but it was also quite superficial. There could have been a lot more depth. Nowhere is this more true than with the character of Nick Naylor.

It's quite obvious that he was supposed to be a shallow character and his character arc would show him maturing into somebody deeper. He is supposed to go from an unlikable, self-confident jerk into a man who can recognise the error of his ways. Except this doesn't really happen.

True, I would question how liable you could ever make a tobacco lobbyist. Especially one who cohorts with other lobbyists of other questionable industries or have difficult relationships with their children. But I also have an anti-smoking bias - always have done. This type of character would never appeal to me.

Nick Naylor reminded me of characters I have seen in George Clooney's films like  Up in the Air and Michael Clayton, but unlike those characters, Nick Naylor doesn't go through a satisfactory transformation. Or a transformation at all. He begins as an unlikable and immoral jerk and ends as a slightly less unlikable and immoral jerk. 

After his boss stabs him in the back, Naylor publicly calls him out. His boss goes up in smoke, as does the reporter who honey-trapped Naylor into revealing information that she uses for a damning expose. All the characters around him face consequences. Except for Nick Naylor himself. He unfairly goes off as a hero with a son who believes in him again. Although their relationship was never that damaged in the first place.

It's a shame as this film had lots of potential. But the pay-off was disappointing and unearned.

Lost Highway review

 Number 635 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's surrealist neo-noir psychological thriller 'Lost Highway.'

Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) is a saxophonist who is accused of murdering his girlfriend Renee (Patricia Arquette.) After being jailed, he mysteriously disappears only to be replaced by a completely different man - Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty) a mechanic who has connections with frightening mobster Mr Eddy (Robert Loggia.)

This is film is classic Lynchian horror - think Mulholland Drive. It is surreal beyond belief. Painfully surreal. And too often that surrealism got in the way of what could have been a very psychological thriller.

I'm not the smartest or most attentive of viewers so I struggle in following neo-noir films or even the old-time noir films like The Big Sleep at the best of times. This was only exacerbated by the surrealism. I could just about follow the storyline without the body-swapping or abstract dreams, but with? I was more lost than the titular lost highway.

This is probably a criticism of my own cerebral capabilities rather than Lynch's direction - although I would argue that the film started very slowly. It dramatised Fred and Renee's sexual relationship. It was probably only fifteen or twenty minutes, but it felt like it was going on for ages. And I think the film's pacing is a legitimate criticism. At times, it moved along at a blistering pace. At other times, all his momentum stopped whenever things got more abstract.

What I can't criticise is the casting of Robert Loggia who brought an electrifying energy to his role of Mr Loggia the bad guy. It had the same fear factor of Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet. Appropriately after being passed over for Blue Velvet, Loggia directed a tirade at Lynch - which is what subsequently won him the part here.

I've seen a few Lynch films now and with the exception of The Straight Story, I can't say I'm a fan. All too weird for me.

Spellbound review

 Number 634 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's psychological thriller Spellbound.

Dr Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is a reportedly icy and cold psychoanalyst at Green Manors mental hospital in Vermont. Upon the retirement of her old director, he is replaced by the far younger Dr Anthony Edwardes (Gregory Peck.) The two of them immediately fall in love, but then Dr Edwardes reveals that he is really an imposter who killed the real Dr Edwardes and is masquerading as him. Dr Petersen refuses to let this be the truth and two of them resolve to find the real killer.

In terms of Alfred Hitchcock thrillers, this wasn't one of his best. His thrillers are never the most believable - you can just look at Rope or the Lady Vanishes, and these types of films aren't supposed to be taken that seriously, but Spellbound was really pushing my suspension of disbelief to its absolute max.

The biggest problem? The central relationship between Doctors Petersen and Edwardes. Bergman and Peck didn't really have any chemistry together and neither of them had the charisma to lead such a big picture. I couldn't believe the two of them being together at all. This was strange for a number of reasons, least of all, as reportedly Bergman and Peck had an affair while filming. Obviously this off-screen chemistry didn't translate to the on-screen. 

Neither did the charisma or talent that Peck and Bergman showed in other films and performances. Peck was great opposite Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday and, of course, he went onto win an Acting Oscar for To Kill a Mockingbird. Meanwhile, Bergman was an accomplished actress in her own right starring opposite Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. She went onto become just one of a handful of actors to win three Acting Oscars. Separately, Bergman and Peck were legends in their own rights. Together? They were boring.

Unfortunately, as their relationship was the centrepiece of the film, it didn't make for interesting watching at all. Everything was just so unlikely. It's a shame as Hitchcock is often known as the master of suspense. But there was little suspense here...I really wasn't invested in learning how everything turned out at all. And with a psychological thriller like this? That's a major faux pas.

The Big Blue review

 Number 628 on the top 1000 films of all time is Luc Besson's French sports drama 'The Big Blue.'

Although The Big Blue was based on a real story, it is largely dramatised and fictionalised. It tells the friendship and later rivalry of two leading 20th century free divers Jacques Mayol (Jean-Marc Barr) and Enzo Molinari (Jean Reno.) It co-stars Rosanna Arquette as Mayol's fictional girlfriend Johana Baker.

This was very much the case of a film not landing properly for its audience. Its audience being me. Maybe a different audience would have appreciated this film more, but I found it overly-long, tedious and bloated. Perhaps that's because I had unknowingly watched the director's cut which is a good half-hour longer than the original version. But perhaps another reason is that the film was just boring with some strange casting choices.

I was a little puzzled as to why the very French Jean Reno was playing the very Italian Enzo Molinari (renamed from Enzo Maiorca.) Of course there is nothing wrong with an actor playing a character of a different nationality, but you would at least expect that actor to do the accent of their character. Jean Reno sounded as French as anything. It was like watching Sean Connery play the Italian Maiorca with his thick Scottish accent. Distracting to say the least.

The Big Blue reminded me a little of the film Rush. This film told of the rivalry between two famed racing car drivers: James Hunt and Nikki Lauda. Similar in plot to the Big Blue, but also similar in the annoyingness of the characters. Of course, it's impossible to become a champion of anything without having confidence in yourself, but there is a difference between confidence and arrogance. Hunt and Lauda, and, by extension, Molinari and Mayol definitely strayed into the arrogant territory. As their rivalry grew, so did their egos. And so did their unlikability as characters. True the producers did take lots of dramatic license, but it wasn't the best-employed.

All in all, the Big Blue was a pretty missable film. I don't think my life would have changed much if I hadn't seen it or its unlikable characters that I had no reason to care or root for.

Stranger than Fiction review

 Number 626 on the top 1000 films of all time is an IRS agent who lives a strictly-regimented life. Everything about him is boring. Everyday is the same. That is until he starts hearing author Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) narrate his life. When she narrates, he is going to die, he frantically tries to prevent his death. Maggie Gyllenhaal, Queen Latifah and Dustin Hoffman co-star.

Stranger than Fiction covered familiar thematic territory. You never know when you're going to die so you should make the most of the time you have left. It wasn't anything new, but the execution of the film made it feel fresh and original. I've seen almost 800 films on the aforementioned list and I can't remember seeing this plot before. It also led to some funny cases of dramatic irony as Harold Crick desperately tried to catch up to the audience and to Karen Eiffel.

I also thought the two leads were very good. Like many American comedy actors, I find Will Ferrell to be very over-the-top, but in a quieter, more reserved role, he was very good. Like other critics have noted, when comedy actors like Ferrell are given a chance to show their dramatic chops, they always shine.

Emma Thompson was also great as Karen Eiffel - a writer with serious case of writer's block. She has the perfect voice for narration, but was also great in front of the camera too - especially when she realises she ahs been narrating people to their deaths.

Less convincing was Maggie Gyllenhaal as anti-capitalist baker Ana Pascal. After Crick comes to audit her business, she initially seems to rebuff him, adopting an anti-my taxes-going-to-bomb-children attitude. But Crick then falls in love with her. More weirdly, she then falls in love with him. Would an anti-capitalist anarchist fall in love with a very a capitalist government agent? Highly unlikely. The two were not believable together.

It's a shame that the film was marred by this unrealistic relationship, as I did enjoy it. Its premise was highly creative and the lead actors were very good.

Cell 211 Review

 Number 622 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Spanish prison film Cell 211.

Juan 'Calzones' Oliver (Alberto Ammann) is a prison guard beginning work on the day a riot breaks out led by fearsome prisoner Malamadre (Luis Tosar.) To survive, Juan pretends he is one of the prisoners.

Cell 211 stormed the 2010 Goya Awards (Spain's version of the Oscars.) It was nominated for fifteen awards and won eight including Best Film, Actor for Luis Tosar and Best New Actor for Alberrto Ammann.

It was a good film although I'm not sure it was Best Film material. It wasn't the most subtle of films nor was it the most realistic. Obviously I've never been to prison before; my knowledge of it is based on what I've seen on TV and in the films, so it might not be the most accurate. From what I've seen, prison has always appeared to be a tribal place. There are different gangs of different ethnicities. Thus I found it unbelievable that a whole prison would unite behind the one leader of Malamadre. Rather it would be different factions who would work together under different leaders.

All the prisoners under Malamadre got on too well to be entirely realistic either. They're united in their opposition toward the prison system - however, in reality, I think there would be a lot more petty squabbling between the prisoners.

The nature of prison dramas means that the prisoners can sometimes be a bit one-note. Sure Malamadre was scary, brutal and charismatic, but that's all he was. He was missing the necessary depth to make Luis Tosar be truly deserving of the Best Actor Goya.

I was far more impressed with Alberto Ammann who really ran the whole gamut of emotion which made his character more believable. No wonder he won the Best Newcomer Goya award and then went onto to wow international audiences as the charismatic and terrifying narco-trafficker Pacho in Narcos.

Cell 211 wasn't a bad film. It also wasn't particularly believable or deep either. 

Milk review

 Number 624 on the top 1000 films of all time is Gus Van Zandt's biopic Milk.

Milk tells the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) the first openly gay publicly elected official in California. Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna and James Franco co-star.

As a rule, I'm generally not interested in biopics especially when I have no interest in the person being portrayed. I thought that would be the case when Harvey Milk, but I was proven wrong. Clever narrative framing and an Oscar-winning performance from Sean Penn was enough to change my mind.

A problem I have with biopics is generally they're just boring and try to include too much. You sometimes need a corkboard and a mile of string to keep track of everybody. However, Gus Van Zandt employed the clever framing device of Milk transcribing a letter that should only be read in the wake of his assassination (considering this is stated in the first few minutes I don't think that it's a spoiler to say that Milk was indeed assassinated.)

But this letter was a great way to frame the narrative and keep the audience grounded in the real. Of course, it helped that you had seen Sean Penn in the lead role. He rightly won his second of three Oscars for his portrayal. This is saying a lot as he was up against some stiff competition like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler and Richard Jenkins in the Visitor. However, it was Penn's ability to give a performance that was funny, serious but also inspirational to the right people that netted him acting gold.

I also really enjoyed James Franco. As a comedy actor, he can often be over-the-top, but as Milk's boyfriend and later campaign manager Scott Smith, I thought he had excellent chemistry with Sean Penn. Alas I cannot say the same for Diego Luna who played a later flame of Harvey Milk: Jack Lira. Lira was less formed as character and he felt more extraneous to the plot.

However, I think the film was initially missing a tangible villain. Sure you had Milk fighting an anti-gay system, but this isn't manifested in any one character. Not at first anyway. Sure you had the evangelist Anita Bryant who ran a rival political campaign on an anti-LGBTQ message, but she always felt too peripheral to be a true villain.

The film's true villain was Dan White (Josh Brolin) a fellow conservative city supervisor who often butted heads with Milk. Yet he doesn't appear until almost halfway throughout the film. Sure, Josh Brolin is always good, but it would have been better if he had appeared earlier in the film.

All that, notwithstanding, I thoroughly enjoyed Milk. Considering it was a biopic, I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would.