Manhattan review

 Number 293 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's romantic, comedy-drama 'Manhattan.'

Woody Allen stars as Isaac Davis, a 42-year-old TV comedy writer living in Manhattan. He is dating the 17-year-old Tracy (Muriel Hemingway) but soon falls in love with his best friend's mistress Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton.)

This was a comedy, right? Woody Allen directed it, right? He wrote it too. So, why was it so unfunny? The film was only ninety-six minutes, but it felt so much longer. It wasn't until the forty-sixth minute that I even cracked a smile. The rest of the film rarely elicited more than a chuckle.

And that comes back to Woody Allen who effectively always plays the same character - a neurotic, middle-aged Jewish man with a tendency to psycho-analyse everything. it's all well and good, once or twice, but after a while, it becomes tedious. Tedious is the best way to describe this film. It was just a bunch of would-be academics name-dropping philosopher after philosopher.

Manhattan was also uncomfortable in its depiction of Isaac and Tracy's relationship. He's old enough to be her father. And the romantically inexperienced Hemingway also experienced a lot of discomfort in the role. Considering the allegations that have since been levelled against Allen and considering how he is married to his step-daughter who is over thirty years his junior, it only made things ickier. I know that nothing ever came of the allegations, but it still felt creepy.

If I were to praise the film on anything it would be its cinematography, which was wonderful. Allen shot the film in black-and-white, which gave it a timeless, vintage feel. The scenes of Allen and Keaton in the planetarium where they were silhouetted against the stars were gorgeous.

I've seen a few Woody Allen films in my time. I can't say I like them very much. Even though, they're comedies, they're just not funny.

The Cabinet of Dr Caligari review

 Number 289 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2005 horror film 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari.'

Dr Caligari (Daamen J. Krall) id a mad scientist who has secretly brainwashed the somnambulist Cesare (Doug Jones) into becoming a murderer. When Francis' (Judson Pearce Morgan) friend is killed, Francis swears to put a stop to Dr Caligari's madness.

This film is a remake of the 1920 original, which was a classic of the German Expressionistic genre. Director David Lee Fisher recreated the genre perfectly. The scene and set-design were so perfect that it felt like I was watching a Fritz Lang film. They brilliantly evoked a chilling atmosphere. Everything had a surreal tinge to it, making it all the scarier.

The houses had been built at strange angles and trees didn't resemble trees at all. They were abstract outlines from a waking nightmare. The monochrome only added to the creepy atmosphere.

The original film was silent, lacking any dialogue, so perhaps that explained all the over-acting and corny dialogue. The dialogue was cheesy. It didn't sound good coming out of the actor's mouths. I'm not sure whether this was intentional on Fisher's part. Having said that, the performances were good. The ever-great Doug Jones was very creepy as the brain-washed murderer.

Either way, this was still an entertaining if weird and surreal film.

All Quiet on the Western Front review

 Number 284 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1930 epic war film 'All Quiet on the Western Front.'

Paul Bauhmer (Lew Agre) is one of many German raw recruits who signed up to fight for the fatherland during World War One. While here, they need the older, cynical corporal Stanislavus "Kat" Katcinzsky. Quickly, Paul's optimism fades away, as he witnesses the true horrors of war.

All Quiet on the Western Front won the 1930 Oscar for Best film, only the third film to do so. I'm so sure to audiences back then, it would have been powerful stuff. But it was also a film of its time. AQWF would have held a special relevance to 1930's audiences, as WW1 was still in living memory.

I watched this in 2024, so, naturally, it didn't have the same relevance for me. I'm sure it would have been ground-breaking at the time, but I've seen it all before. it was difficult not to draw comparisons to every other war film I've seen whether that's World War 1, World War 2 or the Vietnam war. Because AQWF was such a pioneer, it's become an influence on every film since.

At the time, the film industry was slowly transitioning to sound, so I'm sure the gunfire and explosions would have been as traumatic as the initial sequence of Saving Private Ryan, but for a modern viewer like me, it failed to resonate. Unsurprisingly, the special effects were nothing compared to Steven Spielberg's seminal work. But that is only to be expected.

And the deep philosophy about the nature of war wasn't ground-breaking either. Granted, it wasn't as in your face as the Thin Red Line, but, again, it was stuff I've seen before. The same can be said for the transformation of the naive, optimistic recruits into battle-hardened, cynical killers. Full Metal Jacket comes to mind.

Although, I did find it peculiar that there wasn't much conflict between the German soldiers themselves. It's quickly established that conditions are terrible with the troopers starving hungry, so you would expect them to be fighting among each other, but instead they're all very amiable with each other. 

That notwithstanding, I recognise most of my criticism is unfair. I'm sure that in 1930, this film would have been a masterpiece, but almost 100 years later, I don't think it held up at all.

The Graduate review

Number 263 on the top 1000 films of all time is Mike Nichols' 1967 romantic comedy-drama 'the Graduate.'

Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) is a 21-year-old college graduate with no plans in life. He is seduced into an affair with the older, married Mrs Robinson (Anne Bancroft,) but he soon falls in love with her daughter Elaine (Katherine Ross.)

If this film is best known for anything, it's the excellent soundtrack by Simon and Garfunkel. Taking the unusual move of explicitly including the duo's music, Nichols really helped to raise their image. And the music was used to good effect. The Sound of Silence brilliantly conveyed the alienation that Braddock feels for most of the film. But we also can't forget the inclusion of the wonderful Scarborough Fair.

But there is much more to this film than its soundtrack. If anything, it's a film of alienation and isolation. The lost Mrs Robinson, angry that she sold out her dreams of artistic freedom to have a stable marriage and rich husband, tries to regain control of her life by seducing the younger Benjamin Braddock - another lost character who only loses himself further in his affair with Mrs Robinson. That could one why he starts to fall for Elaine. He is also trying to take back control.

Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft were great in the lead roles, we truly understood and empathised with the loneliness of both characters without ever becoming resentful of them. Anne Bancroft perfectly fit the role of Mrs Robinson, so much so, she was allowed to provide her own wardrobe.

I also enjoyed the ending, which stayed consistent with the theme of uncertainty and alienation. *Spoilers*

Having won Elain back, just as she was about to marry somebody else, we see Ben and Elaine hurry onto a bus and drive off into a sunset. Except it's actually an uncertain future. We see them staring awkwardly at each other, as the Sound of Silence plays.

I also thought the cinematography and camerawork gave the film an air of authenticity. Due to not being able to get permits to shoot on Berkeley Campus, Nichols had to use a range of medium and long shots, meaning that many of the extras we see, were real-life students who didn't know they were being filmed.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Graduate. It was good fun with a memorable soundtrack.

The Killing review

 Number 244 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's 1956 film noir 'The Killing.'

Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) is a career criminal planning one last heist before settling down with his lover Fay (Coleen Gray.) He assembles a crack-crew of five other criminals to rob the local racetrack.

Sadly, the Killing was a film that suffered badly from unwanted studio interference. Studio execs demanded Kubrick include narration, which only functioned to give exposition. Or rather, to beat the audience around the head with exposition. It really slowed up what should have been a fast-paced crime-thriller. It was an unnecessary inclusion.

Otherwise, this would have been a very interesting film noir, even if it didn't bring anything new to the genre. It has the same morally-grey characters you would see in the Big Sleep, but without the overly-convoluted plot. Yes, the Killing employs a non-linear narrative, but I don't think this particularly complicated things.

The Killing also had the old familiar trope of the femme fatale: Sherry (Marie Windsor) wife of one of the gang who is plotting to double-cross him and run off with his share. And, of course, you had the low-key lighting and endless supply of men smoking cigarettes.

Yes, the fight scenes looked very silly, but the Killing was an interesting watch. It was one of Kubrick's earliest films, but also one one of his most influential, influencing the likes of Quentin Tarantino. It's just a shame that the studio couldn't keep their grubby hands away from Kubrick's work.

Bringing up Baby review

 Number 214 on the top 1000 films of all time is Howard Hawks' 1938 screwball comedy 'Bringing up Baby.'

David Huxley (Cary Grant) is a palaeontologist who is aiming to get a million dollar donation for his museum from wealthy benefactor Elizabeth Ransom (May Robson.) He is also shortly due to be married. However, he then meets the scatter-brained heiress Susan Vance (Katherine Hepburn.) Shenanigans and hi-jinks ensue.

Bringing Up Baby was a box-office bomb upon release. It was so bad that it virtually killed off Hepburn's career before she later rebounded. Nonetheless, critics received it for its absurdist humour and bizarre situations. However, I thought it was all a bit ridiculous and not in a good way either. While it started well, it slowly descending into incredulity, as things become more and more outlandish. The "baby" in the title refers to a leopard that was a gift for Elizabeth. Baby escapes and Huxley and Vance have to track it down. Naturally another leopard has escaped from the nearby circus.

Before Susan's dog steals and buries an important bone that Huxley needs to complete his brontosaurus skeleton. They then have to dig holes all over Susan's garden to find the bones. When Huxley and Vance's antics land them in jail, Huxley realises his cell door has been left unlocked, which he soon points out to the police who promptly lock him up again. It's all a bit silly really. And not very funny either.

The same can't be said for Cary Grant. He put his background in Vaudeville to good use, as he shows off his great physical comedy skills. His jumping in the air declaring that he was feeling gay was complete improvisation.

However, I wasn't as convinced by Katherine Hepburn. It was difficult to believe this was the same actress who had won a record four acting Oscars. But she didn't fared so well in the comedy department. Reportedly, she majorly struggled because she was trying too hard to be funny. It didn't help that Vance was a frustrating character. She wasn't a character that matched up with Hepburn's famous strong feminist character. I think she was miscast.

If anything, the air-headed, man-obsessed, scatter-brained Susan Vance would have been a better fit for the other famous Hepburn - Audrey. Susan Vance was not unlike Holly Golightly. Having said that, her imitation of a gangster at the film's conclusion was very well done.

Cary Grant was a comedic talent and Katherine Hepburn was a great actress in her own right, but I don't think this film did either of them justice. 

Lincoln review

 Number 836 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's biographical period-drama 'Lincoln.'

The year is 1865. The American Civil War is coming to an end. President Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) is desperately trying to pass the thirteenth amendment so he can formally abolish slavery. Will he succeed? A sprawling ensemble cast includes Hal Holbrook, David Costabile, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

As I'm sure you're sick of hearing by now, I don't like period dramas. They are neither interesting or engaging. their huge casts only serve to complicate or confuse things. And, by their very nature, they're so lacking in conflict, the writers have to really struggle in generating any type of narrative tension. It's not like a thriller where there's a murder to be solved or the will-they, won't they trope, you have in romance films.

Lincoln only cemented this belief further. For me, it was unengaging, uninteresting and difficult to follow. The overly-large cast only made things more confusing. I'm sure it was just me and my short-attention span, but I did struggle in differentiating the different characters after a while.

Daniel Day-Lewis won his third acting Oscar for his role. But I'm going to be controversial and say that I don't think this role was Oscar-worthy. Compared to his magnificent performance in There Will be Blood, his performance here was very average. This is true especially by Day-Lewis standards. Unlike with There Will Be Blood, I don't think I can pinpoint one exact moment where I thought "yes, that's why Day-Lewis won this Oscar. I think Denzel Washington in Flight, who was also Oscar-nominated, was just as good if not better.

Elizabeth review

 Number 763 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shekhar Kapur's 1998 biographical period-drama 'Elizabeth.'

The year is 1558, and following the death of Mary I (Kathy Burke) Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) becomes the queen of England. However, her early days are met with many obstacles, least of all, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plotting to overthrow her, as well as pressure from her advisors Francis Wolsingham (Geoffrey Rush) and William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) to marry.

For this film, Cate Blanchett was nominated for her first of eight acting Oscars. She ultimately lost out to Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love. Many people thought Blanchett should have won instead. I haven't seen the latter film, so I can't comment, but Blanchett was impressive in this film.

It was a nuanced performance showing the slow transformation from a weak-willed queen into a powerful force of nature. When Mary of Guise stations four thousand French troops in Scotland, Elizabeth allows Norfolk to bully her into sending a conscript army of peasants to stop the French. Of course, they are all massacred.

But by the film's conclusion, she is strong enough to execute all those plotting her downfall. That isn't a spoiler by the way. Like many historical dramas, Elizabeth plays fast and loose with history, but it sticks to the fact that Elizabeth was not overthrown.

Shekhar Kapur intended the final scene of Elizabeth's would-be assassins being put to death to mirror the end of the Godfather where Michael Corleone orders for his enemies to be killed. I would also argue that in some ways Elizabeth's transformation mirrors Michael Corleone's.

Furthermore, I think that Blanchett gave a great performance in an otherwise average film. I have never been a fan of period dramas, and Elizabeth did little to move the needle. I certainly didn't find it that engaging or easy to follow. It wasn't very interesting either.

While the supporting cast were good - it was fun seeing Vincent Cassel in a more comedic role - the narrative didn't match up.

But, as is often the case, with period dramas, Elizabeth just wasn't for me.