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.

When Harry Met Sally review

 Number 664 on the top 1000 films of all time is Rob Reiner's 1989 romantic-comedy When Harry Met Sally.

When Harry Met Sally follows the chance encounters of the two titular characters Harry Burns (Billy Crystal) and Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) as they meet and become friends, and potentially even something more, over a period of twelve years.

When Harry Met Sally aimed to answer the question "can men and women ever just be friends?" Harry is adamant they can't as the sex part always gets in the way. However, Sally is equally adamant that the opposite is true. Not every man wants to sleep with his female friends. Reiner explores this question in such an entertaining way. This was a very amusing film, which also had plenty of emotional payoff. However, it never falls into sentimentality or farce. Everything stays real.

Other than the question above, the key conflict is the will they/won't they of Harry and Sally's relationship. And this relationship worked so well because of the chemistry between Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan. Both of them were great separately and together. Although Crystal is primarily known as a comedy actor, he also made a good romantic leading man. The same can be said for Meg Ryan who lent the script lots of comedy, emotional depth, as well as the film's most iconic scene. You know which one I mean.

One critic described it as being a sitcom version of a Woody Allen film. I can definitely see the comparisons. You have the neurotic male lead, the faux-intellectual characters, a New York setting and plenty of jokes. The difference? When Harry Met Sally actually made me laugh a lot. It also had a very good supporting cast including Carrie Fisher and Bruno Kirby.

I thoroughly enjoyed When Harry Met Sally. It was a funny yet touching film. Can men and women ever be just friends? What do you think? Let me know in the comments below. 

Dunkirk review

 Number 617 on the 2024 list of the top 1000 films of all time is Christopher Nolan's war film.

Dunkirk tells the true-life story of the real evacuation of Dunkirk during World War II. The story is told from the three perspectives of land, sea and air. It features a large ensemble cast including Fionn Whitehead, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hardy and Harry Styles.

Christopher Nolan is well-known for his complicated sic convoluted films. From Memento to Interstellar, he loves a good plot twist. Yet what struck me so about Dunkirk was its apparent simplicity. I say "apparent" because Nolan doesn't do simple. However, Dunkirk showed a restraint and calculated hesitation that you don't often see in Nolan films. It helped that Dunkirk was only 100 minutes meaning Nolan had to direct everything as tightly as possible. He certainly did that.

In making Dunkirk, Nolan wanted to tell a WW2 story that focussed on survival and NOT heroism. This wasn't your Saving Private Ryan with grandiose tales about larger than life men. It was a stripped-back tale of men struggling to survive one of the biggest blunders of World War Two. This gave the film a startling amount of realism and authenticity. While there were plenty of emotionally heavy moments, they never once ventured into sentimentality. Cheesy speeches gave way to minimal dialogue.

And when I say stripped-back, I'm of course just talking narratively. Dunkirk had the usual terrific production value we would expect from a Nolan film. Everything from the special effects to the costumes and the props only added to the genuine feel of the film. Even the music was at a reasonable volume. Nolan's sound mixing is often off with Hans Zimmer score blasting over the dialogue. This wasn't the case here. The sound track pulsed along subtly in the background adding to the film without drawing attention to itself. It's no surprise this film won Best Sound Mixing and Editing Oscars.

Alas there were no acting Oscars, but it was an ensemble cast so this shouldn't be a surprise. All the cast were great in their different ways with all of them portraying everyday men pushed to the extreme. There was Mark Rylance and Barry Keoghan playing civillians helping the war effort any way they could, the always great Cillian Murphy as a shell-shocked soldier and Tom Hardy as a heroic RAF pilot. 

But Fionn Whitehead and Harry Styles were the surprise packages. Whitehead was a complete unknown actor while Harry Styles is, of course, best known as a singer - Dunkirk was both their debut film roles. Yet both of them were very good. We saw how the desperation of their situation pushed both characters to the absolute limits.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dunkirk. Nolan is a great director, but not when he is making complicated film with endless plot twists. His strength is taking real human moments and making them shine. That's where he succeeded with Dunkirk.

Rambo: First Blood review

 Number 660 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action film 'Rambo: First Blood.'

John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is a Vietnam war veteran with severe PTSD. He tries to pick up the broken pieces of his former life but soon, undeservedly, runs afoul of the local police department led by the overzealous Sheriff Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy.) After the cops chase him into the local mountains, Rambo must use all the skills he learned in Vietnam to survive.

I try to come into watching every film with an open mind. However, I was not expecting to like Rambo at all. I thought it would be just another of the generic, high-octane, maximum explosions, minimal characterisation popcorn flicks of the eighties. I was happy to say that I was proven wrong. Don't get me wrong...First Blood was everything I just described but it was also very entertaining. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. 

The initial part of the film was high on suspense. Unlike other action films, it wasn't bogged down in cheesy dialogue and endless explosions (I think Stallone only had 400 words of dialogue.) After he escapes from police custody and chased into the mountains, armed only with a knife, Stallone has to use his wits to survive. He fashions all manner of booby-traps to take out the cruel and prejudiced police officers. It was enjoyable watching an action character use his brains rather than brute strength to survive. Just like Rocky, John Rambo was a true underdog that you really want to root for.

I would argue Rambo isn't the deepest of characters - he is suffering from PTSD due to the torture he received in Vietnam - but he didn't need to be either. Rambo has minimal dialogue throughout the film, as his action speak very much for him. This is probably for the best as Stallone isn't really known for his acting ability. He is more known for just being a big meathead.

The film's short runtime of ninety minutes was definitely a huge benefit too. The shorter run-time really allowed director Ted Kotcheff to focus in on the core storyline of the film - Rambo's private war with a whole police department. There was no space for cheesy dialogue, endless explosions and gunfire or gratuitous slow-motion. Perhaps it helped that the film's script was rewritten and edited almost endlessly. This helped to cut out most of the narrative fluff.

First Blood was released to mix-reviews only to be critically reassessed as a pioneering action film of the eighties. I 100% agree with this assessment. It might not be a cinematic classic in the same vein studied endlessly in film schools like Citizen Kane or Stalker, but neither did it needed to be. It was just an entertaining popcorn flick. 

The Last Temptation of Christ review

 Number 659 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's epic religious-drama 'The Last Temptation of Christ.'

'The Last Temptation of Christ' is a semi-fictionalised retelling of the last days of Jesus Christ (Wilhelm Defoe) after he is betrayed by Judas (Harvey Keitel.) It portrays Jesus as battling against different temptations like love, sex and the devil himself.

Last Temptation felt like the wet fever dream of an American White Christian Nationalist. And Defoe's portrayal of Jesus Christ was like a crazed televangelist. Everything was just too surreal and bizarre to really take seriously. Although I enjoyed the original score which brought together traditional instrumentation and musicians from Pakistan, Egypt, Turkiye and Armenia, they sounded like something I would hear in the throes of a fever.

This was only exacerbated with Defoe's very peculiar portrayal of Christ, not as some benevolent saviour of humanity, but as a revolutionary who would bring about the revelation whether humanity was prepared for it or not. It was all very much this is my army and this is my revolution. I'm almost surprised that he didn't go all Pete Hegseth and start talking about holy wars, warriors and crusades. However, perhaps some of this might be down to the writing.

Last Temptation was based on Nikos Kazantzaki' book of the same name. It was adapted by screenwriter Paul Schrader. Despite how he received the credit, most of his script, including all the dialogue was rewritten by Scorsesee himself as well as fellow writer Jay Cocks. Perhaps that's why all of the dialogue seemed over-the-top.

The film was also over-long at almost three hours with the last part of the film acting as a superfluously long denoument/epilogue. Of course, Scorsesee is the same director who went onto to direct the marathon-long 'The Irishman,' so long films shouldn't be a surprise to me. Yet the length of Last Temptatin wasn't justified. And the ending just stretched on forever. 

It was a bit like LOTR with its ten endings. Don't get me wrong, LOTR will always be a GOAT of cinema, but did we need ten endings? Similarly here, did we need a fever dream ending on top of a fever-dream film? Too many dreams. Too much dreaming. It was like I was watching Inception again.

This isn't even getting into all of the controversy about the film. Last Temptation severely angered the Catholic church for portraying Jesus getting it on with Mary Magadelene, but just like the film itself, this review is becoming long and surreal. I'll finish it by saying I didn't care for this film at all.

One Battle After Another review

 One Battle After Another (OBAA) is too young to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time, but it won a whole slieu of Oscars at the 2025 ceremony including Best Picture, Director, Writing - all for Paul Thomas Anderson - and Best Supporting Actor - so I just had to watch this film.

Pat Calhoun (Leonardo Dicaprio) is a washed-up, former revolutionary who used to be the scourge of right-wing governments ever by leading the activity/terrorist group 'the French 75.' Sixteen years after a devastating defeat, Calhoun is a paranoid stoner living off-grid with his step-daughter Charlene (Chase Infiniti. Charlene's mother? Another member of the French 75- Perfidia (Teyana Taylor.) Captured by the tyrannical Colonel Steven Lockjaw - she was given the choice of imprisonent or freedom and sleeping with him. She chose the latter before disappearing into witness protection. However, when Lockjaw returns to threaten Charlene, Calhoun is forced to come out of retirement along with the help of Charlene's karate teacher Sergio St. Carlos (Benicio Del Toro.)

If you're going to watch this film, then I would recommend to be patient. Paul Thomas Anderson is not known for his long films - just like Magnolia and There Will be Blood - OBAA is over two and a half hours. It also takes a while to get going. The first thirty minutes shows the vicious actions of the French 75 as they cause chaos attacking government facilities and robbing city banks. It was all accompanied with pretty cheesy and cringy dialogue.

But if you get past the thirty minutes, you will be rewarded with a thrilling film. It starred Leonardo Dicaprio in one of his most unlikely roles ever. You see Leo Dicaprio as the star and you would expect him to be the one shooting at all the bad guys and taking the glory, but, if anything, it's every other character that shows heroism. Calhoun is merely a paranoid shell of his former revolutionary self. Don't get me wrong, Dicaprio did the paranoia well, but I kept expecting him to snap out of it and for him to become a hero. 

Yet that never really happened. Dicaprio did get a Best Actor nod, although I'm not sure if his role was worthy of such an honour. Although I would say that he was very funny in this film - this was probably one of his funniest film roles especially when he is trying and failing to remember all of the secret codes the French 75 used to communicate with each other. 

I cannot deny anything from the always terrific Sean Penn who won Best Supporting Actor for playing Steven Lockjaw - this was his third Oscar too. He beat out fellow co-star Benicio Del Toro - more on him later. Lockjaw was a great character and Penn played him well. He played him with enough ferocity to make him scary, but with enough restraint not to turn him into a cartoon. A deserving win indeed.

Del Toro would have also been well-deserving of a second Best Supporting Oscar win. His character of Sergio soon becomes one of Calhoun's biggest allies and I enjoyed seeing the two characters play off each other. It was a fun role played with lots of levity. But enough with the men, the women were great too. 

This was Chase Infiniti's debut role and she had great chemistry with Dicaprio, as she played his adoptive daughter. It was also great seeing her and all the other women characters like Perfidia getting stuck in the action. I feel like in modern films there's always a disingenuous need to showing "strong female characters who don't need no man," yet in OBAA, Charlene and Perfidia came across as nothing but genuine and authentic.

Prior to OBAA, Paul Thomas Anderson was probably one of the best directors not to have won any Oscars -  before OBAA, he currently had zero Oscars out of eleven nominations. However, this was remedied as OBAA netted him three Oscars. He really proved he was a master of his craft with some terrific cinematography especially in the film's climatic chase sequence.

Like I say, OBAA is too young to feature on any top 1000 films of all time list. Surely, it will feature on future editions. But that isn't the question. Was it truly worthy of the Best Film Oscar? I'm not so sure. It was a good film ... maybe even great. But best? I don't know... 

L'emmerdeur review

 L'emmerdeur is a 1973 French black-comedy which does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

Ralph Milan (Lino Ventura) is a contract killer preparing to assassinate his target in a hotel room. The only catch? The neighbour in the adjourning room - shirt salesman Francois Pignon (Jacques Brel) - is making preparations to kill himself. Milan has to stop his neighbour from suiciding otherwise the police will catch him in the act.

This film was a complete farce. It was a ridiculous scenario with ridiculous characters yet everything worked so well. It was a very funny film with oodles of black humour that are so popular in France or the UK. I can't see a film like this really having any success in the US. In fact Billy Wilder did do an American remake with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau which came and went without much fanfare.

Milan and Brel made the ultimate odd couple trope with Milan being forced to become a reluctant hero of sorts - he has to stop Brel killing himself, not out of any sense of altruism, but for his own devious means. Most of the humour stems from this comical situation. Pignon irritates the life out of Milan who has no choice but to tolerate it or be exposed by the police.

Just like the characters, the actors also were great together. Ventura served as a brilliant straight man to the comically and tragically pathetic Brel who is heartbroken after his wife leaves him. There is no assortment of both physical humour and witty tongue-in-cheek jokes yet there is also plenty of space for emotional pathos. Despite how Milan initially has nothing but contempt for Brel, we see a begrudging relationship form between the two men. 

L'emmerdeur was a thoroughly entertaining film. Silly and farcical yes, but very funny all the same.