The Hunger Games: Catching Fire review

Number 324 on the top 1000 films of all time is Francis Lawrence's science fiction, dystopia: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

After Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutchinson) win the previous Hunger Games, they become unlikely celebrities. However, they also become symbols for a rebellion as the 12 districts of Panem begin rising up against the capitol.

Just like its predecessor, I have not read the Hunger Game books so this review is based entirely on the film itself. I really wanted to like this film. It had so much potential. It could have been better than the first, and while it was, that's not really saying much. However, unlike the original, I actually have some positive things to say so let's start with those. 

On the surface, it seemed that director Francis Lawrence had learned from his predecessor's mistakes. There was far less shaky-cam and the villains were more than men in black hiding behind curtains. Donald Sutherland was menacing as President Snow. I particularly liked the scene with him and Katniss. He warns her that she needs to toe the line on her victory tour otherwise everybody in her district will die. I felt the malice from here. It was nice to have an actually threatening villain unlike the first film. Shoutout also goes to the always great Philip Seymour Hoffman as the morally duplicitous gameskeeper: Plutarch Heavensbee. He was much better than the campy Seneca Crane and he worked well together with Sutherland. There was even guns in this film! Although why they were present here and not in the original is beyond me.

Sounds good right? That's what I thought. The first hour of the film felt markedly different from the original. I was actually invested. I was excited to see a rebellion or even a civil war play out and for Katniss and Peeta to undergo reluctant hero arcs but then the film took a complete nosedive.

Worried that Katniss' defiance could lead to full-blown revolution, President Snow organises another Hunger Games where the contestants are former tributes - a plan that is beyond ridiculous. If you want to kill Katniss, why would you submit her into a competition where she could die as a martyr for the revolution? Oh no, says Plutarch: when the audience see how she betrays and kills her friends and allies, they'll turn against her. Great plan, but why even risk the chance? 

Also, what are the chances that there would actually be 2 victors from each district? It would make sense if there was a severe imbalance in the number of tributes that each district could provide. Districts 1 and 2 always produce the Careers - i.e the strongest, fastest and cleverest tributes. It would be logical if they won most of the previous tournaments and thus provided the most tributes. What if some districts had never won the tournament and thus couldn't produce any victors?

 And then we come back to this volunteering nonsense. Katniss is the only female victor from district 12 and so she is picked (again, what if District 12 had never produced a female champion or any championbefore) but Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is picked as the male victor. However, Peeta volunteers to take his place. I do not believe that a despotic, totalitarian regime would be okay with tributes volunteering in the place of others. They just wouldn't. The whole point of this tournament is to punish Katniss and Peeta for their defiance. But yet they're fine with other people breaking the rules! It makes no sense that they would allow Peeta to volunteer. 

Granted at least the other tributes were a little more interesting as the film actually took time to develop them. Katniss and Peeta quickly ally themselves with playboy Finnick (Sam Claflin) and older contestant Mags (Lynn Cohen) - also it was stupid that she was allowed to volunteer for another contestant. This is a televised tournament and Mags is way too old to take part. How would it be entertaining to see her compete? Anyway, we also have Joanna (Jena Malone,) who is not the happiest about being forced to take part again, and computer nerds Beetie (Jeffrey Wright) and Wiress (Amanda Plummer.) These supporting characters were much better defined than in the last film. I was actually sad when they started inevitably dying. Case-in-point, when a killer fog arrives, Mags sacrifices herself as she is slowing down the others.

What was interesting was that the curve balls that the Gameskeeper threw in were made into canon and not randomly thrown in. This film had killer fog and killer monkeys and killer waves which was just as stupid as in the first film. Fog or monkeys or waves don't discriminate. They'll kill everybody in their path. What happens if they kill all the tributes? Katniss and Peeta were prepared to both kill themselves at the end of the first film and the tournament was stopped with both being crowned as champions. 

Finally, we've come to the stupid Katniss and Peeta love story which continues to make no sense. Although the two of them seemed very cosy at the end of the first film, Katniss has lost all interest in Peeta, by the time Catching Fire starts,  with no explanation why. In fact she's with her boyfriend from District 12: Gale (Liam Hemsworth) but she promptly forgets about him. In fairness, he's pretty forgettable. I forgot that he had appeared in the first film. 

 To prevent rebellion, President Snow orders Katniss and Peeta to make the people believe that their romance was real. On their victory tour, they embark on a sham relationship ending with a sham marriage. And all of this is in spite of Peeta still having feelings toward Katniss and Katniss still being apathetic toward him. But for unexplained reasons, upon entering the arena, they hook up properly. And it doesn't make sense. Outside of the arena, Katniss has shown very little interest in Peeta. But in it, she's suddenly in love with him. Ur Katniss? This is the guy who betrayed you to the Careers. He almost got you killed. Yet she doesn't care about that. And despite all of her initial apathy, she is suddenly concerned about keeping him safe. As Haymitch remarks, Peeta really doesn't deserve her.

And I didn't deserve to watch this. Granted it's better than the first film, but it was a really low bar. Thank God, I don't have to watch Mockingjay.

The Hunger Games review

Although the Hunger Games is not on the top 1000 films of all time list, its sequel Catching fire is, so it was only logical that I went back and watched the original first.

The City of Panem holds annual Hunger Games contests where 2 members from each of the nation's 12 districts are selected to fight to the death. 24 enter but there can only be 1 winner. When Katniss Everdeen's (Jennifer Lawrence) sister is selected, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Competing along aside her is baker's boy, Peeta (Josh Hutchinson.) Woody Harrellson, Elizabeth Banks and Donald Sutherland all co star.

To preface this review, I have not read the Hunger Games books so my comments are based on the film alone. Although this film is 10 years old with the books being even older, I've never had any interest in the Hunger Games. Having finally watched it, I can understand why. It was like watching Young Adult fiction. During the whole film, I was asking "is this it?" By " it, " I mean a film with a half-baked romance, generic villains, an undeveloped cast and a plot holier than swiss cheese.

One thing that irked me through the whole film is that there are no guns. I didn't get it at all. This isn't a medieval fantasy; it's a futuristic dystopia where they have genetically engineered wasps, tracking implants and holographic interfaces. The tributes are fighting to the death in a televised tournament. Wouldn't it increase the entertainment factor if they had guns too? It would definitely raise the tension especially if some tributes guns and some didn't.  But would that make things too easy? I don't think so. Katniss would have some big obstacles to overcome if she has a bow and arrow and her opponents have guns. Even when Rue dies and her district riots, the riot police don't use guns. They use water cannon. It doesn't make any sense. 

Speaking of Rue, she was an example of the severely underdeveloped supporting cast. She had the potential to be a really interesting character if she wasn't on screen for fifteen minutes. She saves Katniss from the Careers and the two ally with each other. Ten minutes later, she dies in a trap set by the leader of the Careers, Marvel. Her death causes her district to riot. Do I care? I should do, but I don't. Later on, when Katniss is being attacked by another of the Careers, Clove, Thresh saves her life. Thresh is also from Rue's district and killed Clove to avenge Rue. He then dies off screen. Again, I don't care.

Then we come to the group of tributes called the Careers - AKA, cliched public school bullies. Marvel, Clove, Glimmer and Cato ally together because they're the biggest and the strongest. But they were all too meh to present any real threat. While they all die one by one, they were too indistinguishable  for me to tell them apart or to care about their deaths. Plus calling the strongest, fastest and most handsome tribute 'Marvel' is way too on the nose. To be honest, the only interesting, well developed character was Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a previous winner and mentor to Katniss and Peeta. He begins as apathetic and jaded but soon starts to care about his trustees.

I would argue the premise of the film was flawed. Katniss only becomes tribute because she volunteers to take her sister's place, but what if she wasn't allowed? What if this was against the rules? What if Prim had to fight anyway? We wouldn't have a film then. Although the Gameskeeper Seneca obviously don't care about breaking rules. They throw in lots of curve balls to make things more interesting. And by interesting, I mean stupid. Katniss spends the first part of the tournament hiding at the edges of the arena. To drive her into action, Seneca starts a forest fire. Katniss is driven up a tree by the Careers who camp underneath, prepared to wait her out. she is only saved when Rue points out the nest of genetically engineered wasp nest hanging from a tree branch over them. Katniss breaks the branch and the wasps kill Glimmer.

 Thresh later dies when the organisers release some demonic big cat things. Sure this creates more drama and tension, but it's also stupid. Fire is fire, Wasps are wasps. Big cats are big cats. They don't know who they're killing. What if they kill all the tributes? Then there wouldn't be a champion. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) explains the reason they do the contest is so that the people will always have a spark of hope. But what hope can they have, when they know that the odds will never be in their favour? President Snow was obviously supposed to be the big bad villain but he was too underused to be any real threat.

And we come to the god-awful love story between Peeta and Katniss which had all the foundations of a lean-to shelter. In flashbacks, we see Peeta giving Katniss some bread. In a pre-tournament interview, Peeta confesses he is in love with Katniss. She angrily dismisses this as a shallow attempt to appeal to sponsors. When in the tournament, Peeta allies with the Careers and leads them straight to Katniss. But after the wasp attack, he joins Katniss after seemingly betraying her. I say seemingly as it's never explained why he joins the Careers and Katniss accepts this without question. It's not even just an acceptance...she falls in love with him. And they kiss! He could have got you killed, Katniss. And the less said about the Romeo and Juliet ending the better.

The Hunger Games was also criticised for its camerawork and it was pretty awful, especially the shaky-cam. In the film's final fight between Katniss, Peeta and Cato - one of these bland Careers, the camera moves around so much, I can barely tell who is who - not that I care much.

I am sure that this review will earn me the ire of Hunger Games' fans, but here's hoping Catching Fire will be better. May the odds ever be in my favour. Humph. Not bloody likely.

Dallas Buyers Club review

Number 312 on the top 1000 films of all time is Jean-Marc Valle's biopic drama Dallas Buyers Club.

Based on the true story, Ron Woodroof (Matthew McConaughey) is a Texan electrician who is diagnosed with AIDS in 1980's America when AIDS was poorly understood. He initially takes the standard treatment of AZT but after this makes him worse, he begins smuggling in alternative treatments and selling them to other aids sufferers under the guise of the Dallas Buyers Club with the help of transgender prostitute Rayon (Jared Leto.)

After the last two years of Covid and lockdown, it's weird to think of AIDS as a pandemic but it was and very much still is. As of 2020, over 36 million people have died, marking it the 4th worst pandemic in history. This pandemic began in the 80s when the disease was stigmatised and under-researched - due to the homophobic attitudes of the time, not to mention, the bureaucratic red tape surrounding the development of new treatments. Woodroof quickly loses his friends who suspect that he is secretly gay. I often wondered whether he was a closeted homosexual and his own self-loathing is the reason for his own intense homophobia.

AZT - the only viable treatment for AIDs is highly experimental and hasn't been approved by the FDA yet. Woodroof bribes a hospital worker for the treatment, but after it makes him worse, he goes to Mexico where a doctor prescribes him with a cocktail of Ddc and peptide T. Knowing there are others suffering, Woodroof exploits this new miracle cure by setting up a club where members can get free medication. However, they have to pay membership fees at a monthly rate of $400. 

To be honest, this is the perfect microcosm of the American healthcare system. You're dying from a lethal disease? You can't afford to pay for your treatment? Guess you better start making funeral plans. It also showcases Woodroof as being less than a great man - exploiting dying people for the last of their money. He isn't the nicest of men to begin with - a homophobic, loudmouthed drunk, but that's what makes his character arc so interesting to watch. He goes from calling Rayon homophobic slurs to defending her against his homophobic friends who don't want to shake her hand to even hugging her when she sells her life insurance policy to keep the club going. When Rayon is taken to hospital and dies after being given AZT, Woodroof is furious. 

And while he begins the club for solely exploitative reasons, he truly begins to care about the people he is helping. The FDA threatens to arrest Woodroof and makes his imported drugs illegal. He promises to fight this, not because he cares about the money, but because he wants to genuinely keep helping people. Matthew McConaughey won the Best Acting Oscar for his role as Woodroof and it was well deserved. He took an unlikable, annoying jackass and turned him into a sympathetic, interesting hero. McConaughey reportedly lost 22 kilos to play the role and this dedication to the role showed through.

But McConaughey cannot take all the credit. Some of that has to be reserved for Jared Leto's standout performance as Rayon. Leto won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this role and it was clear why. He utterly disappeared into the role of the transgender prostitute. It would have been so easy to turn Rayon into nothing more than a hurtful stereotype/caricature but she was so sympathetic. Leto played her as an inspiring, but tragic character. Despite how much shit she must have taken throughout her life, she doesn't devolve into pity and self-loathing like Woodroof does, but always keeps her spirits high. One of the film's most heart-breaking scenes is when Rayon confronts her abusive, transphobic father. Her dad says "God, help me," Rayon replies, "he is helping you; I have aids." Similarly, to McConaughey, Leto also dedicated himself to the role, shaving his eyebrows, waxing his whole body and losing 13kg. Reportedly, he refused to break character and went to the supermarket dressed as Rayon, earning him many stares.

Granted, Jean-Marc Vallee reportedly played a little fast and loose with history. In real life, Woodroof was bisexual and wasn't anywhere near as homophobic as he was portrayed here. The negative effects of AZT were largely overstated as were Woodroof's alternative treatments. But that doesn't change the fact that Vallee still produced a great film with a great performance from McConaughey but an even greater performance from Jared Leto.

The Thing Review

 Number 186 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Carpenter's 1982 sci-fi horror 'The Thing.'

Macready (Kurt Russell) is a helicopter pilot on an Antarctic research base. When a shape-shifting, parasitic alien attacks the research team, paranoia sets in as the men realise that any one of them could be the alien.

After my world-tour of cinema, from Serbia to Italy to Russia back to Italy to Korea and finally Japan, we are back in the States for this 80's horror classic. Although it is only a classic by modern standards. Upon its initial release, it was panned by critics with some deriding it as an Alien knock-off. While it is easy to draw comparisons between the two, the Thing is a good film in its own right.

But it isn't perfect. The cast is large and sometimes confusing. As is typical in horror films, the cast is killed off one-by-one, but I did have trouble keeping track of who was who. Every time somebody died, I had to double-check who they were and what role they played. The cast was so large that I think even Carpenter lost track of who was who. Right at the end of the film, cook Nauls (T.K Carter) goes missing. It's implied that he's been killed by the monster, it isn't specifically stated which is a dangling plot thread. It's made even more peculiar by how mechanic Childs (Keith David) also goes missing to reappear at the end - although we're not sure whether he is really Childs or not. It was a little strange that we had this certainty with one character but not with another. 

Secondly, and perhaps, I've been spoiled by modern CGI, but I'm not sure how well the special effects hold up forty years later. The various incarnations of the alien looked a little too silly to be threatening. When Dr Copper is trying to resuscitate, geologist Norris, Norris turns into the alien and bites off Cooper's arms. The fake blood was less than convincing. Later you have a decapitated head grow spider legs and some weird slug antennae before being set on fire.

However, the Thing worked brilliantly as a horror film. Rather than overly-relying on jumpscares, like many modern horror films do, John Carpenter builds tension by exploring the strained relationship of the different characters. We slowly see this group of friends turn into enemies as their paranoia consumes them. Dog handler Clark (Richard Masur) lunges at Macready with a knife and is shot dead as a consequence. Chief Biologist Blair (A.Wilford Brimley) is locked away in a cabin after he destroys the communication equipment and helicopter in a paranoid rage. 

Carpenter also balanced Ennio Morricone's original score with the use of silence. Silence is employed well in the scene where the Macready threatens to use dynamite to blow the whole base to kingdom come, after the men turn on him. This amped the tension up to no degree and a lesser director might have used tacky sound effects. But the opening scene has the film's famous space-age score which is just quiet and subtle enough to make you uncomfortable. 

I bet that the critics who initially maligned this film are now eating their words. The Thing is a definite classic of horror cinema.

Akira review

 Number 265 on the top 1000 films of all time is Katsuhiro Otomo's cyberpunk anime 'Akira.'

Set in a dystopic 2019, the landscape of Japan has changed immensely. Tokyo has been destroyed in a nuclear blast. The new capital Neo-Tokyo is ran by a corrupt government and biker gangs control the streets. Violence and crime are rife. At the centre of everything are the ESPers - people with psychokinetic powers. One such ESPer is Tetsuo - member of a biker gang.

Other than Studio Ghibli or Pokemon, I've never been big on anime. So I was completely ignorant of Akira's reputation. This film helped introduce anime to a Western audience. In terms of the animation, it was easy to see why. It was gorgeous and really reminded me of early Studio Ghibli especially Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. And, of course, the Akira slide has become a staple of popular culture.

Perhaps it's my lack of exposure to anime, but I did not enjoy this film at all. I found the actual story convoluted and overcomplicated. The "good guys" are a biker gang - too annoying and mischievous to be likable characters. Tetsuo crashes his bike into the young ESPer Takashi which is where Tetsuo's powers manifest. What happens to Takashi? Who knows? He's taken to a government facility to never be heard from again. Meanwhile Tetsuo is taken away to be experimented on by Colonel Shikishima - leader of Japan's self-defense forces. It's revealed that Tetsuo has powers similar to the legendary 'Akira,' who supposedly destroyed the original Tokyo.

Meanwhile Tetsuo's best friend Keneda busts him from the jail and they join an ESP resistance cells. But then the friends turn on each other and Colonel Shikishima is hunting them down. Tetsuo transforms into a Godzilla type monster, goes into space and destroys an orbital weapon, and then Tetsuo and Keneda are transported to another dimension. Keneda is saved by the other ESPers, but Tetsuo is stuck in this other plane of existence. Got all that?

It was a bit like the end of 2001: Space Odyssey where Dave goes through the space tunnel and he sees the future versions of himself. Too surreal and abstract for me. It was like I had fallen asleep and woken up halfway through, but I was awake the whole time.

While this might be a favourite of anime afficionadoes, I am not one of those, so I did not care for this film at all.

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War Review

 Number 185 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Korean war film, Tae Guk Gi: the Brotherhood of War.

Set during the Korean War, Tae Guk Gi focusses on brothers Lee Jin-Tae (Jan Dong-Gun) and Lee Jin-Soek (Won Bin.) The naive and innocent Jin-Doek is drafted into the army. To protect his younger brother, Jin-Tae also enrols. But the war soon changes both brothers beyond comprehension.

Since I started this challenge, I've watched a lot of war films and I've found the best films are the ones that refuse to shy away from the true horrors of war. Tae Guk Gi did exactly that. This was a relentless, non-stop, two and a half hour lesson in the brutality of man. As this is a South Korean film, you might expect them to be portrayed as the heroes and the North Koreans as the villains. But war is rarely that simple. We see both sides commit atrocities.

Jin-Tae discovers that if he earns the Tae Guk Cordon of the Order of Military Merit - the highest military model possible, he would have the power to send his brother home. He volunteers for progressively riskier missions and slowly transforms into a cold-blooded killer.

Upon running into a childhood friend who has been drafted for the North, Jin-Tae is prepared to slaughter him until his younger brother intervenes. Later on, Jin-Tae arranges for the POWs to fight for his own amusement. The North is just as bad. They massacre whole villages and booby-trap the dead bodies. War is never as simple as "he is good and he is bad." There is always a lot of morally grey. This is demonstrated in the supporting cast from the man whose whole family was massacred by the communists and now wants to kill them all to the young Song-Yong, who like Jin-Soek, doesn't want to kill anybody.

Granted the whole brothers/friends gong to war as comrades and slowly becoming enemies is not the most original of ideas, but Tae Guk Gi did it well. In the initial fifteen minutes, we have a clear idea of who the brothers are - Jin-Doek is young and naive with aspirations of college. Jin-Tae is street-smart and confident - he shines shoes to earn enough money to send his younger brother to college. But the brothers are very loyal to each other which is what makes their gradual separation even the more painful.

When Jin-Tae and Jin-Soek return to their home town, Jin-Tae's fiance, Young-Shin, is accused of being a communist and is taken to be shot. Despite the brother's best efforts to save her, she is still executed and the brothers are arrested for trying to save her with Jin-Soek supposedly dying when his prison is burnt down. He survives and later finds out that Jin-Tae has defected to the North Koreans and is now one of their elite commanders. Jin-Soek goes to rescue him, but it appears that Jin-Tae is too far gone. When a battle breaks out and it looks like all hope is lost, Jin-Tae recognises his brother and sacrifices himself so he can escape. And this was a nice way to round out their story arcs. They began as brothers, turned to enemies and finished as brothers again.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, I think it would be for its choppy editing. Some of the battle scenes went on for too long and some of the peace scenes were cut too short. At times it did make for a confusing watch. And I also wonder whether the film over did the action scenes. Yes, I know, war is confusing and chaotic, but the frenetic camerawork and constant explosions did become a little tiresome after a while.

Overall this was a great film and will join the likes of Saving Private Ryan, The Deer Hunter and Full Metal Jacket as one of the best war films of all time.

La Strada review

 Number 184 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fellini's drama: La Strada.

Gelsomina (Giuletta Masina) is a young woman from a poor family. When her sister Rosa, and wife to travelling strong man Zampono (Anthony Quinn) dies, Zampono returns to buy Gelsomina as his new wife. However, Gelsomina finds herself attracted to fellow circus performer Il Matto, (Richard Baseheart.)

Compared to 8 1/2, I much preferred La Strada for one clear reason: its simplicity. There was no surrealism, dream sequences or introspective monologues. Only a love triangle between three tragic characters and you don't get anymore tragic than Gelsomina, Zampono and Il Matto.

Firstly, you have Gelsomina who is a victim of circumstance. After her Rosa dies, Gelsomina is sold to Zambono as his new wife. The brutish Zambono derides and humiliates her by coercing her into becoming part of his act. He is also cruel, intimidating and regularly forces himself onto her. But worst of all, he derives her of her true love - the high-wire artist Il Matto. A rivalrly between the two men ends tragically when Zambono murders Il Matto. A despondent Gelsomina falls into despair until Zambono abandons her on the road or the street, if you will. It revealed that she later died from a broken heart.

As for Zambono, while he is an animal, you wander if this is only a facade. As a travelling strongman, he lives a lonely existence. The only way he can get through the day is by putting on a front. And despite everything, I think he really cared for Gelsomina. After he finds out she's died, he breaks down in tears on a beach. To be honest, I thought he was going to walk into the sea.

Finally, we come to the high-wire artist Il Matto who is part of the circus that Gelsomina and Zambono join. Il Matto and Gelsomina develop a connection, leading to a bitter rivalry between Il Matto and Zambono with the former always playing pranks on the latter - this eventually ends up in both of them being fired and Zambono later killing Il Matto. 

If I were to criticise the film for everything it would be the dubbing. I understand that it was standard practice for Italian films to be recorded without sound and dubbed later on, but I don't understand why. Quinn and Baseheart were both speaking English when they were being filmed, so the dubbed Italian looks so obviously fake. That notwithstanding, I'm just glad to have overcome the art-film bump in the road.

Stalker review

Number 182 on the top 1000 films of all time is Andrei Tarkovsky's science fiction art film Stalker.

Set in a distant future in an unnamed land, Alexander Kaidonovsky plays the Stalker - a guide who steers people safely through a dangerous area, where the laws of physics don't apply, called the Zone. At the centre is a room said to grant the greatest desires of its occupants. The Stalker's next charges are the Writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and the Professor (Nikolai Grinko.)

From Italian art house to Russian art house, but the change in country doesn't make me anymore receptive to art house cinema. Films like these remind me of the dense, academic books, where nothing happens, which I had to slog through for my degree. And when I say nothing happens, I mean nothing - the film is little more than a philosophical debate about faith and the nature of human desire. Too intellectual for the likes of me. I didn't even understand what I didn't understand. Too much talking. As such, I found this film virtually unwatchable. Part of it was down to my own personal tastes, but also due to Tarkovsky's stylised direction.

Firstly, there was the soundtrack or lack thereof. In pivotal moments, a soundscape of distorted, synthesised sound effects played which created an eerie atmosphere. But much of the film had no music altogether. Only silence. Yes, this made things creepy, but it also made things boring. Sometimes in film, the use of music can be distracting, but the opposite was true here. Yes I know that Tarkovsky wants to ensure the audience can focus their whole attention on the philosophy, but you have to give them something to work with. Silence isn't engaging enough.

Especially when it's coupled with long takes of the characters doing very little. The film begins with the Stalker getting out out bed and brushing his teeth. It is not until the ten-minute mark that any dialogue is said. Any first-year creative writing student will tell you this is not interesting way to start a story.

One thing I did find interesting was Tarkovsky's colour scheme. For the scenes outside the zone in the "real world," he uses a sepia tone, but the scenes within the zone are in full technicolour. Perhaps this is how the Zone forces men to be completely honest with themselves and their desires whereas the real world allows them to keep lying to everybody.

That's my attempt of interpreting the film, but my days of deeply analysing media are long over. Although this film does raise an interesting question. If the Stalker was guiding you through the Zone to the room so your heart's desire can be granted, what would it be?

8 1/2 Review

Number 181 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fellini's 1963 surrealist, comedy-drama 8 1/2.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastrioianni) is a famous Italian film director who experiences a creative block when directing his latest science fiction film. To overcome this block, he revisits pivotal points and relationships in his life.

Much like any of Ingmar Bergman's film, 8 1/2 is a film that can only be enjoyed if you're a diehard cinophile. I know that I'm doing a challenge to watch the top 1000 films of all time, but I am not a diehard cinophile. I'm not that deep when it comes to films. There's stuff I like and stuff I don't. And 8 1/2 wasn't something I particularly liked or could follow. Films like these are usually surreal - to the point of frustration, and I don't have the patience to wade through the many dream sequences or worse have to figure out what's a dream and what's reality.

Films about films like Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood have an air of superiority. They're not so much a reference to what came before, but an ego trip for directors proving how much of a film buff they are. Granted being made almost sixty hours before OUATIH, 8 1/2 didn't have the same air of superiority, but it did feel like Fellini was dangling ideas over my head that I'm not intelligent enough to know they're even there.

But like I say, I'm not a cinophile and probably not intelligent enough to even begin interpreting this film. One IMDB reviewer noted you have to watch the film a few times to understand it. I probably won't be doing that anytime soon unless I have trouble getting to sleep.