Running Scared review

 Number 849 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir crime thriller 'Running Scared.'

Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker) is a low-level mafioso present at a drug-deal gone wrong. A group of masked, dirty cops turn up and a shoot-out happens. Gazelle and his other mobsters shoot dead all the cops. Gazelle is then tasked with hiding the gun. He takes it home and hides it in the basement. It is later discovered by his son Nicky (Alex Neuberger) and his son's best friend Oleg Yugorsky (Cameron Bright.) Oleg steals the gun and uses it to shoot his abusive, Russian mobster stepfather Anzor Yugorsky (Karel Roden.) Gazelle is in a race against time to find Oleg and the gun before his mob, the Russian mob and the corrupt coppers.

Who decided this should be on the top 1000 films of all time? Was it a group of twelve-year-old boys? Because it looked like it had been written, filmed, edited and directed by a group of twelve-year-old boys. It was all so immature and juvenile. I'm talking gratuitous violence, cliched characters, absurd plot developments, ridiculous action scenes, terrible dialogue, objectified women - Joey's wife Teresa (Vera Farmiga) spent much of the film with her thong poking out of her jeans - and the effects, filters and grainy colour scheme that look like they're out of a 90's rap video.

Let's break these down in more detail. The film starts badly with the drug-deal going wrong. The corrupt coppers turn up and the violence ramps up. Gangsters and ex-coppers are flying across the screen in slow-motion. We see bloody mists and weird filters. It all just looked ridiculous. But this was nothing compared to the final sequence where Gazelle confronts the Russian and Italian mob at an ice-hockey stadium. The Russians hold him down on the rink and have one of their players shoot pucks at his face until he tells them what he wants to know. It was all just so laughable. And of course there was another of these stupid filters - this time, a blue-light filter. Eventually this breaks down into another chaotic shoot-out where you have no idea what's happening and don't know who is shooting who.

I did criticise Teresa's character, but that's not a criticism of Farmiga, but rather her writing. She is immediately portrayed as a sex object. Her introduction is her rubbing up against Gazelle on the washing machine with her senile father in the living room and son in her basement. And as previously stated, she then spends the rest of the film with her thong sticking out of jeans. It didn't seem like a very empowering role for Farmiga, but I think she did the best she could. 

In fairness, she did have some agency. It's just a shame it happened with such a crazy plot development. When Oleg is on the run after having shot by his stepfather, he is kidnapped by these two paedophiles Dez Hansel (Bruce Altman) and Edele Hansel (Elizabeth Burke.) They take him to their flat where they're going to film a snuff film. He is later rescued by Teresa who murders the two paedophiles.  But this was just absurd. It comes out of nowhere and the vivid colour scheme didn't fit into the grainy visuals of the rest of the film. Obviously, I'm sure this stuff does happen, but it just didn't fit into the film. I do wish they had given Farmiga much better material. She was very much a cliche.

But so were the rest of the characters. Gazelle is your standard hot-headed mobster, Chaz Palminteri is your corrupt cop and the Italian and Russian mobsters are complete run-of-the-mill. And there was also the weird side character of Lester-the-Pimp. Oleg stumbles upon the pimp abusing one of his workers. He was just another silly addition to an already bloated cast. The only character I really felt any sympathy for was Oleg's mother Mila (Ivana Milicevic.) Unlike most of the other characters she actually had some depth. She worked as a prostitute in Moscow before her pimp brought her to the United States. After getting pregnant, she is told to abort her child. She refuses and her pimp sends Anzor to kill her. Instead he marries her. Unlike everybody else, I actually felt sorry for her.

The ending was also super cheesy. There is a fake-out death with Joey Gazelle. He and Farmiga share lots of tears, but I didn't feel anything. Both characters were complete cliches and it didn't help that he and Farmiga lacked any real chemistry. Other than them having sex and yelling at each other, you never see any real relationship or any reason why you should root for them.

I've been working through this list for years now and I've seen a lot of films that I can acknowledge as being good films in their own right, but not for me. Running Scared is one of the first films I've watched that I can say was objectively bad.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre review

 Number 813 on the top 1000 films of all time is the horror classic 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'

Five  beatnik, hippie friends Sally (Marilyn Burns,) Jerry (Allen Danziger) Franklin (Paul A. Partain) Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn) are on a road trip through the rural US. But their dream trip turns into a nightmare where they run into a family of cannibals led by the formidable Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen.)

I'm certainly no horror aficionado, but I have noticed that modern horror films do not hold a candle to their predecessors of the seventies and eighties. Modern horror leans far too heavily into excess. There is too much of everything. Too much gore, too much tacky CGI, too many jump cuts. It's just all blood and guts. The aim is to gross-out the viewer instead of scaring them through a slow build-up and a strong atmosphere. This is where the Texas Chainsaw Massacre excelled. It was a terrifying film because of its subtlety and understated nature.

Being made on a tiny budget, there was no money for tacky special effects or an excess of gore. In fact, the most graphic image comes right at the start. We see a grave-robber tie rotting corpses onto wooden stakes for the whole town to see. But rather than leaning into grossing-out the viewer, director Tobe Hooper patiently built up the creepiest of atmospheres. He was brilliantly selective in what he chose to show the viewer and what he with-held. We're immediately introduced to his disconcerting world when the five friends pick up a deranged hitchhiker played delightfully Edwin Neal. He had this chaotic energy that made him terrifying but compelling to watch.

Later on when the five friends unknowingly arrive at Leatherface's house, we get little snippets of what is to come. Kirk finds a human tooth that he uses to scare Pam with before he is jumped by Leatherface who appears out of nowhere. When Pam goes to investigate his disappearance, she stumbles into a room littered with animal and human remains. Leatherface then discovers her, impales her on a meathook and dismembers Kirk in front of her eyes. Yet we see precious little of the dismemberment and we don't need to. The imagery of the hidden teeth and human remains is all we need to see.

And because Hooper was so selective in what he showed us, this made his use of jump-scares all that more effective. Come evening time with all their friends go missing, Sally and Franklin, against their better judgement, start looking for them in the dark forests. Leatherface appears out of nowhere and kills Franklin with the chainsaw. This was enough to make me jump out of my seat. And this also left Sally as the final girl.  I always thought Halloween was the first horror movie to employ the final girl trope, but it looks that honour actually goes to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 

However, unlike Halloween, I genuinely did not see any way for Sally to survive. I certainly didn't think there would be any deux ex machina. Instead, she is able to run away when the cannibals start squabbling amongst each other. But this tension, as to how or even if she could survive helped keep me on the edge of my seat.

Sure, you could argue that this narrative was propelled by stupid characters making stupid decisions. We all know now that you should never pick up hitchhikers. And our heroes are literally warned away from visiting Leatherface's house. And surely if you find a human tooth on the front porch of a house then that's a good reason not to go any further. But this was the seventies after all. Just emerging out of the era of free peace and love, stranger danger wasn't a thing yet and everybody was overall more trusting of each other.

While I am not a big horror movie fan, I can certainly appreciate why this is considered a goliath of a genre. It was subtle, understated, but with powerful and terrifying performances. And it is probably the best PSA for why you should never pick up a hitch-hiker. 

Open Range review

 Number 817 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2003 Revisionist Western 'Open Range,' directed, produced and starring Kevin Costner.

Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and Charley Waite (Kevin Costner) are two cattlemen hired to drive a herd across the state of Montana. But they quickly get on the wrong side of the local town mayor Denton Baxter (Michael Gambon.)

This Western strongly reminded me of the great Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960's. Of course, I'm talking about Sergio Leone who dominated the genre with his "Dollars Trilogy." Costner employed the same fantastic cinematography that made those old Westerns so visually stunning to watch. I loved the sweeping visuals of the great American landscape. It really emphasises the immensity and isolation of living in such an expanse.

Unfortunately, Costner traded off great cinematography with a plodding narrative. The pacing was slower than it had any right to have been. Except for the ending, which we'll get to, much of the pivotal violence happens off-screen. For example, Baxter's men attack Spearman and Waite's two ranch-hands killing one and badly injuring the other. We knew this was coming, so there was no surprise reveal. But because we didn't see this violence, we don't get to see Baxter's true villainy - or, in this case, his hired gun Butler (Kim Coates) who led the attack. Either way, Gambon's presence as a villain was severely hurt.

In the build-up to the climatic sequence, we get lots of banter between the two leads delivered in Duvall's most gravelly and Costner's all-American tones. And this wasn't the most interesting to watch. Waite also purses a relationship with the doctor's sister Sue Barlow (Annette Benning) which I found a little unbelievable. An attractive older woman like Benning has managed to stay single for just long enough for the cowboy Costner to sweep her off her feet?

We plod along to the final gunfight between Spearmen, Waites, and Baxter, and his posse. By all accounts, this should have been the most exciting part of the film, but we spent so long getting here that I had almost lost interest, The super-powered guns and questionable physics did little to help things either.

To be honest, I've never been keen on Westerns. Sure, they look great on-screen, but cowboys has never been something that's interested me. Open Range did little to change that opinion.

The Town review

 Number 729 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ben Affleck's crime-drama 'The Town.'

As well as directing, Ben Affleck stars as Douglas "Doug" Macray, a bank-robber who is looking to go straight. After his latest heist goes wrong, where his crew Jeremy "Jem" Coughlin (Jeremy Renner,) Albert "Gloansy" Macgloan (Slaine) and Desmond "Dez" Elden (Owen Burke) take bank manager Clare Keesey (Rebecca Hall) hostage before releasing her later, Doug begins keeping track of her. The two eventually fall in love. But for Doug to escape the life completely, he has to do one last job as ordered by local crime boss Fergus "Fergie" Colm (Pete Poselthwaite.)

What followed was a largely generic and banal action-thriller spearheaded by a largely wooden performance by Ben Affleck. Since starting this list, I've seen him in a few films, like Argo, which he also directed. And I would argue he is better as a director than an actor. It doesn't matter whether the role is a rough-round-the-edges hero or a bad boy turning good, he isn't very expressive. He just always seems to have a permanent scowl on his face. And there isn't a whole lot of emotion there. There are plenty of emotional scenes, or scenes that should be emotional, but Affleck couldn't really carry them off.  And since I wasn't invested in him as a character, I wasn't really invested in the storyline. Although he was nominated for Best Actor Bafta for his role in Argo, so what do I know? 

Affleck's lack of chemistry with Rebecca Hall didn't do much to help things either. Also a brief note on Rebecca Hall's accent. What was up with that? She's English, but at times it sounded like she was switching back and forth between English and Bostonian.

Much more convincing was Jeremy Renner. He plays Doug's childhood best friend and fellow bank-robber Jem Coughlin. Unlike his friend, he has no desires of leaving the life behind which sets up some nice conflict between the two. Renner was far more charismatic to watch and his storyline was more compelling. And it's a shame Poselthwaite was so under-used. He's a great actor so he should have had a far greater screen-presence. 

This wasn't a film I enjoyed very much if you didn't already guess. Sure it was watchable enough, but Affleck's wooden performance stopped it from achieving any true greatness in my eyes. 

A Single man review

 Number 725 on the top 1000 films of all time is the period romantic drama 'A Single Man.'

Colin Firth stars as George Falconer, a gay, English academic in 1960's Los Angeles. He is left suicidally depressed after his lover Jim (Matthew Goode) is killed in a car accident. But through his interactions with his best friend - fellow English expat Charley (Julianne Moore) and student Kenny Potter (Nicholas Hoult) he begins to re-evaluate his attitude to life.

A Single Man was directed by fashion designer and perfume-maker Tom Ford in his directorial debut. And it definitely felt like it was directed by a fashion designer. At times it seemed like an extended perfume advert. You do get some perfume adverts that look stunning like K by Dolce & Gabbana or Chanel no. 5. Other perfume adverts are ridiculous and over-the-top. But whatever camp they fall into, perfume adverts are generally style-over-substance. I would argue the same here.

The art direction consisted of sepia and monochrome filters, gratuitous slow-motion, multiple sequences set to grandiose classical scores and strange shots of men swimming in water tanks. At times it worked - I loved the shot of George crying in Charley's arms after learning of Jim's death - the sequence was set to music, so you heard none of Firth's crying. But mostly, the art direction was self-indulgent, pretentious and it bloated up the film. A Single Man is a relatively short film clocking in at roughly 100 minutes, but it seemed like much longer.

As well as a perfume advert, A Single man reminded me of one of the old, dusty books that I studied in university. Some type of academic, overly-intellectualised text where nothing happens except for in the character's heads. This did lead to a dull and boring film. Obviously you don't need gun fights and explosions, but you need some type of drama or tension.

Charley and George do have one fight which did provide an edge that the film was dearly missing. Otherwise, everything was so monotone. The mood never changed. Throughout it was downbeat, slow and introspective.

I also hated the ending. The whole film is about George overcoming his suicidal thoughts and coming to terms with his grief. Just when it looks like he has done so he *spoiler alert* suffers a heart attack and dies. At best this is a copout and at worst this is lazy writing. I guess it's easier to kill a character rather than have them trying to process and live with this guilt and sorrow.

This was all a shame as the narrative itself wasn't inherently bad. Sure it's simplistic, but it had the potential to be a really interesting character study. Instead, this was all lost in overly-flashy visuals.

House of Sand and Fog review

 Number 656 on the top 1000 films of all time is Vadim Perelman's psychological thriller 'House of Sand and Fog.'

Kathy Nicolo (Jennifer Connelly) is a recovering addict who is evicted from her San Fransisco house by the country office. She maintains the county has made a mistake, but her home is repossessed nonetheless. Moving are the Iranian Behrani family led by patriarch former Colonel Massoud Amir Behrani (Ben Kingsley.) Kathy is determined to get her home back by any means necessary.

This was an intense, psychological thriller that doesn't let up for a minute. It is taut and gripping with a whole host of morally dubious characters. I enjoyed the deep characterisations. No character was simply black or white - they are all complicated with their own troubled pasts. But these complexities are what made them so fascinating to watch.

Kathy is adamant to regain her house and deliberately disobeys her lawyer to directly confront the Behranis. She is a deeply troubled woman whose drug-addled past has estranged her from her family and husband. Her house is the only thing she has left. Conversely, rather than sticking to the past, Massoud Behrani is determined to make a fresh start for his family in the US. He is a proud man who refuses to show any weakness in front of his wife and son.

Ben Kingsley is brilliant in the role taking us through the journey of a broken man trying to start again. having once commanded considerable respect, he is forced to work menial jobs to make ends meet. Kingsley's star was so bright that he even blotted out Jennifer Connelly. This is no disrespect to Connelly, but I don't think her writing was anywhere as compelling as Kingsley's.

She lacked the same agency as Massoud had - much of her battles are fought by her self-styled knight in shining armour - sheriff's deputy Lestor Burden (Ron Eldard.) As the narrative momentum built, Kingsley's story took over. This culminated with Connelly being all but absent in the final act. A failed suicide attempt sees her lose consciousness and, instead, the final confrontation takes place between Massoud and Lester. Jennifer Connelly receives star billing and Kathy is the protagonist, but she is somewhat relegated to a side character.

Also a quick shoutout to Eldard. He was great as the sheriff's deputy Lestor Burnham. You could argue his over-protective nature of Kathy was a little over-the-top - he even leaves his family to start an affair with her. But when everything goes wrong at the end, he is more than happy to pay the price for his crimes. This did help him go through a redemption arc of sorts.

This is a tragic, but a thrilling film. It was a great watch with a masterful performance of Ben Kingsley. it's just a shame that Connelly wasn't afforded the same chance to shine.

Zodiac review

 Number 640 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Fincher's mystery thriller Zodiac.

Telling the true story of the investigation into the infamous Zodiac killer, 'Zodiac' stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo. Jake Gyllenhaal stars as San Fransisco Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith and Downey Jr plays crime reporter Paul Avery. Both journalists become so obsessed with investigating the Zodiac killer that their lives quickly fall apart. Rounding out the trio is police inspector Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo.)

There's no denying the Zodiac killer has its place in the cultural zeitgeist. This film was released in 2007, a good thirty-three years after he supposedly stopped killing. Buzzfeed's video concerning Zodiac has over 15 million views. A few years ago there was even a running joke that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac killer. The Zodiac Killer is a cultural phenomenon and David Fincher capitalised on this brilliantly. Drawing inspiration from Robert Graysmith's true-crime books 'Zodiac' and 'Zodiac unmasked.' Fincher is a great thriller director, but he has a tendency to be gratuitous in his depiction of violence. Se7en is a top example of this. However, he shot Zodiac with a nice level of restraint. I thought we would be seeing Zodiac brutally torturing and killing his victims, but Fincher was far more subtle than this. 

Although what he had in subtlety, he lacked in pacing. I would argue that the film was unevenly paced. It is set between 1969 and 1991. And things move along very quickly. Too quickly, I think. Fincher would show one scene in a particular year and then move on before you have time to get your breath. You would see a scene from 1970 and then the next scene is in 1971. You don't have time to adjust to one scene before it has moved onto the next. This fast-paced nature did make things hard to follow at times. 

However, Fincher did well to always keep the suspense up. I'm not an expert on the Zodiac killer, but I know that he was never identified or caught. I was wondering how this might affect the ending. Would Fincher stay true to life or take creative license? He stayed true to life and left the identity of the Zodiac as ambiguous - although heavily implied to be the suspicious Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch,) but this could never be proved. I think if Fincher had offered a definitive solution would have been disrespectful to the real victims of the Zodiac killer. 

If anything, this film was about obsession. Both Graysmith and Avery become obsessed over finding the true identity of the killer and it costs them everything. Graysmith loses his family and Avery turns to drugs and alcohol before eventually losing his job. Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr were great in their parts. Downey Jr played Avery with the usual aloofness that he affects to all his roles, but Gyllenhaal was more understated as the quieter, socially awkward Graysmith. Although that isn't really unlike much of his other roles. But I particularly liked John Carroll Lynch who was heavily suspected of being the Zodiac killer. He played the role with an arrogance and a menace like he knew that he was untouchable. And he was. He died before he could be officially charged.

True, Fincher's pacing is uneven in places, but Zodiac is still a great thriller with genuine scares that don't lean into gory, as well as a tense plot that will keep you guessing. Will we ever find out the true identity of the Zodiac killer? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Training Day review

 Number 613 on the top 1000 films of all time is 2001 crime thriller Training Day.

Set over twenty-four hours in a rough LA neighbourhood, Training Day explores the relationship between two police officers: the maverick, borderline corrupt, Narcotics detective Alonzo Harris (Denzel Washington) and his new rookie partner Jake Hoyt (Ethan Hawke.)

Training Day pits two moralities against each other: Harris' the ends always justifies the means and Hoyt's justice over vengeance. Whereas the naive and innocent Hoyt wants to play by the rulebook, Harris rips it up and throws it out the window. He is adamant that his own brand of justice is what produces results from faking search warrants to unlawfully shooting suspects and covering up their murders. Hoyt has to battle hard to tow the line. The last thing he wants is to be sucked into Harris' corrupt ways.  But which form of justice is best?

Training Day makes a compelling argument for both. There is a time for following the rules and a time for breaking them. Breaking the rules, all the time, like Harris does, makes them redundant. But you can't be rigid, like Hoyt, and follow them to the letter. Which morality is better? That's for the audience to decide.

Denzel Washington won the Best Actor Oscar and while he brought a realism to the character, I don't think his performance was oscar-worthy. We've seen the corrupt cop who breaks the rules to get the job done time and time again. While Washington brought a charisma to the role, he was over-the-top. His adlibbed line "King Kong aint got shit on me" just sounded stupid.

Ethan Hawke was more convincing as the still wet-behind-the-ears Hoyt. It is his actions that drive the plot forward. Despite Harris' warnings, he stops two junkies trying to rape a teenage girl - an intervention that later saves his life when Hoyt is about to be killed by Mexican gangbangers. And it is Hoyt's refusal to go along with Harris' cover-up of a murder that brings them to odds. Perhaps you could argue Hoyt symbolises every wide-eyed, newbie cop determined to save the world while Harris is the cynical, jaded, washed-up copper beaten down by the world he has been trying to save. And rather than playing the victim, Harris spins the opportunity to his advantage.

Training Day had a nice authentic current running through it. Director Antoine Fuqua gained permission to film in neighbourhoods belonging to the 'Bloods' gang in exchange for Blood gangbangers appearing in the film. However, the ending seemed odd. Harris and Hoyt get into one final confrontation in a barrio where Harris holds control over the residents. The whole neighbourhood comes to watch. While they were initially Harris' acolytes they betray and even threaten to shoot him. I guess they were sick of his bossing them around and I suppose they had lost respect for him, but this is pure supposition in lieu of any real explanation. And it was all pointless anyway as they don't kill Harris. Instead he is later shot by the Russian mob who he has had an off-screen run-in.

Training Day was a good film if a tad overrated. Hawke was great, but the ending was strange. And Washington was more cartoon than actual character.

Little Miss Sunshine review

 Number 414 on the top 1000 films of all time is the tragicomedy road film 'Little Miss Sunshine.'

Olive (Abigail Breslin) is the youngest of the Hoover family - possibly the most dysfunctional family in the US. Her father Richard (Greg Kinnear) is failing motivational speaker, her older brother Dwayne (Paul Dano) is an angsty teenager who has taken a vow of silence. Her uncle Dr Frank Ginsburg (Steve Carell) has recently been released from a mental hospital after trying to commit suicide and Olive's grandfather Edwin (Alan Arkin) snorts heroin and swears every other minute. Rounding them out is Olive's mother Sheryl (Toni Collette) who is on the verge of a breakdown trying to get her crazy family from New Mexico to California so Olive can participate in a child beauty pageant.

Little Miss Sunshine is a brilliant feel-good film. It is hilarious, but heart-breaking. Tragic and touching. It engages with many difficult themes in a sensitive way. Least of all is the idea of body image and self-confidence. Olive is not your typical child beauty queen if there is such a thing. She is worried that she isn't pretty or skinny enough, but her grandfather is the first person to convince her otherwise. Olive and Edwin's relationship is at the heart of the film. Breslin and Arkin had a great chemistry and played well off each other. Arkin won Best Supporting Actor and deservingly so. True, you could argue that he is your stereotypical, grumpy un-PC baby boomer grandpa, but he played the part damn well. And it is his grumpy un-PC ways that provide a lot of the film's humour.

The rest of the supporting cast is just as good. As a comedy actor, I sometimes find that Carell can be quite over-the-top, but he played the role with a lot of restraint, while still being funny. Paul Dano is often cast as a moody outsider sic Prisoners or There Will be Blood. But he gave Dwayne some vulnerability and stopped him from being just another stroppy teenager. Perhaps you could argue the script short-changed Toni Collette as her character doesn't have the same eccentricities as the others, but she still acted as the glue that held the family together.

And I loved how directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris lampooned the grossly exploitative nature of child beauty pageants. This was intentional as writer Michael Ardnt wanted to portray the horribly competitive nature of these contests. They divide little girls into winners and losers often shattering their self-esteem in the process. Except for Abigail Breslin, all of the other contestants were real-life child beauty pageant winners. Or should I say little girls being exploited so their power-hungry parents can gain status.  

But when Olive performs an intentionally risque dance she is almost shut down, but her whole family quickly joins in. The whole notion of beauty pageants boils down to sexualising and disempowering little girls, but when Olive reclaims her power, she is punished. I loved how this hypocrisy was tackled head-on.

I did enjoy this film. There were great gags, but it also had a lot of heart. And Breslin and Arkin were fantastic together.

La Vie En Rose review

 Number 603 on the top 1000 films of all time is the musical biopic La Vie En Rose.

This French film tells the story of famed singer Edith Piaf, otherwise known as the Little Sparrow. Marion Cotillard stars as Piaf. From her impoverished childhood to her untimely death, we see the rise and fall of France's national chanteuse. 

I didn't like this film. It wasn't just that the subject matter didn't interest me - I am neither French nor a baby boomer so Edith Piaf has never been something that's high on my music list. Call me a culturally ignorant millennial, but c'est comme ca. I didn't like the way the story was told. It seemed random, chaotic and very incohesive. Like many other films it is told in a non-linear fashion and regularly plays around in time. 

It opens up on Edith as an adult and then cuts to her childhood and then to her as an adolescent, but whereas with other films there is a logic to this time-jumping, I failed to see any logic here. It was like the film-makers had realised at the last minute they had forgotten something important and stuffed it in anywhere they could. For example, near the end of the film we find out she has a child who died from Meningitis. We find this out in a flashback, but why was something of this magnitude not revealed until so late in the film? Not to mention all the numerous flash-forwards where we see Edith's ailing health.

And I certainly don't mean to diminish Marion Cotillard's performance. She won the Best Actress Oscar for this role - just one of six actors to win the award for a non-English speaking role - and she was good as Piaf. We bore witness to the many trials and tribulations of Piaf's life and Cotillard took us through her emotions well. And I think she embodied the character well. Reportedly she shrunk her already petite 5"6 frame to reach Piaf's diminutive 4"11 role. And I do remember reading somewhere that she worked with a dialect coach to capture Piaf's speaking voice as best as she could, although all the singing was dubbed by French singer Jil Aigrot.

Maybe this film would have been better suited to a lover of classic French music and not a philistine like me, but c'est la vie. Non, je ne regrette rien. 

Detachment review

 Number 570 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2011 drama 'Detachment.'

Henry Barthes (Adrien Brody) is an emotionally closed-off substitute teacher who drifts from job to job. But in his latest assignment to a failing inner-city school, he forges strong connections with three young women - fellow teacher Sarah (Christina Hendricks,) a sex worker Erica (Sami Gayle) and troubled student Meredith (Betty Kaye.) These personal relationships soon have him questioning his professional detachment. 

There is no denying that there is an teaching crisis in the US. There is a shortage of 300,000 teachers with more an d more teachers leaving due to burn-out, massive class sizes and woefully inadequate funding. Covid brought a whole new set of challenges. And a lot of teachers feel unsupported by their superiors. Hell, some teachers are resorting to crowd-funding or paying for supplies out of their own pocket. It's just ridiculous.

I'm UK-based, but things are little better here. I have an SEN-teacher friend whose students come from broken families. Their parents are drunks and junkies who couldn't care less about their kids. I knew another teacher who taught over the pandemic and had virtual parents' evenings where the parents would turn up drunk or high. At school, I can attest we were little shits to our teachers with them storming out or having breakdowns on the regular. As an adult, I respect teachers so much. I could not do that job.

Detachment takes all of these issues and treats them with great sensitivity. We see everything through the eyes of substitute teacher Henry Barthes - he is a wounded man who is carrying around the trauma of seeing his mother's suicide as a child. He is also a lonely man with no family. Despite this, he refuses to give up on any of his students and encourages them all to achieve their potential. True none of them perform a full 180, but you can definitely a see a chance from the start to the end of the film.

A lot of that is down to Henry Barthes. You repeatedly tell a student he's always going to be a failure, he may start to believe you. But if you believe in them, they may believe in themselves. That's what the best teachers do. I very much enjoyed Brody as Barthes and Hendricks as Sarah. There is one particularly touching scene where she helps one struggling student with his maths work. He brought an authenticity to the character. Perhaps some of that is down to Carl Lund's script. He was a teacher so he was able to bring a lot of realism to the writing especially in how the teachers interacted and related to each other.

Many of the issues presented here seemed painfully realistic. From the unruly children to the parents blaming teachers for their children's failures - Sarah has one mother scream in her face after her daughter is expelled - to the government officials blaming the teachers for their under-achieving students. Isiah Witlock Jr had a small, but great role as government official Mr Mathis. He is there to help the school achieve its potential, but insults the teachers by implying their failings is making the whole area look bad. Very quickly the veneer slips and he quietly threatens the school principal. He reminded me of every pompous, holier-than-thou nit-picking jobsworth who only cares about money or reputation. He was thoroughly unlikeable, smarmy and malicious character.

Lucy Liu also had a small role, but she was also great as guidance counsellor Dr Parker who has a mental breakdown after trying her best to help her students, only to have them throw it back in her face.

My sister has been a teacher most of her life and she has said that teachers are expected to do so much more than the 9-5. They're expected to work in their free time and on weekends. But more than that, they're expected to be mentors and surrogate parents. That is very much what Henry Barthes is with the sex worker Erica and the troubled student Meredith. It is heavily implied that Erica is under-age and Henry takes her in and becomes a surrogate father to her. The two of them open up to each other, and with Henry's guidance, Erica starts to take more personal responsibility. Sami Gayle brought a lot of vulnerability to the role and this makes her ultimate fate all the more tragic. Feeling he is becoming too close, he calls social services to take Erica away.

But the true tragedy lies with Meredith whom Henry also becomes a surrogate father for. She is badly bullied by her classmates and has an abusive relationship with her father. Her only creative outlet is her photography which she uses to express her emotions. Henry and Meredith begin connecting more deeply until he realises that he may be crossing his own personal boundaries and he pushes her away. This ends horrifically with Meredith committing suicide. But this storyline highlights a conflict that most teachers go through. How do you stay professionally detached from somebody who is in your care? Especially somebody as young and as troubled as Meredith.

However, with so much going on in one film, it was unfortunate that some story-lines were short-changed. Henry and Sarah have a small romantic relationship, but this wasn't explored in enough detail to have truly been effective. I think this was a shame as Sarah's influence would have helped Henry reconnect with his emotions. Yet we didn't focus on this enough for it to have any major impact on his character. The film is just over an hour-and-a-half long, but I think an extra twenty or thirty minutes would have helped to round out this subplot.

But nevertheless, this was a great film that would have otherwise flown under my radar. And every respect to teachers. I tip my hat to you.

Whale Rider review

 Number 606 on the top 1000 films of all time is the New Zealand drama 'Whale Rider'.

Set in modern-day New Zealand, Whale Rider is about Kahu 'Paikea' Apirana (Keisha Castle-Hughes,) a twelve-year old Maori girl who dreams of becoming the chieftain of her tribe, despite the fierce opposition of her grandfather Koro (Rawiri Paratene) who is adamant that the chieftain should always be male. Paikea works hard to overcome these patriarchal traditions.

It was a joy watching this film. I was fortunate enough to visit New Zealand in early 2020 and even more fortunate to attend the Tamaki Maori village. This was a fantastic experience which taught me a lot about the Maori culture and Maori traditions. And it was lovely revisiting some of these memories within 'Whale Rider.' And it was also great seeing the beautiful New Zealand landscape again.

One of the things I've loved about this challenge is that I get to watch films that I would otherwise have never heard of. And Whale Rider was a film that was definitely not on my radar, but I did enjoy it. It's strange, because the film seemed to give off a very low-budget feel, despite having a budget of almost 10 million New Zealand dollars. There wasn't any explosions, CGI or special effects and the film quality never seemed that high, but maybe that's because this was filmed in 2002. Despite that, I did enjoy watching it. Keisha, in her feature film and acting debut, gave a great performance as Paikea. She was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar and deservingly so.

I feel like it's all too common for a lot of children to feel like the black sheep of their families. They feel like they don't live up to expectations or have unsupportive, strict parents. A lot of well-meaning, but misguided parents can fail to properly support their children to realise their goals. Or as in Koro's case, they do everything in their power to stop them. This could have made Paikea a bitter and resentful character, but, instead, she was empowering and inspirational. She was determined to overcome the obstacles placed before her and that determination made her very endearing to watch. After her conflict with her grandfather comes to a head, Paikea gives an emotional speech in front of her family and friends that is dedicated to Koro and the traditions of her tribe. Keisha delivered it well. And it was difficult not to feel for her.

I also enjoyed Rawiri Paratene as Koro. He provided a lot of depth to what could have been a cardboard cut-out character. Instead of being only a grumpy grandfather, Koro is just an old man desperately clinging to his traditions in an ever-changing world. It was a sensitive portrayal of how sometimes we have to abandon tradition in the favour of progress.

The only thing that I took issue with was the ending. MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT. Koro throws his rei puta (whale tooth) into the ocean and  sets a challenge for his male proteges to recover it. The winner will become the new chieftain of the tribe. After they all fail, he despairingly summons the ancient ones - a group of whales as tradition stated that the first leader of their tribe rode to land on a whale - for guidance. Paikea also summons the whales in an attempt to help. The next evening, a pod of whales beach themselves. Despite the efforts of the whole tribe, they fail to get them back into the sea.

Just when it looks like all hope is lost, Paikea mounts one of the whales and coaxes him back into the water. The rest of the whales follow suit, but instead of returning to land, Paikea rides the whale back into the open water, seemingly ready to drown. I thought this went against the key message of 'Whale Rider.' This whole film is about her becoming the first female chieftain of her tribe. She is determined to smash open the traditional patriarchy. Why would she be so ready to die like this? If she does die then all of her efforts would have been for nothing. The audience has been invested in her journey and what have they received for it? A dead heroine? Unless she was hoping to be a martyr who would go onto inspire other women, but I didn't buy that.

Of course, this drowning was just a fake out. Paikea survives and is nursed back to health. Realising the error of his ways, Koro declares her the new chieftain. So Paikea achieved her goal, but I think this was a really extreme way of doing so.

The ending was a shame, as it did spoil an otherwise really good film. But that shouldn't stop you from watching Whale Rider. I would argue that it is an underrated movie that deserves all the recognition it can get.

The Butterfly Effect review

 Number 578 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction thriller 'The Butterfly Effect.'

Evan Treborn (Ashton Kutcher) is a young man who used to have unexplained blackouts as a child. Once grown up, he's realised that he can time travel whenever he reads certain entries of his journal. He begins going back in time to right his wrongs and change not just life, but girlfriend Kayleigh's (Amy Smart,) her psychotic brother Tommy (William Lee Scott) and their friend Lenny (Elden Henson.)

Science-fiction films always have the tendency of prioritising the big philosophical themes over the characters sic 2001: a Space Odyssey. However, I would argue that the opposite happened here. The premise is interesting enough - a real life embodiment of the Butterfly Effect - the smallest of actions can have the biggest of consequences. Or as the opening line reads: "it has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wings can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world."

But this original concept was let down by its execution. It felt very much like a teen movie with a loose science-fiction premise. It didn't help you had Ashton Kutcher as the lead. He wasn't particularly bad as a dramatic actor, but he is much better known for his role as dumb teenage pretty boy Michael Kelso in the 70's show. He certainly wasn't able to shake off his teen heart-throb image here. It also didn't help that much of the film took place on a university campus. The film came out in 2005 and it sounds and looks like it did. The characters are so dated in the way they talk and dress. For a film about time travel, somewhat ironically, this film is anything but timeless.

Much of the film also took place in flashbacks showing our principle cast as children and alter teenagers. And the child actors were just not good especially Logan Lerman and John Patrick Amedori as Evan at ages seven and thirteen respectively. When the adult Evan goes back in time, he embodies his younger selves, but with his present mind. And so when they're speaking, it is actually the adult Evan speaking and the dialogue sounded awful coming out of the younger actor's mouths. Their delivery was just awkward and unnatural.

This is a shame as this did have the potential to be an interesting film. It was an entertaining enough thriller, but it very much failed as potent science-fiction.

BlacKkKlansman review

 Continuing my deviation from the top 1000 films of all time by reviewing Spike Lee's 2018 biographical crime comedy-drama 'BlacKkKlansman.'

Based on a true story and nominated for the Best film Oscar, BlackKklansman follows the story of Ron Stallworth (John David Washington.) Stallworth is the first black cop in the Colorado Springs police department. He starts to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan led by David Duke (Topher Grace.) He is aided by his Jewish partner Philip "Flip" Zimmerman (Adam Driver) who attends Klan meetings while impersonating Ron.

Although BlacKkKlansman is set in 1970, it is as relevant now as it was back then. Race relations has always been a controversial topic in the USA especially in 2018. Spike Lee incorporated a lot of this cultural context into his film giving it a thematically powerful ending.  In 2017, in the wake of the Charleston Church Shooting, there were many movement to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces. One of these monuments was the Robert E. Lee statue in Lee Park, Charlottesville, Virginia. In response, a rally of alt-right and Neo-Nazis counter-protestors clashed with the protestors already there. This all culminated with one white supremacist driving his car into the crowd and killing activist Heather Heyer. I think that this context gives the film a special place in the cultural zeitgeist. This hatred is intrinsic within American culture. It always has been and maybe always will be.

However, I'm no cultural theorist or commentator so on with the review. I've watched quite a few films about race relations in the US from Green Book to the Help and Hidden Figures, which I am yet to review. And it's safe to say that BlacKkKlansman is far more in your face about its portrayal of racism. Rather than being subtle or understated, Lee goes straight for the throat. The KKK members are expectedly abhorrent especially the disgusting Felix Kendrickson, played brilliantly by Jasper Paakkonen. 

There is the showing of the racist film 'A Birth of a Nation,' liberal use of the N-word, numerous anti-semitic remarks, racist police accosting black activists and even the recounting of the horrific real-life lynching of Jesse Washington told by Harry Belafonte. All this made for uncomfortable but entirely necessary viewing. Lee brought the true nature of the 'black' experience to the forefront and forced us to absorb it whether we wanted to or not.

I have to also give full credit to lead actors John David Washington and Adam Driver, who was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. They were brilliant in their roles. Ron Stallworth initially gains entry into the klan through telephone calls alone, but when it comes to going there in person, Flip assumes this role. Despite being Jewish himself and having to endure plenty of casual anti-semitism, he quickly ingratiates himself into the group. Driver definitely deserved the Best Supporting Actor nomination. 

I am reminded of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained. Leonardo Dicaprio was initially uncomfortable with playing such an overtly racist character, but Tarantino took him aside and said that if he doesn't 100% commit to the role audiences will hate him forever. He committed to the role and was brilliant. And so was Driver. I found him very meh in the Star Wars sequels, but he was great here. This was a far more mature and developed role and very much suited Driver's talents. Mahershala Ali might have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Green Book, but Driver was just as good.

John David Washington was also great as Stallworth. He had a difficult role to play - the first black policeman in Colorado dealing with his racist colleagues while also going undercover in the clan, but he played the role of a man caught between two worlds very well. He is a black man working for the police - an institution that many of his friends and even his activist girlfriend Patrice Dumas (Laura Harrier) declares as systemically racist. 

Topher Grace and Ryan Eggold who played Colorado KKK chapter leader Walter Breachway were also great. Their more restrained but no less abhorrent racism was a nice contrast to Felix's more overt racism.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, it would be that on occasion Spike Lee chose some odd shots and some editing techniques. It was like he was trying to be all gritty and artistic, but it just came across as silly. There was the split screen at the end, where Ron was revealing his true identity to David Duke over the phone, which looked like a comic book. But the penultimate shot made me laugh out loud over how silly it looked: Ron and Patrice are investigating a strange noise outside their apartment with their guns drawn. There is a dolly shot that makes it look like the actors are floating toward the camera. It's like they're on a travelator. 

But this was a great film. Spike Lee took a challenging and provocative subject matter and put it up front for all to see. This is a film that might leave you in shocked silence or maybe it will leave you thinking. But there is no way you will  be left unaffected by BlacKkKlansman. 

Green Book review

 I'm taking a slight deviation from the top 1000 films of all time to review the 2018 Best Picture Oscar winner: 'Green Book.'

Based on a true story, Green Book follows the relationship between acclaimed, African-American pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) and his Italian-American chauffeur Tony "Lip" Vallelonga (Viggo Mortenson) as they tour around the deep South in 1960's America.

Representation and diversity are massive buzz words in today's culture. As this film is all about race relations, naturally it has received some criticism about its depiction of race. However, I think it was a great representation of race on-screen.  Rather than forcing a black character into a white role, director Peter Farrelly depicted a true story. These types of films are always so much better as they bleed authenticity. And Green Book felt scarily realistic.

Sure you could dismiss a lot of the film as exaggeration or hyperbole, but the reality was that many African-Americans faced the same Jim Crow discrimination as Dr Don Shirley did. He is not allowed to try on a suit at a tailor shop and when he goes for a drink in a bar, he is beaten by three white racists. But he is also subjected to far more insidious cases of racism. He is not allowed to eat in "white" restaurants or use "white" toilets. Despite being a brilliant musician, he is very much a performing seal brought out to be gawped and pointed at by the white people and then sent back to his cage. They're happy to have him perform, but are abhorred by the thought of eating with him.

Mahershala Ali was absolutely brilliant as Dr Shirley. He perfectly portrayed the conflicted nature of the character: a character who is caught between two worlds without fitting into either. He is too black to be white and too white to be black. Ali conveyed the true loneliness of the character - loneliness that is hiding behind a veneer of pride and standoffishness. Mahershala won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor and deservingly so. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation: he can play prim and proper like in Green Book, he does suave and mysterious in House of Cards and a dark rough- around-the-edges policeman in True Detective.

But he can't take all the credit. Viggo Mortenson was also fantastic. He didn't just play Tony Lip, he embodied the character. Sure, you could say that he was a cliche who played up to every single Italian-American stereotype, but that is very much the point of the character and the point of the film. It's not just about overcoming your own prejudices and biases, but proving that you are much more than the sum of your parts. Tony Lip could have just been another hot-headed, vest-wearing Italian-American, but Mortenson turned him into a courageous man, determined to stand up for what was right - despite harbouring some initial prejudices himself.

And the film works so well because of the chemistry between Ali and Mortenson. The two of them were great together. They were like a comedy duo with Dr Shirley playing the straight man to Tony Lip's less than sophisticated ways. This clashing of cultures was hilarious to watch.

Farelly directed a brilliant film that wonderfully balanced humour and emotion while also treating listener's ears to a great soundtrack full of Motown classics, Chopin and even a composition by Dr Shirley himself. I've ran out of superlatives to describe this film. Just go watch it now. 

21 Grams review

 Number 536 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's psychological drama '21 Grams.'

Told in a non-linear fashion, 21 Grams follows the relationship between three different characters: Paul Rivers, (Sean Penn) a mathematics professor with a fatal heart condition, a reformed convict Jack Jordan (Benicio Del Toro) and Cristina Peck, (Naomi Watts) a recovering drug addict and housewife. After a fatal hit-and-run their lives intersect in ways they could never imagine.

The second in Inarritu's trilogy of death after Amores Perros. Similarly to what Tarantino does in Pulp Fiction, Inarritu plays around with time. The scenes don't play in chronological order which doesn't always make for the easiest of viewing. You have to work to truly follow and understand this film, but I would argue the work is worth it. Things start confusingly, but they do coalesce as the film progresses. 

We are thrown right into the action with different clips from our three central characters: Paul is on life support, Jack is giving a pep talk to another young offender and Cristina is at an NA meeting. Separate fragments that blend into a whole. Films like this can be off-putting to some viewers. It takes a lot of work to watch and understand non-linear films and this might be work that some people might not want to put in. Film is supposed to be a method of escape and how can you escape if you're constantly trying to figure out what is going on? I would argue that the similarly structured Citizen Kane is overrated. But that was because Kane himself was an uninteresting character. 

Whereas Paul, Jack and Cristina were very interesting to watch. All three were characters with troubled pasts just trying to do better. Paul is a downtrodden man distressed by his incurable heart condition, Jack is a former convict who has now found god and Cristina is recovering from her drug addition. They are all overcoming their personal demons and were easy to root for. The three lead actors did well in bringing their characters to life especially Benicio Del Toro and Watts. Both of them received Oscar nominations for their performances and rightly so.

While this film might not be for everyone, I would highly recommend giving it a go. It might end up surprising you.

Man on Fire review

 Number 546 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tony Scott's action thriller Man on Fire.

John Creasy (Denzel Washington) is an alcoholic former CIA officer with PTSD. When his friend Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken) convinces him to become a bodyguard for the Ramos family in Mexico, he is initially reluctant. However, he soon forms a close relationship with Lupita 'Pita' Ramos, (Dakoto Fanning) daughter of the Ramos.' When she is abducted by a kidnapping gang, Creasy promises to rain down hell on her kidnappers.

By their very nature, action films tend to be cliched and formulaic. You get the handsome, physically fit hero with a troubled past and plot armour, lots of explosions and guns, gratuitous violence and a simplistic plotline. Man on Fire had all of this in spades. The only thing was missing was an attractive female lead whose only function would be as a sex object for our rugged protagonist. Man on Fire was pretty cliched as far as action films go. Creasy is haunted by an unexplained past which is never really fleshed out. And that certainly didn't make him anymore three dimensional. 

Upon finding out information about Pita's kidnappers, he resorts to violently torturing members of the gang. And some of his methods were so violent that they bordered on silly. He sticks an explosive up a corrupt policeman's rear and detonates it when he has the information he needs. His plot armour was ridiculously thick. How many gunshot wounds does he survive? 

I also think the villain of the film was cliched. Roberto Sosa plays Daniel Sanchez who is otherwise regarded as 'the Voice.' But we don't see enough of 'the Voice' or his motivations to really make him a threatening enough villain. He's the one giving the orders but he doesn't have enough screen time to make him particularly scary. And there was also too much slow-motion and in really strange places too. Why did we need to see Creasy help Pita out of the pool in slow-motion? 

Lastly, Radha Mitchell plays Pita's mother and while she was good enough her accent was not. Radha is Australian and her character was supposed to be Texan. However, Radha's accent was very inconsistent. At time it sounded Texan and at others it just sounded generic American.

Despite all that, it was still an entertaining and, most importantly, a thrilling film. Washington and Fanning had a great chemistry and it was lovely seeing their relationship develop. Creasy starts off as morose and grumpy, but Pita helps to bring him out of his shell. They were very cute together. And I also enjoyed the gritty, visual style. Apparently it was a homage to the brilliant film City of God. The two films also shared a similar cast. 

I'm not sure whether I would count this as one of the top 1000 films of all time. But as an action-thriller film, I think it was very good.

What's eating Gilbert Grape review

Number 525 on the top 1000 films of all time is Lasse Hallstrom's coming of age drama 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?'

Gilbert Grape (Johnny Depp) is a grocery store clerk working in a small Iowa town. When he isn't taking care of his morbidly obese mother Bonnie (Darlene Cates) or intellectually disabled younger brother Arnie (Leonardo Dicaprio,) he is navigating all the obstacles of his life.

One of the biggest running jokes of the millennium was how Leonardo Dicaprio, despite being nominated multiple times, has never won an Oscar. You could argue this is where it all starts. At nineteen-years old, he was nominated for the Best Supporting Oscar for the role of Arnie. He became the seventh-youngest nominee. True, he was up against stiff competition like Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List or Pete Poselthwaite in the Name of the Father, but he would have been well-deserving of the Oscar. Dicaprio was great in this film. He played Arnie with humanity and vulnerability. He wasn't a cliche or a caricature, but a  real, breathing human being. Many of the character's trademark tics were all Dicaprio's choice. Reportedly he was so convincing as Arnie that at the film's premiere many people were surprised to find out that he wasn't intellectually disabled in real life.

However, Dicaprio can't take all the credit. All the cast were great. Let's start with Johnny Depp who wasn't even nominated for the Best Acting Oscar. And he would have been a very deserving winner. He takes Gilbert Grape through a great story arc. His inner conflict is so clear. Despite caring deeply for his mother and brother, the pressures of being a carer soon get the best of him. At Arnie's birthday party, he ruins things by eating his cake early. Gilbert snaps and hits him. The guilt of this sends him soul searching until he finally returns home and apologises. Depp played this role with great sensitivity. Having been a carer, I am fully aware of how stressful it is.

And lastly we come to Darlene Cates, as Bonnie Grape, who was a little bit of a dark horse. This was her first acting role and she received critical acclaim and rightly so. Just like with Arnie, there was the danger of making this character a cliche or a joke, but she portrayed Bonnie brilliantly. She was such a tragic character, but never a pathetic or pitiful one.

This was a great film. I really enjoyed watching it. Yes, it kickstarted Leonardo Dicaprio's career, but let's not forget Johnny Depp as well. He might be best-known for eccentric characters like Edward Scissorhands, Captain Jack Sparrow and Sweeney Todd, but this film proved  that he can play more conventional roles roles just as well too.

The Goonies review

Number 519 on the top 1000 films of all time is the adventure-comedy the Goonies.

The Goonies are a gang of misfits in Oregon. They are led by the asthmatic Mikey Walsh (Sean Astin) and consist of "Chunk" (Jeff Cohen,) the poison-tongued "Mouth" (Corey Feldman) and amateur gadgeteer "Data" (Jonathan Ke Huy Quan.) When they find a treasure map in their house, they set off to find it, but little do they know that the Fratelli crime family is also looking for the treasure.

This had all the hallmarks of a coming-of-age drama - a pre-teen cast, adult villains, a magical plot and lots of practical effects, but it lacked all the comedy, soul and charm of its contemporaries. Stand By Me, also starring Corey Feldman, is one that comes to mind. Even though, it was billed as a comedy it just wasn't that funny. A lot of humour seemed juvenile and billed toward a much younger audience than myself. You had Chunk doing a silly dance to gain entry to the clubhouse or literal toilet humour when a jet of water from a toilet lifts a man into the air.  

Much of the dialogue seemed very contrived and forced especially from the female characters "Andy" (Kerri Green) and Stef (Martha Plimpton.) Andy is the love interest of Mikey's older brother and Stef is her best friend. But neither girl did little more than scream or give snide comments to the boys. And many of these problems stem from Chris Columbus' script and Richard Donner's poor direction. It really seemed like the kids had little direction other than to talk over one another. I am reminded of critic Colin Greenland's assessment of the film: "The Goonies I was unable to enjoy because of a bunch of kids yelling and screaming all the way through. Not the audience, the actors." The constant screaming became tedious after a while and it made things difficult to follow.

This was a shame as there is some big acting talent in this film. Corey Feldman was great in Stand by Me and Sean Astin went onto star in the Lord of the Rings Franchise. Despite Ke Huy Quan taking a break from acting, he starred in the one of the biggest films of 2022: Everything Everywhere all at Once. 

Another big problem of this film was that the villains had no menace at all. Kiefer Sutherland made a great villain in Stand By Me, because he was scary. We see him play mailbox baseball, chicken with other road users and he even threatens our heroes with a flick knife. Conversely, the Fratelli family sing opera and squabble amongst each other. Joe Pantoliano played one of these villains, but he is also known for the traitorous Cypher in the Matrix and the slimy Ralph Cifaretto in The Sopranos. He is great in both these roles, so it was a shame his talent was squandered so much here.

But the biggest problem of this coming-of-age drama was that there was no maturation. The characters didn't grow or change at all. They start and end in the same place. It doesn't matter what genre your film is, but your characters need to progress by the end of it. That didn't happen here. The Goonies start as misfits and they end as misfits. All of the characters in Stand By Me have traumatic backstories, but their collective experience helps them to overcome this trauma. However, this wasn't the case here. Granted, the asthmatic Mikey casually throws away his inhaler at the end of the film, suggesting his condition was all in his mind, yet we didn't see enough inner conflict to justify such a decision.

If I were to compliment the film for anything it would be its great use of practical effects. I loved seeing all the imaginative and ingenious inventions from Data's cute gadgets to the Indiana Jones-esque booby traps even to the fancy contraption that allows entry to the Goonies' club house. They were all great.

It's safe to say that the Goonies was one of the biggest cult films of the eighties. But it's safer to say that I am never going to become part of this cult.

Apocalypto review

 Number 497 on the top 1000 films of all time is Mel Gibson's epic action-adventure Apocalypto.

Set during the Mayan empire with the dialogue being entirely in Yucatan, Apocalypto focusses on Jaguar Paw (Rudy Yungblood.) Jaguar Paw is the son of a tribal chieftain and is married to his wife Seven (Dalia Hernandez) and they have their own son Turtles Run. All is looking well until they are attacked by a rival tribe who capture Jaguar Paw and the other males who kidnap them to become human sacrifices.

Firstly, let me say the cinematography was beautiful. Every shot was gorgeous and conveyed the true splendour of Veracruz where the film was shot. We sat the vibrant green of the forest and the rich colours of the sunset. The Eyipantla waterfalls looked spectacular.

Part of that was down to Gibson's choice to write the dialogue in Yucatan. He thought it would create a more immersive world for the viewer, emphasise the visuals, as well as adding more historical accuracy. Although Gibson has received plenty of criticism for his historical accuracy or lack thereof. But at the end of the day this is Mel Gibson we're talking about. He made Braveheart - a brilliant film that is definitely more fiction than fact. You should know you're looking for if you're watching a Mel Gibson film.

I also loved the music. Rather than using a contemporary soundtrack, all the music was period specific with traditional singing and instrumentation - or what sounded authentic to me, at least. This added another layer of realism and ramped up the dramatic tension.

Having said that, the film is far from perfect. Of the two halves, I much preferred the first half, because it felt like we were going somewhere. The stakes were high and so was the dramatic tension. We get our scene-setting showing the close-knit community of Jaguar Paw's tribe. This peace is shattered by a group of marauders who sell the women into sex slavery and take the men to be sacrificed. This was tense as I was wondering how Jaguar Paw would get out of this. Fortunately, an eclipse disturbs proceedings and instead Jaguar Paw and the others are allowed to run to freedom.

I say allow as the marauders are playing a cruel game by using the escaping captives as target practice. Jaguar Paw is the only one who escapes alive and he is pursued by his captors. The second half of the film descends into a chase sequence. We see Jaguar Paw use his skill and strength to outwit the hunters, as well as a jaguar and a snake who appear at just the right moment. This would have been fun to watch if it had only gone for ten or fifteen minutes rather than a whole hour. I kept wondering where this was heading and what the next obstacle would be. But instead it was an extended chase sequence. And that did kill some of the dramatic tension.

However, this was all part of Gibson's vision. He wanted to take the traditional chase sequence, strip out all the glitz and glamour and reduce it to its most primal core. I get that, but he over did it. The excess slow-motion did nothing to help things either.

Although this was a technically beautiful film, the storyline does fall apart in the second half. But if you can get past that, it's well worth a watch. 

Fantastic Mr Fox review

 Number 496 on the top 1000 films of all time is Wes Anderson's animated comedy Fantastic Mr Fox.

Based on Roald Dahl's 1970 story, Fantastic Mr Fox follows Foxy Fox (George Clooney) who regularly thieves from three farmers: Boggis (Robin Hurlstone,) Bunce (Hugo Guiness) and Bean (Michael Gambon.) These farmers swear revenge on Foxy Fox endangering him, his wife Felicity (Meryl Streep) and his family and friends.

This was a stop-motion film and the animation was absolutely gorgeous. I loved the rich Autumnal colour schemes. The colour truly popped. All the different animals looked adorable too from Foxy Fox to his badger lawyer voiced by Bill Murray to the villainous rat voiced by Willem Defoe.

However, this star-studded cast and lovely animation wasn't enough to stop this ultimately being a film made for kids. I was hoping that it would be a family friendly film that would appeal to children and parents alike a la Monsters Inc or Toy Story, but this really was meant for little children. And that did hurt its watchability factor. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man, but maybe it was seemingly obvious that this film was always meant for kids. Children would love the bright colour scheme and the adorable animal characters.

Nevertheless, the conflicts were very juvenile such as the subplot of Mr Fox's son Ash Fox and his rivalry with his cousin Kristofferson. Ash feels threatened and jealous of his seemingly perfect cousin. This is a subplot that would be obviously appealing to little kids but not grumpy, old curmudgeons like me. All the violence bordered on cartoonish, like Mr Fox and his oppossum sidekick climbing up an electric fence. With every climb, the electric shocks x-ray their entire bodies. 

And a lot of the dialogue was contrived. It didn't seem natural and I think that some of that was down to George Clooney himself. I noticed that in a lot of conversations Mr Fox had with his son there were these strange hesitations at the end of each line. You could argue that, at first, this signifies their strained relationship. But their relationship fixes throughout the film, so why are there still the strange hesitations?

I think if I was twenty years younger I would have loved this film, but, now,  I'm far too much of a grumpy old man. It was good as far as it went, but that wasn't very far at all.

The Experiment review

 Number 487 on the top 1000 films of all time is the thriller the Experiment.

An American remake of the German 'Das Experiment' and based on the real-life Stanford Prison Experiment, the Experiment sees two men try to survive in a brutal scientific study. Travic Cacksmackberg (Adrien Brody) is a pacifist hippie who gets laid off from his job. He needs money to travel to India with his hippy girlfriend Bay (Maggie Grace) so he takes part in his experiment. He and twelve other men become prisoners in a specially designed prison. Six other volunteers become guards. They have to survive two weeks while maintaining order and following the rules. But things quickly go wrong when the guards led by Michael Barris (Forest Whitaker) become power-mad.

If you haven't heard about the Stanford Prison Experiment, I would highly recommend looking into it. It was a fascinating if unethical study into authority and power dynamics. This film highly exaggerates the events of the study, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Much of that is down to the storyarc of the two leads. Travis is a moral compass. It's established early on that he deeply cares about social issues when he attends an anti-war rally. It is only believable that he galvanises the prisoners into standing up to the tyrannical guards. Conversely Michael Barris is a mild-mannered forty-two year old man who still lives with his domineering mother. Egged on by the more sadistic guards, the power goes to his head. Outside of the prison, he is nobody. But in prison he is the boss. And Whitaker's performance was menacing.

However, the Experiment was deeply let down by its ending. The Experiment is stopped on the sixth day after a full-on riot breaks out; the prisoners and the guards begin fighting with another. The catalyst? Travis demands to be let out, having grown tired to the abuse from the guards. Barris forcibly restrains him and a scuffle breaks out. When another prisoner intervenes on Travis' behalf, Barris kills him. Yet everybody is allowed to go back to their old lives. Nobody faces any legal or even moral ramifications for their actions within the prison. 

One particularly sadistic guard attempts to rape a prisoner, but he faces no consequences. Travis almost beats Barris to death, but in the next shot we see him in India with Bay. On a side note, Bay was a poorly-drawn female character. She was little more than a sex object.

And despite Barris killing a prisoner, he still receives his full payment as does everybody else. It was so strange that an experiment that focussed on respecting authority would reward disloyalty and disobedience. The most we get is the experiment's lead researcher being arrested for manslaughter, but this is too rushed to have any impact. 

Having said that, the real life researcher, Philip Zimbardo, faced severe criticism about the ethical nature of his study and he did pay his subjects properly, so the film was being true to life.

This did have the potential to be an interesting film about the nature of obedience and the power of roles, but it was severely let down by its rushed ending and its poorly written female character *cough cough* sex object.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button review

 Number 459 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Fincher's 2008 fantasy romantic drama 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.'

Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) is a man who ages in reverse. Abandoned at birth due to his seemingly elderly appearance, he is adopted by the kindly Queenie (Taraji P.Henson) and Tizzy Weathers (Mahershala Ali.) As he ages chronologically, he appears to look younger and younger. Cate Blanchett stars as his love interest Daisy Fuller.

I would argue this film marked a maturation for both Brad Pitt and David Fincher. Fincher is primarily known for his thrillers like Fight Club, Se7en  and the Game. Yet this film marked a coming-of-age for him. A thriller is completely different game to a romantic drama - there's a whole new set of rules and Fincher played it well. I think you can argue that Fincher isn't a subtle director. His thrillers like Se7en take an unflinching look into the darker aspects of the human mind. However, here, he was far more nuanced and understated. None of the characters ever come across as two-dimensional or cliched. Thomas Button (Jason Fleyming) could have easily been the archetypal, neglectful father who abandoned his son, but you can see how guilty he feels about his actions and how he tries to make things right. 

Daisy Fuller could have been little more than a scorned woman. Her affections for Benjamin are initially rebuffed. Later on, he leaves her after they have a child together as he doesn't want to become a burden. However, Daisy later reconnects with Benjamin after he has regressed into a teenager and takes care of him as a baby. It is her diaries. detailing the nature of her and Benjamin's relationship, that fuel the narrative along. 

Fincher also balanced the drama and the comedy well. I certainly enjoyed the running joke of the man who was struck by lightning seven times.

And Brad Pitt is great in the leading role well-deserving of his Oscar nomination. Having starred in Fincher's Se7en and Fight Club and better known as an action movie star, he might not be your first choice for dramatic roles. But he plays Benjamin Button well. Benjamin could have been a caricature - a freak that everybody points and laughs at or he could have been a self-pitying victim. But he was neither of those things. Rather than being self-pitying, Benjamin Button takes pride in his appearance. He doesn't see it as a disability and refuses to let it get in his way of living his life. And he lives a great life from fighting in WW2 to travelling to India and Southeast Asia. He is an inspiring character to watch and a lot of that is down to Brad Pitt's great portrayal.

This film did surprise me. Based on their reputations, I certainly didn't expect David Fincher or Brad Pitt to be able to pull it off, but, boy, oh boy, did they prove me wrong.

Abre Los Ojos review

 Number 446 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Spanish science-fiction thriller 'Abre Los Ojos,' (Open your Eyes.)

Cesar (Eduardo Noreiga) is a young man who has it all: good looks, money and a loyal best friend called Pelayo (Feliz Martinez.) He also has the affection of the attractive young woman Sofia (Penelope Cruz.) This fuels the anger of Cesar's jealous ex-lover Nuria (Najwa Nimri.) When a terrible accident leaves Cesar scarred and deformed, his life begins spiralling out of control. This leads to him uncovering a greater conspiracy.

Although science-fiction films are rotted in the real, their plots can lend themselves to the fantastical, and, at times, the unbelievable. To some extent, this would apply to Abre Los Ojos. At the end of the film all our questions are answered, but the answers did leave me raising my eyebrows. But let's backtrack a little. Cesar is an attractive playboy, but he is involved in a car crash that leaves his face deeply scarred. Forced to wear a mash, he quickly becomes a social outcast. The only thing that keeps him tethered to sanity is Sofia. But when Sofia vanishes with Nuria claiming to be her, Cesar begins to lose his mind. He tries to tell everybody the truth, but nobody believes him. All this is crosscut with him in a psychiatric institution telling his story to a shrink.

It's revealed that Cesar paid for his body to be cryogenically frozen with a cryonic company called Life Extension. Afterwards he kills himself. But Life Extension has the ability to preserve the mind in a virtual reality that is created from their client's own lives. However, this film was made in 1997. How advanced was virtual reality back then? Would it be capable of sustaining a whole virtual world? If this was the modern day, when VR headsets are a dime-a-dozen and the metaverse is looming overhead, I would find this easier to believe, but not the nineties.

Despite the spurious premise, this was a watchable film. The time-jumping narrative leaves plenty of clues to keep us interested, but it is never so mysterious that it's frustrating. There are questions to be answered in both the past and the present, and I enjoyed figuring them out at the same time as Cesar.

And Cesar is such a tragic character. You could argue that it can be difficult to feel sorry for a wealthy playboy, but he is sympathetic. He is a man who goes from everything to nothing. His jealous ex-lover crashes the car they're in, which is the accident that horrifically scars his face. He is forced to wear a mask turning him into a Frankinsteinean monster. Soon his personality becomes monstrous as he turns all his friends against him. But Noreiga played whim with just enough humanity to not make him a self-pitying mess. And Najwa Nimri was very good as his scorned ex-lover.

If there was something I would mark the film down for it would be the god-awful CGI in the during scene, but that is only a minor niggle. All in all, this was an enjoyable film. I would recommend opening your eyes and watching it.

Drive review

 Number 442 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action drama film 'Drive.'

Ryan Gosling plays an unnamed character only referred to as the Driver. By day he is a stuntman and a mechanic for a man named Shannon (Bryan Cranston.) By night he moonlights as a getaway driver for heists. He becomes attracted to his neighbour Irene  (Carey Mulligan.) However, her husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) has just been released from prison and owes a lot of money to the wrong people. Standard decides to rob a pawn shop to get the money. Upon learning this, the Driver becomes his wheelman. But things quickly go south.

There is no denying that this is a stylish thriller. It has a great neon aesthetic that gives it a very synthetic, timeless look. It could be in the eighties or the modern-day or the not so distant future. However, I didn't particularly like this film and that was for one simple reason: tone.

Tone is important for any film and this film's tone was overly-dark. I get it. It's a thriller. It's not a comedy. I wasn't expecting laugh-a-minute, but I was hoping for one or two jokes. All throughout the film there was a foreboding sense of doom and at times this fog became too much. It needed some comic relief to help disperse it. This could be some black humour for the audience or maybe some jokes between the characters. It would have been nice to have at least seen them smile. Everybody was so serious all the time.

And Ryan Gosling encapsulated this seriousness. The Driver is the strong, silent type. An emotionless man who finds a cause to fight for. But the Driver felt more like a robot than an actual human being. It was like the evil terminator from T2 had decided to pack in killing John Connor and start robbing banks instead. It was a difficult character to get behind. And I don't think this is Ryan Gosling's fault. Having starred in rom-coms like the Notebook or La-La land, he is obviously capable of playing lighter roles, but he didn't even get the chance here. The gratuitous violence did nothing to help the overly-dark tone either.

Earlier on, I referenced the eighties. And that was very intentional. The musical score contains a lot of synth-wave - a genre reminiscent of the eighties. But I don't think it was employed well. There were these long scenes accompanied by synth-wave music. Except for the music playing there was very little else happening within these scenes. It became very tedious after a while.

Aesthetically the film looked great. But the overly-black tone coupled with the extended instrumental sequences made it all more style over substance.

Zwartboek (Black Book) review

 Number 435 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Paul Verhoeven's Dutch WW2 film Zwartboek which translates as Black Book.

Rachel Stein (Carice Van Houten) is a famed Jewish singer during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. When her hiding place is destroyed and her family are murdered by the SS, she joins the Dutch resistance. She is tasked by high-ranking resistance member Hans Akkermans (Thom Hoffman) to seduce the Gestapo leader Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch.) This was all based on a true story.

In war films, it is all too easy to say that these are the good characters and these are the bad characters. but the reality is never that black and white. And that was all part of Verhoeven's vision. He definitely succeeded. We'll take glamorous heroine Rachel Stein as an example. Victim of Nazi persecution, she makes an obvious hero. However, she then falls in love with the Nazi official that she's seducing. The Nazi official Muntze quickly realises she is a Jew, but he has also fallen in love with her. And he is much fairer than his brutal deputy Gunther Franken (Waldermar Kobus.) Realising the war is lost, Muntze secretly negotiates a ceasefire with the Dutch resistance.

*spoiler alert*

When the Netherlands is liberated at the end of the war, Muntze is executed for his crimes and Rachel is locked up as a supposed Nazi collaborator. Her fellow Dutch compatriots treat her and the other supposed collaborators deplorably: humiliating them by forcing them to strip naked. But then Akkermans, now an army colonel, breaks things up and declares them no better than the Nazis. And this scene is not difficult to imagine happening in real life. The Dutch are angry at their treatment and want to take out their anger on anything they can.

As the two leads, Van Houten and Koch gave a lot of nuance to character who ran the risk of being flatly good and bad.  But it was these fundamental flaws that made all these characters so human and relatable. even the burtal Franken is a keen singer/ballroom dancer. To have characters be simply good or simply bad would be far too two-dimensional and cliche.  And Hoffman shone as the true villain of the piece. 

*more spoilers*

Hans Akkerman, despite being a high-level member of the resistance, is actually a secret Nazi collaborator.  Rachel Stein and her family try escaping to safety by boarding a boat that will carry them down the river. They are discovered by the SS and Rachel is the only one who escapes with her life. It is later revealed that Hans set this up, so he could steal whatever money the refugees had. This is entirely believable as well. Everybody becomes desperate in war. And loyalties can change at the drop of the hat.

Van Herhoeven perfectly captured the brutality of war: from the SS gunning down escaping Jews to them torturing one of the captured resistance fighters. He certainly pulled no punches. He succeeded in creating a harrowing tale of human morality and I'll end this review on his assessment of Zwartboek: "in this movie everything has a shade of grey. There are no people who are completely good no people who are completely bad. It's like life. It's not very Hollywoodian."

The World's Fastest Indian review

 Number 326 on the top 1000 films of all time is the New Zealand biographical drama: 'The World's Fastest Indian.'

Burt Munro (Anthony Hopkins) is an ageing speed bike racer from New Zealand. He travels tot he US to fulfill a lifelong dream: to race his bike on the Bonneville salt flats in Utah.

By all accounts, this is a film that wouldn't interest me. I know that I should review these films with an open mind, but motor bike racing has never been something that interested me. I thought this would be a film that would only appeal to other bike racers, but I was wrong. It was an incredibly watchable film.

And a lot of that is down to Anthony Hopkins' portrayal as Burt Munro. Munro is such a likable character that it's difficult not to root for him. He is charming, jovial and personable. To gain passage to the US, he works as a chef on a small ship. Upon reaching the US, he encounters many obstacles with the local bureaucracy, but he always manages to talk his way out of trouble. He even convinces traffic cops to let him go without a ticket.

He also quickly befriends people who help him on his journey whether this is a transvestite motel clerk or a second-hand car salesman. This pays dividends when the jobsworth racing officials deny him the opportunity to race because he hasn't pre-registered. But the other racers rally around him and he is eventually allowed to race where he goes onto break the land speed record.

The only thing I found weird was how Hopkins didn't speak with a Kiwi accent. Considering this is a New Zeland production that's set in New Zealand and constantly has Munro referencing he is from New Zealand, it was a really bizarre choice. Surely this was some weird director decision as an actor of Hopkins' calibre must be capable of doing a convincing Kiwi accent.

This was an entertaining film. It could have been a tedious adventure that would only appeal to a small audience, but instead it was a heart-warming tale about an old man fulfilling his lifelong dream. 

The 39 Steps review

 Number 419 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's mystery thriller 'The 39 Steps.'

Richard Hannay (Robert Donnay) is in London when he befriends a mysterious woman. This woman tells him about a secret organisation called the 39 Steps. She later turns up dead and her assassins chase Hannay into Scotland where he becomes tangled up with a lady called Pamela (Madeline Carroll) as he tried to solve the mystery of the 39 Steps.

There is no denying that Alfred Hitchcock has had a momentous career. From the Lady Vanishes to Notorious to Dial M for Murder and Vertigo, he has been thrilling audiences for decades. And you can argue it all started with the 39 Steps. Released in 1935, this was one of his earliest sound films.

Hitchcock is a very good storyteller. His films usually stretch the realms of believability, but they work because the story is good. The Lady Vanishes is pure hokum and North by Northwest has the incredible scene of Cary Grant being chased by a cropduster, but both are still great films. The 39 Steps is equally unbelievable, but equally watchable. Hannay is shot at point-blank range, but he survives because a hymn book in his pocket blocks the bullet. I'm doubtful that even the bible could stop a speeding bullet at point blank range.

Yet Hannay is a likable protagonist. Like Cary Grant in North by Northwest, he is a victim of circumstance. Mistakenly identified as a murderer, he has to work hard to clear his name. It is this character arc that was interesting and engaging to watch.

Yes Hitchcock's films aren't always the most believable or realistic, but they are damned entertaining.

The Killing Fields review

 Number 382 on the top 1000 films of all time is a biographical drama 'The Killing Fields.'

Set during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, the Killing Fields details the relationship of two journalists during the Cambodian genocide. One journalist is the American 'Sydney Schanberg' (Sam Waterston) and the other is Sydney's Cambodian interpreter Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor.) John Malkovich co-stars as Sydney's photographer Al Rockoff.

Whenever I watch films about subjects like war or genocide. I am always of the mantra or go hard or go home. The Holocaust film 'The Pianist' goes hard and it's all the better for it. However, I cam coming to believe that this doesn't always need to be the way. the Killing Fields is subtle and understated. This isn't to say it shies away from the horrors of the genocide, but it far more selective in what it chooses to show.

We see the build-up of prisoners being executed, but we never see these executions first hand. So when we do see scenes like Pran escaping his internment camp to find himself tumbling into a pit of skeletons, the impact is all the stronger. The fact these skeletons are the remains of the executed prisoners makes the image even scarier.

A recurring issue I find with films about world historical events told from a Western lens is that there is the tendency to wrongly focus on the Western character. I wouldn't go far to say there was a white saviour narrative. Sydney is no hero and definitely no saviour. When he and the other Western journalists are being evacuated home, they do all they can to take Pran with them - even going so far to making him a fake passport. When this fails, they have no choice, but to leave them behind.

Sydney later acknowledges had a chance to leave long ago, but Sydney convinced him to stay. Back in the US, Sydney uses every contact he has to find Pran, but it is Pran who escapes and find a Red Cross refugee camp near the border with Thailand. Obviously growing up in the Western world, I view things through a Western lens. And so narratives like Sydney's are very familiar to me. Overly-familiar I would say. It wasn't until halfway when the film switched to Pran in the internment camp did I start taking serious interest. Pran was an infinitely more interesting character and I was rooting for him to escape. He was also a very clever man, playing dumb when interred, as he knows he'll be killed otherwise. If he is even suspected of being a working professional then the regime would kill him.

And all due credit to Haing Ngor. Having survived three stints in Cambodian prison camps, he went onto win an acting Oscar for this role, despite having no previous acting experience. He is the only Asian actor to win an Oscar and he very much deserved it. It is so sad his life was cut short when he was killed in a 1996 robbery.

Please give this film a watch. Albeit, it is very traumatic, but it makes for absolutely essential viewing.