The Skin I Live in review

 Number 677 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Spanish body-horror film The Skin I live in.

Dr Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas) Is a plastic surgeon who has pioneered a new form of human skin which is practically indestructible. He has done all this with the unwilling help of his human guinea pig Vera [Elena Anaya] but he is harbouring a dark secret. 

The Skin I Live In was directed by Pedro Almodovar well-known for directing other melo-dramas like All About my Mother and Talk to Her. These films also explored themes like transgenderism while navigating dark content with morally dubious characters. The Skin I Live In explored the same themes with the same level of darkness. This made it really difficult for me to get on with this film.

Big spoilers to follow

It's never a bad thing if films have morally complicated characters and, even better if they're morally dubious. This is what makes them interesting. However, there is a balance that needs to be struck. They can't be so morally deprived that the viewer loses interest in following them altogether. That's what happened here. There wasn't one character that I really wanted to root for.

Dr Robert Ledgard is the protagonist of the film so it's only natural that you want to root for him especially when you learn that he has a tragic past - both his wife and daughter died in tragic circumstances. Yet he has allowed this trauma to turn him into a resentful, bitter man engaging in human experimentation. Not the most likeable of characters.

Logic would then suggest that you should empathise with Ledgard's guinea pig: Vera - she is the woman that Ledgard has been experimenting on. Initially, she is very empathetic - THAT is until you find out about her dark past. Or should I say HIS dark past. Because Vera was a man called Vicente who secretly raped Ledgard's daughter Norma (Blanca Suarez.) 

The trauma of this coupled with the darkness surrounding her mother led to Norma taking her own life. And then this led to Ledgard holding Vicente hostage and effectively turning him into a woman. It's all messed up and weird, but Vera stopped being empathetic when you found out she began life as a male rapist. This isn't to belittle Elena Anaya's performance. She was well-deserving of the Goya award for Best Actress.

What characters are there left? Marilia (Marisa Peredes) Dr Ledgard's housekeeper and secret mother. Not only is she his mother but also mother to the horrific criminal Zeca (Roberto Alamo) who after having committed a robbery confronts Marilia at home and goes onto rape Vera. It's revealed that he and Ledgard are half-brothers - not that either of them know it, nor does it really pertain to the plot. It all felt like gratuitous, unjustified violence. And considering Marilia lies to everybody and is indirectly the reason Vera gets raped, it doesn't endear her to the viewer either.

What about poor Dr Ledgard's wife? Surely, you can like her? Well, Gal had a secret affair with Zeca and the two of them run off together. That is until a horrific car crash which Gal survives albeit with awful third-degree burns. There's not really a likeable character among the bunch.

And it's not a likeable film. I feel like there was a lot that I could have liked, but this was all undone by the unnecessary dark nature of the film.

Lethal Weapon review

 Number 675 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action thriller Lethal Weapon

Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is a hot headed army veteran with PTSD, traumatised from the recent death of his wife. He is partnered with the older and more experienced Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) to solve the mysterious suicide of a young woman during Christmas. 

Lethal Weapon was very much emblematic of 80's action films. It was corny, bombastic with campy dialogue and a very Mel Gibson performance. Despite all this, I really enjoyed the film

I'm not big on the action genre yet like Die Hard, I thought Lethal Weapon was a thoroughly entertaining film. The cheesiness, car chases, gun fights and explosions only added to the spectacle. 

I really enjoyed the chemistry between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. I don't much rate Mel Gibson as an actor - there is probably a reason he has won Oscars for directing/producing and not acting - but he and Danny Glover played well off each other.

They were certainly the most memorable parts of the film - much of the film's action sequences have blurred into one and the villains weren't particularly noteworthy.

I admit I enjoyed Lethal Weapon more than I thought I would. I thought it would be 2 hours of corny dialogue, hammy action and endless explosions and while it was all that, it was entertaining all the same.

The Crow review

Number 670 on the top 1000 films of all time is the gothic superhero film The Crow 

Eric Draven (Brandon Lee) Is a musician who is killed by gangsters who go onto rape and kill his girlfriend. After Draven is brought back to life, he swears revenge on his killers. Michael Wincott, David Patrick Kelly, Ernie Hudson and Jon Polito Co star.

 The Crow is one of those films where the behind the scenes drama has overshadowed the film itself. Of course I'm talking about Brandon Lee who died prematurely before the film's completion. His tragic death has lent the film a fame I'm not sure it could have achieved by itself. 

The Crow has gained a cult following after failing to hit the mainstream. I understand it was a gothic neo-noir-esque but did everything have to be so dark? I could barely see what was going on. It was difficult to get invested really. And a reminder the Crow came out in 1996 not 2026. 

It seemed like a cheap B movie in every regard from its production to its script and acting. Perhaps that could be attributed to its low budget. But the villains like Jon Polito were pretty campy as were the likes of Brandon Lee and the others.

This wasn't a film I could get invested in at all. Brandon Lee's death was a tragedy, but not even the mythical status his death gave to the film could save it. 

Little Children review

Number 668 on the top 1000 films of all time is the melodrama Little Children

Sarah Pierce (Kate winslet) and Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson) are both stuck in loveless marriages with young children to boot. In their sleepy Boston town, they begin an affair together but their happiness could be threatened when recently paroled sexual offender Ronnie Mcgorvey (Jackie Earle Haley moves into their neighbourhood. Noah Emmerich and Jennifer Connelly co-star.

Little children was written by Tom Perrotta who is best known for writing the Famed HBO TV series: The Leftovers. It was easy to see the similarities. Both projects focussed on the intricacies of everyday life - albeit in different ways. But they also explored some dark themes. And the darkness present here really turned me off this film.

This is a satirical melodrama so I guess it only makes sense having a character like Mcgorvey But I didn't like his inclusion at all. It was difficult to tell his purpose - was he there as the obvious villain? Possible but he doesn't really engage with our protagonists or is he there to draw sympathy? But can we ever feel sympathy for a PDFile/grapist? Not that we're expected to when we see how he has failed to reform at all. 

He just seemed so tangential to everything that I didn't understand his purpose to the plot. I guess he was a subplot but an irrelevant one 

I was still far more invested in Sarah and Brad's adulterous relationship even though it bordered on unbelievable at times. Seriously...nobody questioned why they were getting it on in the football stadium? I wouldn't go far to say that Kate Winslet is ALWAYS good but she was convincing here as was Patrick Wilson. I enjoyed seeing them try and fail to integrate into their communities. 

If only the film focussed more on them than Mcgorvey, I would be giving Little Children a more resounding review 

Army of Darkness review

 Number 666 on the top 1000 films of all time is the dark-fantasy comedy film: Army of Darkness.

Army of Darkness is the third film in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead franchise. Picking up from the sequel's ending, Army of Darkness follows Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) as he is sent back in time to the middle ages and unknowingly unleashes a demonic army into the nearby city. He becomes an unlikely and reluctant saviour.

Army of Darkness is supposed to be a comedy. It's supposed to be silly. You're not supposed to take it seriously. I had a feeling it was supposed to be one of those so-bad-it's-good films. Yet Army of Darkness, much like its sequel was just so bad it's bad. I had no idea why it featured on this list. I don't know why it's regarded as a comedy. There was nothing comedic about it. Not to mention, it was also repetitive - recycling the storyline of the second film, just with a different storyline. Everything was the same, even the protagonist and acting.

Bruce Campbell was ridiculously over-the-top and the script was littered with cheesy one-liner after cheesy one-liner. Again, I know this was entirely intentional but that didn't make it anymore enjoyable. My face wasn't hurting from laughing, so much as my eyes were aching from rolling back into my head so many times. It was just as ludicrous as the original story. Ash wasn't anymore likeable. He was plain annoying and I didn't particularly buy into or care about his reluctant hero storyline.

From a production standpoint, it also looked awful. The CGI was just awful. And don't give me any of this 'it was only the nineties blah-blah-blah' when Army of Darkness' contemporaries like Star Wars and Star Trek both had much better CGI. 

I know that Army Of Darkness was intended to be one of those so bad-it's-good films, but was the intention for it to be so-bad-it's-bad? Honestly, it reeked of an eighties B-movie. Maybe good as far as B-movies go. But we're talking about the top 1000 films of all time? Why are we letting B-movies anywhere near this list?

Top Ten unfunniest comedies on the top 1000 films of all time

 Since 2015, I have been VERY SLOWLY working through IMDB's 2015 edition of top 1000 films of all time. In that time, I have watched some absolutely hilarious films and some not-so-hilarious films. This list is about the latter. These are ten of the unfunniest comedies on this list. This is in no order but chronology. 

Mash (1970)

If you don't know the film Mash then surely you know the TV show. It is famed for having the most-viewed television finales in history. That means it was a critical and commercial success with everybody who watched it, right? Wrong. Christ, this was a tedious film. It featured Donald Sutherland in one of his most unappealing roles, as he Eliot Gould and Tom Skerrit played some of the jerkiest, most moronic characters in film history.

National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)

This is the film that inspired this list so you know how much I despise it. This film showed the USA's strange fascination with fraternities at its absolute worst. Thus far my perception of them has been annoying, alpha-male jerks drinking and getting into trouble. This film did little to convince me otherwise. It didn't help the characters were so stupid and unlikeable - too stupid to even be funny. Never mind laughing...I don't think I smiled once.

Manhattan (1979)

You just know Woody Allen had to feature on this list. God knows how he is considered a comedy legend...his films are painfully unfunny. Manhattan was no exception least of all due to its morally dubious premise. Woody Allen plays a neurotic, middle-aged comedy writer (basically the role he plays in EVERY FILM EVER) is dating a woman twenty-five years his junior and has to constantly justify his relationship to everybody. It's creepy beyond belief. But the film's one saving grace? The black-and-white cinematography was gorgeous.

The Goonies (1985)

The Goonies has featured before in my top ten worse film list, so you already know how much I hate it. I know that it's a favourite of Gen X and early millennials, but I absolutely hated it. It failed as a comedy. What's funny about having a group of annoying, pre-teen boys screeching their way through a film? Like nails down a chalkboard. Plus the film completely wasted Joe Pantoliano.

The Sandlot (April 1993)

I hated the Sandlot for the same reasons I hated the Goonies. Except the Sandlot was worse. There weren't five annoying kids, but ten of them. They all looked the same and very quickly got on my nerves. I couldn't tell one from another and I didn't really care. There was nothing funny at all about the film except for the numerous plot holes.

Dazed and Confused (September 1993)

If a comedy film doesn't make you laugh then it's failed as a comedy, right? That was strike 1 for Dazed and Confused. Strike 2? An unlikeable cast of characters including obnoxious bullies and equally obnoxious victims. Strike 3? Nothing interesting or funny remotely happens. But this film did launch Matthew McConaughey's career so that's something I guess...

Clerks (1994)

If a film only makes you laugh twice in ninety minutes then you know it's gone wrong somewhere. In fact, I think Clerks put me to sleep more often than it made me laugh. That's a big no-no for any comedy. Why did I fall asleep? The characters were annoying, but, more importantly, the film was just plain boring.

Happiness (1998)

Happiness is marketed as a dark comedy. While it was dark, it was certainly not funny. Or maybe I'm just a snowflake. Or maybe I don't like comedies which humanise nonces or voyeurs. It was all in bad taste. And there was nothing funny seeing PSH spunk himself and using that spunk to glue pictures to the walls. It was pure repulsion.

South Park: Bigger, Better and Uncut (1999)

I've never liked the South Park TV series, so it was no surprise I also hated the film. Call me a liberal snowflake all you want, but the humour was just so juvenile and immature. Maybe if I was a ten-year-old American, I would find it funny. But I'm a thirty-year-old Brit. And it was so repetitive. How many times are we supposed to laugh at the same joke happening over and over again? 

Despicable Me (2010)

Despicable Me also featured on one of my top ten worse films list, so that probably gives you an idea of how unfunny of a film it is. It features Steve Carell giving one of his worse comedy performances ever, but, beyond that, the humour is just plain juvenile. Come on Hollywood writers. How many times are you going to do a fart joke before it stops being funny?

What comedies did I forget to include? Let me know in those comments below. If you've become really pissed off at reading this list, you aint seen nothing yet. There will be another list coming soon enough.

Following review

 Number 665 on the top 1000 films of all time is Christopher Nolan's debut film - the neo-noir film Following.

The Young Man (Jeremy Theobald) is a struggling writer who takes to following people about London in search of inspiration. Instead he finds career burglar Cobb (Alex Haw.) A strange relationship forms between the two as "The Young Man" is drawn into a dark and shady criminal underworld.

Following took me by surprise. It was Christopher Nolan's debut film and I wasn't sure what to expect. And I certainly wasn't expecting a gripping, intriguing and tight neo-noir film. At a paltry 70 minutes not a single second is wasted. Despite being low on special effects and production value (more on that in a moment) it is still endlessly interesting.

Nolan directed, produced and wrote the film. It was easy to see the birth of his cinematic style that would come to dominate cinema in the decades to come. While not being as complicated as some of his other films, there were still plenty of twists which kept things so interesting. I guess it helped that Nolan practically had no budget whatsoever.

I'm not exaggerating. He made this film on £6,000 doing everything possible to keep costs down from having the actors wear their own clothes to using only natural light to rendering the film in black and white or filming in his friend's houses. Yet he didn't let any of this impact on the writing. And like any good director, he used this all to his advantage. Nolan created an endlessly fascinating setting - effectively everyday life but with a criminal twist. The black-and-white enhanced the noir aesthetic and the natural light gave everything a startling authenticity. 

I also loved the character of the Young Man and the mysterious Cobb as well as as the shady world they inhabited. It was difficult not to get drawn into this criminal underworld. Just like The Young Man, I found myself quickly manipulated by Cobb.

Speaking of Cobb, he was played by Alex Haw. The Young Man was played by Jeremy Theobald. Lucy Russell also co-starred. If you haven't heard of any of those names, I wouldn't blame you. They were all complete unknowns and haven't gone onto big careers - Following remains Alex Haw's only film role. Theobald had a couple of minor roles in future Nolan films, as well as some producing credits. Lucy Russell has had a handful of more roles but nothing spectacular. This is a shame, as the whole cast were brilliant.

As of 2026, Nolan has directed thirteen films and I've seen ten of them. I would probably say that Following is his most under-rated. I might even go so far to say that it was one of his best. It took me by complete surprise. And it was the last thing I would have expected from him.