Dances with Wolves review

 Number 333 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Kevin Costner's 1990 epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.'

Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is a soldier in the US Civil War. In 1863, he is assigned to a military post in the American frontier. Instead of finding his assignment, he finds a group of Lakota. There everything he has ever known is flipped on its head.

I've never rated Costner much as an actor. He's very wooden and over-the-top. After seeing this, I don't rate him much as a director either. Dances with Wolves was a slow-plodding affair that had no business being three hours long. The film centres on Dunbar's relationship with the Lakota, but they barely feature until an hour in - which was also the first sign of tension.

How Dances with Wolves won the Best Picture Oscar is beyond me. How it beat out brilliant films like Awakenings or Goodfellas is even more stupefying. And don't even get me started on Costner being nominated for Best Actor. His constant narration slowed the film to an absolute crawl. He logs all his interactions with the Lakota in a journal. This is accompanied by the slowest, most monotonous, expository voice-over known to man. We see something on screen, and, for some reason, Costner felt the need to over-explain it ad infiniteum. 

It made everything very on-the-nose. It would have been much better if the audience had been left to figure things out for themselves.

Dunbar wasn't an interesting character to follow at all. I was far more interested in the dynamics of the Lakota tribe. It would have been more interesting if the film had been told from their perspective rather than from a tepid soldier who loves the sound of his own voice.

I did not care for Dances with Wolves. It was an overly-long, tedious affair. And how it was the 1990 Best Picture winner is a complete mystery.

The Wild Bunch review

 Number 286 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1969 epic revisionist Western 'The Wild Bunch.'

Pike Bishop (William Holden) is the leader of an ageing band of cowboys who are finding their way before the outbreak of the first world war. Wishing to retire soon, they want to do one last robbery, but they are pursued savagely by a rival gang led by Pike's father partner Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan.)

The Wild Bunch takes place at the end of the cowboy era, as these rustlers and would-be outlaws try to find their way in the ever-changing world. It is a swan-song to their legacy, but I would argue it is also a swan-song to the Western genre itself.

By 1969, Leone had released his dollars-trilogy and the best days of the Western genre were behind them. Spaghetti Westerns were becoming a thing of the past. Roll on the 70's with the resurgence of the gangster genre, as well as the rise of the Vietnam war films. Coppola and Scorsese released the Godfather and Mean Streets, which were followed at the end of the decade by the Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now. But the Wild Bunch paid homage to the best of the genre while keeping everything grounded in a gritty realism.

These aren't the romanticised, pretty-boy cowboys of Gary Cooper in High Noon, but rather the brutal anti-hero that Eastwood played in the Dollars' trilogy. The Wild Bunch have their own code of honour, but this doesn't apply to the civillians around them who are largely seen as collateral damage. It was a nice demystification of a highly romanticised figure. The Wild Bunch were just petty crooks masquerading as honourable cowboys.

They were led by William Holden in another morally duplicitous role similar to this Oscar-winning turn in Stalag-17. But he was good as the ageing, world-weary protagonist who just wants to retire and put the world behind him.

The Wild Bunch was an intensely violent, but enjoyable affair that acted as a lovely swan-song to the Western genre.

The Philadelphia Story review

 Number 231 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1940 romantic-drama 'the Philadelphia Story.'

Wealthy socialite Tracy Lord (Katherine Hepburn) has recently divorced from her ex-husband Dexter Haven (Cary Grant.) She is now intending to marry the wealthy George Kittredge (John Howard.) New York's Spy magazine sends journalists Mike Connor (James Stewart) and Liz Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) to cover the glitzy affair.

I'm probably just a culturally ignorant millennial who's been spoiled by the rich, complicated storytelling of directors like Christopher Nolan, and the like, but the older films are so much more simplistic.

And, by simplistic, I mean dull and predictable. It was obvious from the get-go that this film would centre around a love triangle between Hepburn, Grant and Stewart: Grant still has feelings for his old ex, but he faces new competition not only by Kittredge but also Connor played by Stewart. Meanwhile Hepburn is initially only interested in improving her social status. This is the only reason she is marrying Kittredge. However, she becomes romantically involved with Stewart. And I saw this coming from a mile away.

Of course, this is isn't to slate the acting talent in this film - Grant and Stewart were charismatic as usual - although I'm not sure whether Stewart was quite deserving of his Best Actor Oscar win. I think he was better in other roles like in Mr Smith Goes to Washington or Anatomy of a Murder. I did particularly like Hepburn. She was well-known as an outspoken feminist, constantly speaking out against the misogyny of the era. And she brought some of her fiery demeanour into her role. It was nice seeing a female lead as acting assertive and confident, rather than just a wet blanket, which was all too common for the films of the time.

While I was charmed by the three leads, I was less charmed by the film itself. All very cheesy and predictable.

3-Iron review

 Number 229 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Korean/Japanese romantic drama '3-Iron.'

Tae-Suk (Jae-Hee) is a lonely drifter who spends his days breaking into people's homes when they're away, eating their food, washing their clothes, fixing their appliances and sleeping in their beds. One day he breaks into the home of Sun-hwa (Lee Seung-Yeon) - a house wife who is being abused by her husband Min-Gyu (Kwon Hyuk-ho.) After Tae-Suk witnesses this abuse in secret, he proceeds to buffet Min-Gyu with golf balls before leaving with his wife who soon joins him on his escapades.

In 3-Iron, I've seen one of the strangest, most intriguing yet subtly powerful films about human connection and communication. What makes the theme of communication even stranger is how there is so little verbal communication between Tae-Suk and Sun-hwa. Despite having minimal dialogue, the two soon start to fall in love. This use of silence was completely intentional by director Kim Ki-duk who wanted the audience to focus on the relationship of the characters without being distracted by dialogue. There is so much more in what we don't say rather than what we do. Ki-Duk captures this idea perfectly. 

It's a great concept. So much of human communication is more than the words we speak. There is our body language, our facial expressions - all those little sub-communications that nobody ever thinks about, but make up so much of how we convey meaning to one another.

However, I wonder if Ki-Duk could have pushed this idea even further. The film is only short at eighty-eight minutes. That's not even an hour-and-a-half. Its short runtime meant that some of the plot-points were rushed and contrived so they could fit in the big thematic ideas within ninety minutes. Let's take the first meeting of Tae-Suk and Sun-Hwa. Tae-Suk breaks into Sun-Hwa's home not realising that she is there too. He starts washing her clothes and fixing her bathroom scale. Meanwhile, she has spotted him there and, rather than confronting him or running and screaming for help, she watches him curiously.

After Tae-Suk beats Min-Gyu, Sun-Hwa leaves with him, no questions asked. Obviously she has to go with him for the plot to work, but it all happened too easily. I am no expert, but in many abusive relationships there is an element of Stockholm Syndrome. Despite being horrifically abused, the abusee still deeply loves their abuser. I thought Sun-Hwa would express distress at her husband being attacked or maybe she would try to stop Tae-Suk. At the very least, I thought she would be hesitant about leaving him, but that wasn't the case at all.

There are other plot points that were completely skipped over. When playing golf on a street corner, Tae-Suk inadvertently hits the golf ball into the head of a random passer-by. We see one shot of him wracked with guilt and then it's quickly onto the next plot point. Tae-Suk and Sun-Hwa are caught in the bed of one of the homeowners they've invaded. What happens next? Nothing negative, as we're rushing along. These could have been great moments of conflict and tension, but they weren't explored properly.

I did enjoy 3-Iron. It was intriguing and very creative, but it definitely needed longer than ninety minutes to explore its big thematic ideas.

Barry Lyndon review

 Number 228 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's 1975 epic historical drama 'Barry Lyndon.'

Based on William Makepeace Thackery's novel 'the Luck of Barry Lyndon,' Barry Lyndon (Ryan O'Neal) follows the eponymous Irish rogue as he wiles his way into the upper echelons of society through marrying the rich widow Lady Lyndon (Marisa Berenson) and ingratiating himself into her family and life.

Barry Lyndon really surprised me. As you may have gathered from some of my other reviews, I neither care for epics or period dramas of which Barry Lyndon was both. They're vague, overly-long and tedious. They're so boring. Yet I found Barry Lyndon to be very watchable. 

Did it need to be three hours long? Absolutely not. The pacing was incredibly slow, which was hardly helped by how the accompanying musical score was slow, serene and happy. That hardly helped to ratchet up the tension. Plus there were lots of shots of the characters sitting around doing very little.

But despite all that I thoroughly enjoyed Barry Lyndon. As a character, Lyndon is pretty despicable. He is charming on the surface, but he also has a darker side which regularly comes out when he doesn't get his way. However, he is still interesting to watch. I was intrigued to keep watching just to see whether he gets his just desserts or not, which *spoiler alert* he inevitably does. O'Neal made him a charismatic and three-dimensional character. It worked well enough to stop him from becoming a cliched cartoon villain.

Another reason period-dramas don't work for me is either the lack of stakes or stakes being so artificially produced that they become over-blown and contrived. Neither of these was the case with Barry Lyndon. There was plenty of drama. It was presented in a natural and authentic way, as we see Lyndon navigate obstacle after obstacle. He goes from duelling a rival to fighting for the English in the Seven-Year war to fighting for the Prussians in the Seven-Year war to becoming a gambler and hustler to marrying the widowed Lady Lyndon and then coming full-circle by duelling his stepson Lord Bullingdon. It is quite a journey.

Barry Lyndon really surprised me. I went into the film absolutely dreading it, but it was thoroughly entertaining. I guess you can't judge a film by its genre classification.

The Hustler review

 Number 226 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1961 drama 'The Hustler.'

Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) is a small-time pool hustler who wishes to make the big league by challenging legendary pool player Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason.) When Felson is crushed by Fats in a game, Felson vows to beat him the next time they play.

I really did not care for this film at all. If I were to describe it in one word, it would just be boring. Part of that is down to me and my own personal taste, I have never been that interested in pool. Or at least not interested enough to watch a 134 minute film on the subject. But the other main reason would be for the lack of musical score. I find that the music in a film can really make or break it. 

At times it can be far too loud *cough cough Christopher Nolan/Hunger Games,* at other times it can evoke entire eras like how Tarantino uses popular music in his films. And, in rare cases, the lack of incidental music can really up the tension.

This was not one of those cases. The music, or lack thereof, should pair well with what we see on the screen. And that wasn't the case here. Even though much of the on-screen action was nothing to be interested by, it could have been made interesting through the use of incidental music. The fact that there was little of it did next to nothing to help things. 

The Hustler was originally based on a book by Walter Tevis. When adapting this book, director Robert Rossen was keen to focus more on the characters and their relationships with each other rather than on the pool itself. Did he succeed in that? I don't think he did. There was still too much focus on the pool rather than on an actual likeable main character that I wanted to root for. Obviously Felson doesn't need to be likeable to make me curious to see whether he will succeed, but he needed to be interesting, and I didn't find him very interesting at all. He was arrogant and obnoxious.

As the Hustler is number 226 on the list of 1000 films of all time, I'm sure there are lots of people who found it interesting. In fact, it revitalised American interest in pool. However, I did not care for the film at all.

The Legend of 1900 review

 Number 221 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama 'the Legend of 1900.'

Max Tooney (Pruitt Taylor Vince) is a trumpeter in early 20th century New York. When he tries selling his trumpet to make ends meet, he starts recounting the Legend of 1900 - 1900 was a baby found in a crate of fruit D. Lemon 1900 on the ship SS Virginian. 1900 (Tim Roth) grows up to be a virtuoso on the piano, and the best friend of Max Tooney.

Tim Roth and Pruitt Taylor Vince was the pairing I never knew I needed. I've seen Tim Roth in a few Tarantino films where he plays morally grey characters whereas Pruitt Taylor Vince has appeared in a number of TV shows like Deadwood, House and the Walking Dead. I never imagined I would see the two together especially with Roth being English and Vince American, yet they were great. They had an excellent chemistry. Considering their relationship was at the heart of this film, this was only the more important. They worked brilliantly together. The characters couldn't have been played by anybody else.

Without these two actors, the Legend of 1900 could have been a very different film. It's a story of friendship, music and two men becoming friends through their shared love of music. Without Roth or Vince, it could have completely descended into tedium or melodrama, but it remained incredibly watchable. Vince very much remains the straight man helping to navigate Roth's musical genius. 1900 spends the whole film on the ship where he was born. He is too hesitant to step into the outside world believing it to be too big for him.

Later on, Vince returns to the ship, that has since been decommissioned and has been scheduled to be destroyed, as he believes 1900 is still hiding away somewhere on it. He attempts to convince him to leave, but to no avail. Pruitt showed off his acting chops, as we see his heart break. This was a touching moment that underlined the relationship between he and 1900. 

I may argue that the film was longer than it needed to be, with some of the pacing being quite slow. At times, it was a little overly-sentimental, but overall, I did enjoy the Legend of 1900. It really took me by surprise. And it had brilliantly cast two lead actors that I never would have imagined together: Tim Roth and Pruitt Taylor Vince

La Haine review

 Number 220 on the top 1000 films of all time is the French social thriller 'La Haine.' (The Hatred)

Vinz (Vincent Cassel,) Hubert (Hubert Kounde) and Said (Said Taghamaoui) are three friends and second-generation immigrants living in Paris. The day after a riot, where one of their friends is brutally beaten, we see the three young men navigating life in the ghettoes of Paris.

Part immigrant experience, part gritty drama, part slice-of life, La Haine was an illuminating look into working-class life within Paris. It was a far cry from the romanticised Paris that we see on social media. It was raw, gritty and stark. There were no frills - just an authentic portrayal of life in Paris. It strongly reminded me of similar dramas set in London like Kidulthood or Top Boy.

Those dramas have no pretensions; they don't impart any judgement on their characters. Instead, they give you the facts and allow you to decide for yourself. And that's what the best film makers do. They leave their biases behind and leave matters in the hands of the audience.

You could argue that Vinz, Hubert and Said aren't the most likeable of characters. They're destructive miscreants causing trouble wherever they go, but they're not meant to be liked. They aren't heroes. They aren't villains. They just are. We're forced to see the world through their eyes and nothing more. We have no choice.

What made La Haine so powerful was its realism. Everything felt so real. I was right there with the characters walking through the dark streets of Paris. And that was only made better through the excellent decision of rendering the film in monochrome. The stark black-and-white only made the action all the more poignant. There are no distracting colours to hide behind. 

Watching La Haine was a hell of a ride. It was intense and it didn't let up for a second. But it had a brilliant authenticity that carried things along very smoothly. For those who are thinking Paris is like the way you see in Amelie, think again. La Haine presents the oh so painful, but also necessary truth.

In The Mood for Love review

 Number 216 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Chinese romance-drama 'In the Mood for Love.'

Mr Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs Chan (Maggie Cheung) are two neighbours who have just moved into a Hong Kong apartment block. Suspecting their respective spouses of cheating on them, the two start becoming attracted to each other. Will they be like their spouses and have an affair too?

Never mind love, I'm in the mood for an entertaining film, because this was film was dull. Insufferably dull. Boring. Tedious. Monotonous. Insert any other synonym for boring. It's a drama. Where was the drama? The tension?

It's quickly established that Mr Chow and Mrs Chan are lonely; their spouses work long hours and are inattentive. Although we never see this on-screen. Plus it isn't like the two would-be lovers are social pariahs. Mrs Chan's neighbours are constantly inviting her in for dinner, but she always refuses. If you actually had dinner with your neighbours, you wouldn't be so lonely. At a certain point, you're just being a victim.

And there's nothing stopping Mr Chow and Mrs Chan from having an affair if they really wanted. Their neglectful spouses are nowhere to be seen. They have no rivals for each other's interests. We, the audience, can see how lonely they are, so we're willing for them to get together. Where's the tension? It's virtually non-existent. In fact, the first moment of tension doesn't occur until the hour mark, where the would-be lovers realise they can't be together.

The film isn't particularly long; only one hundred minutes, but that's ten minutes too long. The film ends with Mr Chan in Angkor Wat whispering into the hole of a temple wall before stuffing it with moss. This references an earlier section where he says that in the olden times people would go up a mountain, whisper their secrets into a hole of a tree before filling it with moss. I get the visual metaphor, but why have it in Angkor Wat and not a tree on a mountain? And why we did then pan around Angkor Wat for five minutes?

One positive was that the original score was very good - it was mysterious and compelling, but it was only used sparingly. Much of the rest of the film had no incidental music, which only made it all the more boring.

And boring is the perfect way of summarising this film. Not enough tension. Annoying characters doing annoying things and too many lingering shots of characters sitting in empty rooms deep in thought.

Memories of Murder review

 Number 213 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Bong Jong-Hoo's 2003 South Korean neo-noir crime thriller 'Memories of Murder.'

Park Doo-man (Song Kang-ho) and Kim Roi-ha (Cho Yong-koo) are police detectives in 1986 Hwaseong who are investigating a string of grisly rapes and murders. They are soon joined by the Seoul hotshot Seo Tae-yoon (Kim Sang-kyung.)

This was a convincing thriller. It was tense, gripping with plenty of plot-twists along the way. Granted it was complicated and convoluted at times, but as such is the nature with these films. Bong makes great use of the weather and music to really up the tension. There were great sequences like when the detectives chase a suspect through the backstreets of Hwaseong.

As is common for thrillers, many of the key scenes took place at night and in the pouring rain, which certainly built the suspense. And one of the biggest clues that cracks the case is a radio song that is always requested to play while the murders take place.

However, there was something stopping me from really engaging with it and that was the interpersonal dynamics between Park, Kim and Seo. Their constant unprofessionalism and squabbling really got on my nerves after a while. I get it. Park and Kim are resentful of having an outsider come help them. They neither want or need their help, but for the greater good they must work together. It is quickly implied that Park and Kim are out of their depths. Their small police department doesn't have the resources or funds to successfully complete this investigation.

But their constant in-fighting made them seem incredibly amateurish. I had no confidence that they would find the true killer especially when they resort to beating confessions out of their suspects. I get that they're from the school of flawed, psychologically-damaged, rough-around-the-edges, willing to break the rules to get the job done, police detectives, but it was all too much. They weren't very likeable and I wasn't too bothered if they would successfully apprehend the killer. Rather than catching the killer, they just get even more people killed like their initial suspect.

And *spoilers*

they don't. Despite having three key suspects, including the most likely candidate Park Hyeon-gu, the case remains frustratingly unsolved. Having the killer escape was refreshing to see. In many thrillers, it's expected that after some ordeals and struggles, the cops would eventually catch the murderer and everything would wrap up nicely. Maybe not with a pretty pink bow, but nicely enough. However, that isn't the case here. And I quite liked this ending. It felt painfully realistic. Sadly, in real life, many murders do go unsolved, because the killers are never caught. They do escape.

Despite the rather unlikeable main characters, I still think Memories of Murder is worth a watch. It's a gripping thriller with a refreshing ending.

The Night of the Hunter review

 Number 211 on the top 1000 films of all time is Charles Laughton's film-noir thriller 'the Night of the Hunter.'

Ben Harper (Robert Graves) is a bank-robber who killed two people before escaping with $10,000. He hides the money and makes his two small children John (Billy Chapin) and Pearl (Sally Jane Bruce) promise to never reveal the location. However, he is then caught and sent to death-row. Before his execution, he tells the preacher-disguised serial killer Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum) about the money, although he doesn't reveal the exact location. Powell then visits Harper's family in his hometown in the hopes of finding the money. Although he quickly wins over the town and Harper's wife, his children remain distrustful of him.

Upon its initial release, the Night of the Hunter was so negatively reviewed that Charles Laughton never directed another film again. Although its critical evaluation has immensely improved in modern times, I do think this is great shame. The Night of the Hunter reminded me of the best of the old German expressionist films of old particularly Fritz Lang's M. This wasn't an accident either as Laughton gave the film a deliberate expressionist style.

 He deliberately employed the harsh lighting and strong shadows you would often see in expressionism. Much of the set design was also incredibly simplistic and minimalist. One of my favourite shots was when you see Powell's silhouette on the Harper children's bedroom wall. You only see the shape of his hat, but it was still incredibly sinister.

Robert Mitchum was also well-known for starring in film noir roles before he achieved mainstream success. From Undercurrent to the Locket to Pursued and Where Danger Rules, he has played a variety of roles. And he was the perfect fit for the duplicitous Harry Powell. He was charismatic enough to win over not only Harper's entire home-town, but also Harper's widow. And not only does he win her over, but he manipulates her into becoming his greatest acolyte. When Powell refuses to consumate their marriage, she starts believing that her soul needs to be redeemed and starts joining him in his preaching missions. Yet all of Powell's charisma was not enough to win over Harper's children.

However, I do think that the film's ending severely let it down. Everything changed from a tense, scary horror noir to a borderline Christmas film. All the suspense dissolved into unnecessary sentimentality and sweetness. Spoilers to follow.

After exposing Powell, John and Pearl run away from their home town where they take refuge with a woman called Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish) a tough-as-nails badass who looks after troubled children. When Powell follows them there, Cooper fires a shotgun full of birdshot into his face. She holds him off long enough for the police to arrive and arrest Powell. Afterwards, Christmas comes and John and Pearl join Cooper's brood of lost children. They all live happily ever after. Although Cooper was only a supporting role, I thought she was a great character. It was brilliant seeing a female character having that much agency especially in a 1950's film.

But at the end of the day, 'The Night of the Hunter' is a thriller. It should be suspenseful from start-to-finish and this ending killed the suspense. Okay, it's nice to know that the Harper children finally get to have a normal life after their traumatic ordeals, but this could have just been implied. We didn't need to get a whole Christmas special.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy this film. I do think it's such a shame that Laughton didn't make anymore films. Such a waste of potential.

Strangers on a Train review

 Number 210 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1951 psychological thriller 'Strangers on a Train.'

Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is an amateur tennis star who wishes to divorce his wife Miriam to instead marry Anne Morton (Ruth Roman,) the daughter of a US senator. On a train, he meets Bruno Antony (Robert Walker,) a psychopath who hates his father. Bruno suggests that the two swap murders - Bruno will kill Guy's wife if Guy kills Bruno's father. 

Hitchcock was dubbed the 'Master of Suspense' for a reason. This was another great outing. Possibly one of his scariest films since The Birds. A lot of this was down to Robert Walker's portrayal of the antagonistic Bruno Antony. Not only is he a psychopath, but he is a silver-tongued psychopath, charismatic enough to integrate himself into any social situation without raising an alarm. And he is clever enough to manipulate all situations to his advantage. He tricks his way into fancy dinners that Haines is attending and even into his tennis club. And like many psychopaths, he is delusional; he kills Haines' wife believing that Haines has accepted his offer, but this was never the case. 

Walker is definitely no hulking giant of a man, but he still created a true aura of menace. In some ways, he was what I would imagine Ted Bundy being like. Although I did read online that Hitchcock deliberately queer-coded Bruno. By today's standards that could be considered problematic, although I didn't really notice much of that. Perhaps because Walker was so charismatic.

But it wasn't just Walker's performance that kept me on the edge of my seat; it was the lighting, shadows and the cinematography. Guy is a famous tennis star who wears his shiny tennis whites while Bruno is a nobody languishing in his dark, dingy mansion. All his wealth has failed to save his soul. Of course, there is also the famous shot of Bruno strangling Miriam reflected in her glasses that had tumbled to the floor. In fact, the whole sequence was tense, as Bruno silently pursues her through the tunnel of love in a fairground.

Speaking of the fairground, I was sceptical about the final confrontation between Bruno and Haines taking place on a carousel that is spinning wildly out of control. I understand that it is going very quickly, but it's not that high off the ground. There's no real danger there. Unfortunately, this did push my suspension of disbelief a little too far.

Anyway, this was still an enjoyable film. It was tense, gripping and had a great performance by Robert Walker.