Top ten films too traumatic to watch again

 There are some films that are so bad or boring that you can never face watching them again. You can see my list of those films here. But there are also some films that are so traumatic or depressing or upsetting that it's far too painful to watch them again.

Most of the films I'm about to mention feature on the top 1000 films of all time. I'm watching and reviewing them here. This list is in no particular order.

Requiem for a Dream

This is the only film on this list that I've been brave enough to watch twice. The first time was in 2016. The second time was in 2022. I went six years between the first and second watch. And that was not enough time.

Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, Jennifer Connelly and Ellen Burstyn give brilliant performances as drug addicts in New York. Darren Aronofsky's direction offers a brutal, unflinching look into this dark world. You will not find any happy endings here especially with Ellen Burstyn's character. Her performance was heart-breaking. I would count this film as one of my favourites of all time even if it is too traumatic to watch for a third time.

This is England

British white nationalism is as pervasive and dangerous now as it was back in 1982 where This is England is set. Following a gang of skinheads, we witness a horrific look into how they can brainwash the youth with their propaganda.

But what makes this film so scary is its realism. We're not talking zombies or demonic puppets, but real humans with real hatred in their hearts. Nowhere is that more present than with Stephen Graham who was magnificent as Combo - leader of the skinhead gang. He was so terrifying that he had trouble finding work after the film. I know I will have trouble watching the film again.

Precious

This is a powerful, but stark look into family abuse. It follows Precious (Gabourney Sidibe) a young black woman who was not only raped by her father, but also psychologically abused by her mother (Mon'ique.) Do you see what I mean about it being a rough watch?

Like This is England, it shows its villains as being incredibly cruel, but also incredibly human. It's horrible to watch, but you can't also look away. Mon'ique gave an Oscar-winning performance, but Mariah Carey was also surprisingly good in a supporting role. And, of course, Gabourney Sidibe was the star of the show. 

This is a film I won't be strong enough to watch again anytime soon.

Grave of the Fireflies

When you think of Studio Ghibli, you think of the adorable Totoro or the wonderful world of Spirited Away. You don't think of this heart-breaking tale of World War Two Japan.

Seen through the eyes of sixteen-year-old Seita and his little sister Setsuko, we see how they struggle to survive amidst the twilight years of the war. It is a tragic story that ends predictably tragically, but it is no less gut-wrenching. It made me cry after all.

It is also one of my favourite films of all time, but it is one of the few Studio Ghibli films that I won't be watching over and over again.

Amores Perros

If I were to describe why I wouldn't watch this film again, I would give you one compound word: dog-fighting.

This disgusting practice is central to the film's plot. It plays out in shocking detail. As an animal and dog-lover, this was distressing to watch. It's also difficult to root for characters who willingly enter their dogs into these fights.

Thankfully, Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's later films: 21 Grams and Babel are far easier watches.

Blue Valentine

Although this film isn't traumatic in the sense of depicting violent subject matter, it is still one of the bleakest films I've ever seen.

We follow Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) as their marriage and relationship self-destructs. Cue lots of shouting and tears and very little reason to smile while watching this film. And very little reason why I would want to watch it again.

Manchester by the Sea

Similarly to Blue Valentine, Manchester by the Sea was depression personified. It stars Casey Affleck as a man trying to move on after a house fire kills his entire family. Affleck was well-deserving of the best Actor Oscar, but the film's tragic storyline would surely win the Oscar for most depressing film ever.

The Celebration

This Danish film made for a deeply uncomfortable watch. At a birthday party for the aging patriarch of the Klingenfeldt-Hansen family, we see the whole affair descend into chaos as the whole family goes to war with each other. Cue shouting, arguments, casual racism and nasty people being nasty to each other. It's not a celebration. And there was nothing comedic about it, despite it being labelled a black-comedy. I did not enjoy watching this at all.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

This American classic was also an uncomfortable watch for similar reasons to the above. It was so just relentlessly depressing. Paul Newman and Liz Taylor star as a couple who spend the entire film yelling at each other and everybody around them.

Homophobic attitudes of the time saw the removal of a key storyline that would have added much needed meaning to all the shouting. Otherwise this was an uncomfortable watch.

Midsommer

Ari Aster's horror film is too modern to feature on the top 1000 films of all time, but I still hated watching it. Florrence Pugh stars as Dani - a young woman attempting to get over the death of her family by holidaying in Sweden with her boyfriend and friends. There they find an idyllic cult, but everything is not what it seems.

While I can respect the craft, I found this film intensely disturbing. It freaked me out and I can never watch it again. I'm sure this is just me, as I have heard others say it is boring, dull and tame compared to some other horror films. I'm sure those same people would say I'm a wimp, which would be true. But this film still made me deeply uncomfortable.

None of this is to say these films are bad, but they were either so traumatic, upsetting or disturbing that I could never watch them again. Did I miss any films? Let me know in the comments.

In the Heat of the Night review

 Number 322 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1967 mystery-drama 'In the Heat of the Night.'

Virgil Tibbs (Sydney Poitier) is a Philadelphia police officer visiting his mother in Mississippi. When a town official is murdered, he is drafted into helping the local Chief of Police Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger.) But the racist town folks are incredibly distrustful and hostile toward Virgil Tibbs.

It can be all too easy to dismiss America's fixation on race, as a mere perverse obsession. But then you watch films like this and you are reminded that less than sixty years ago, these racist attitudes were still alive and well. I'm not talking about the actual film either. Norman Jewison partly shot the film in Tennessee where the cast and crew were harassed by the locals. Plus, Sydney Poitier slept with a gun under his pillow. 

And Sydney Poitier was the driving force behind this film. He was great as Virgil Tibbs who bore all the racial abuse with a steely determination to solve the case. Poitier played the role with a righteous determination. He was terrific.

I would argue that he was even better than his co-star Rod Steiger who won the best Acting Oscar for his portrayal of Gillespie. Out of all the police, he is perhaps the most racist, but after being forced into working with Virgil, we see his outdated views changing. Steiger played this transformation well. But Poitier was the true star.

Another thing I liked was the simplicity of the film. Often in thrillers, like in sci-fi, you have writers trying to put in twist after twist to show how clever they are, when they're just making things convoluted. There is nothing wrong with simplicity. And that's where 'In the Heat of the Night' succeeded. Virgil Tibbs wasn't trying to decode the cyphers that the Zodiac Killer left. He wasn't tracking down the likes of Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Instead he was solving the murder of a single man. And the solution was far simpler than anybody thought.

Finally, I enjoyed the use of prolonged silences that really upped the tension especially where Virgil was facing off against a gang of white men looking to kill him. This silence was balanced well with Quincy Jones' excellent score which included Ray Charles on the title track.

In the Heat of the Night was a great watch with terrific performances from not only Rod Steiger, but, also, Sydney Poitier.

Battleship Potemkin review

 Number 318 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sergei Eisenstein's 1925 silent film 'Battleship Potemkin.'

In the backdrop of the Russian revolution, sailor Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov) leads a mutiny against the tyrannical officers of the Battleship Potemkin. He and his fellow sailors sail into Odessa as heroes, but the revolution is only beginning.

Battleship Potemkin received acclaim from historical and contemporary critics. Unlike some other films of the era e.g All Quiet on the Western Front, it has held up well over the years.

One thing that struck me was how Eisenstein never shied away from depicting the brutality of the revolution. Within the famous scene of the massacre on the Odessa Steps, we witness these horrors in unflinching detail. Two key scenes come to mind - a little boy who has been shot by a Cossack, blood pouring from his head, and a woman who has a bullet-hole where her eye should be. They were powerful scenes.

This was shocking at the time, and it was especially shocking to see it in a silent film in an era dominated by the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton.

But I'm going to slightly demur from popular critical opinion. The massacre on the Odessa steps is considered one of the film's highlights. While it was good, I would argue that it went on for so long that any dramatic tension became severely diluted. There are only so many times that we can watch people run away. The film is only sixty-seven minutes long, but if it wasn't for this overly-drawn out sequence, it could have been shorter.

Yes, it is a propaganda film, but Battleship Potemkin did serve as an early reminder of the power of cinema.

Top ten films that will put you to sleep

 Struggling to fall asleep? Have chronic insomnia? Forget the tablets and therapy and just put on one of these films instead. You'll be sleeping like a baby in no time.

Silly jokes asides, I know that this list will attract a fair few haters. Almost all of the films I'm going to mention feature on the top 1000 films of all time, which I am watching and reviewing here.

But I don't care if the audiences at IMDB loved these films, I found them long, bloated and so boring that I fell asleep. This list will be in no particular order.

Gone with the Wind

Some would argue that this film's depiction of race relations has not aged well. But that's not my problem. In fact, I can barely remember any of the supposedly problematic film, because it put me to sleep within the first hour, let alone the three hours that succeeded it. Did we really need a four hour about the American Civil War?

Yes, Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh were charismatic enough, if their characters were annoying. Yes, Hattie Mcdaniels was the first black actor to win an Oscar, although due to the segregation laws at the time, she wasn't allowed to attend the ceremony, but this film was still so boring.

Come at me. Call me a philistine. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Lawrence of Arabia

If David Lean was best-remembered for directing anything, it's overly-long, drawn-out epics. Doctor Zhivago was a close second, but the four-hour Lawrence of Arabia won out. Yes you heard that correctly. Four hours of nothing happening. Oh sorry. No, the characters talk on occasion. And there's also a million master shots of the sand dunes. I get it. It's in the desert. I don't need to be reminded of it again and again. Okay, the original score was very good, but if you were listening to it for four hours, you would be sick of it too.

Dances with Wolves

How this film won Best Picture Oscar, as well as Best Director for Kevin Costner is one of the most baffling decisions up there with Crash winning Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain.

The 3-hour slog that is Dances with Wolves is completely devoid of conflict, tension and anything that would make it remotely interesting. There are some who accuse it of a white saviour narrative. I don't know how you stayed awake long enough to make that assessment. Costner's wooden performance and exposition-heavy narration did nothing to help things either. Dances with Wolves? More like dancing in my dreams.

Ben-Hur

But James! Ben-Hur won eleven Oscars! It has to be one of the best films ever made. That might be true. It's also one of the most boring films ever made. Excluding the overture, intermission and entr'acte, the film is over 210 minutes long. With all the above? It's probably four bloody hours. Certainly long enough to put you to sleep. In fact, you could fall asleep, wake up and the film wouldn't even be halfway through yet.

Because if a film has to have an intermission then it's too damn long. Yes, the chariot scene is exciting, but it was the only exciting part of this majorly tedious affair.

All the President's Men

Although I liked this film when I first saw it, my mind has changed over time. The dramatisation of the two journalists who reported on the Watergate Scandal is a complicated, convoluted and hard-going affair with a lot of characters to keep track off.

Yes, Dustin Hoffman and Paul Newman give charismatic performances, but they spend much of the film either on their typewriters, speaking on the phone or having mysterious conversations in shadowy car parks. It hardly makes for the most entertaining of cinema.

8 1/2

And we have come to the world of Italian cinema with Federico Fellini: one of the most famous Italian film directors of all time.

8 1/2 is one of his most famous films and also one of his most boring. He isn't even a bad director; La Strada was a good film, and while, La Dolce Vita had annoying characters, at least it didn't put me to sleep.

As 8 1/2 focusses on a creatively-stifled film-maker trying to direct a science-fiction film, I think it would only appeal to hard-core cinephiles. I am not one of those, hence why I found this film boring.

Avatar

I initially watched this film over ten years ago and have never been brave enough to watch it again, hence why I haven't reviewed it.

 But if I had, I would have said that if James Cameron had put as much effort into the script, story and characters, as he had the visual effects, he could have made another brilliant film. Instead, he had a visually stunning film with a cliched storyline and forgettable characters.

Youtuber Jacksfilms challenged people to name a single character from Avatar and very few people could.

I almost stopped watching Avatar halfway through, and I really wish I had.

Lincoln

I'm going to come out and say it. Daniel Day-Lewis didn't deserve his third acting Oscar win for this film. His portrayal of Abraham Lincoln was nothing compared to Daniel Plainview in There Will be Blood.

But while the Academy might love a biopic period drama, I don't. This was a convoluted, hard-going affair filled to the brim with character after character. Most of which don't need to be there.

Solaris (2002)

This film is only one hundred minutes long, so you think it would be an east watch, but it is actually dull as dishwater.

There is far too much slow-motion. Too many montages set to cheesy music. I actually fell asleep and missed the last hour of this film. Upon rewatching, I realised I hadn't missed a thing. There is probably a reason why the original Solaris was featured on the top 1000 film list, but this American remake wasn't.

Stalker

You will need a keen mine to understand this Soviet science-fiction film. If you don't, you will struggle in understanding its esoteric ideas, as I did.

There isn't much happening in the way of action, or at all, with much of the film taking place through philosophical debates between the different characters. Tedious stuff.

So, next time, you're struggling to get to sleep, instead of reaching for your phone, put on one of these films instead. You will never have trouble sleeping again.

Doctor Zhivago review

 Number 316 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lean's epic historical-romance 'Doctor Zhivago.'

Doctor Zhivago (Omar Sharif) is a physician during the Russian revolution. Although he is married to Tonya ( Geraldine Chaplin,) he soon falls in love with Lara (Julie Christie.) When the civil war tears them apart, fate throws them back together again.

We have returned to my favourite genre of film: period/historical dramas. That was sarcasm. As you know well by now, I hate period dramas. They're just so boring.

Doctor Zhivago wasn't quite in the top ten films to put you to sleep - that honour goes to Gone with the Wind or even David Lean's other historical epic 'Lawrence of Arabia - but it was still pretty close. Biopics or character dramas like Doctor Zhivago tend to be vague and unfocussed. They tell far too much story in far too much time.

Doctor Zhivago was no exception tot his. It introduces Doctor Zhivago and we follow him through his life until *spoilers* his death. Surely, some of this could have been edited out. Then the film wouldn't have been over three hours long. It had no business being that long. Never mind bloated, this film was so pregnant, it was about to give birth.

Having said that, Omar Sharif was very good as our titular protagonist especially when the Communist protestors are massacred by the mounted Cossacks. He can only watch in horror, as his people are mown down.

Doctor Zhivago also won five Oscars including best cinematography, art direction and costume design. These were well-earned as the cinematography was brilliant especially all the desolate, Russian landscapes. The costumes were also brilliant. You can see how hard they tried to get everything right.

That notwithstanding, I didn't enjoy Doctor Zhivago. It was a bloated, over-long affair.

The Adventures of Robin Hood review

 Number 297 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1938 swashbuckling adventure 'The Adventures of Robin Hood.'

Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) is an outlaw living in Sherwood forest while King Richard I is fighting in the crusades. In his absence, the villainous Prince John (Claude Rains) rules the country along with the evil Guy of Gisborne (Basil Rathbone) and Sheriff of Nottingham (Melville Cooper.) When the trip start exploiting the poor, it is up to Robin Hood and his merry men to save the day.

Unlike other films where Robin Hood does not speak with an English accent, the Adventures of Robin Hood succeeds, because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's complete nonsense, but that's what Robin Hood should be. It shouldn't be dour and broody like Prince of Thieves or a block-buster like the Russell Crowe adaptation. Robin Hood should be fun, gaudy and colourful and this film fit the bill perfectly.

A lot of that was down to Errol Flynn's energetic and irreverent portrayal of Robin Hood. He played the outlaw with a brash aloofness that meshed well with the light-hearted nature of the film. In many ways, it reminded me of Cary Elwes' portrayal of our roguish outlaw almost fifty years later. 

Although, reportedly, Errol Flynn was a nightmare on set, being difficult to work with and acting with a level of unjustified arrogance. Perhaps his portrayal of Robin Hood was Flynn being his usual rude self.

I've never been accused of being a SJW, but I definitely depicted some queer-coding within Claude Rains' portrayal of Prince John. I'm not sure whether this was historically accurate, but I can understand why modern audiences might find that problematic.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy the light-hearted romp that was the Adventures of Robin Hood.

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.