Yet another ten films that have no business being on the top 1000 films of all time

 There are 1000 films that IMDB rated as the best of all time, but they have made not just ten or twenty, but, at least, thirty. These are ten more films that should be nowhere near this list. Prepare to be triggered. This list is in no other list, but chronology.

Citizen Kane (1941)

Why is Citizen Kane number 73 on this list? While it has remained a critical darling for over eighty years, I didn't care for it at all.

It may have been ground-breaking at the time, but that was eighty years ago. We've seen it all before. Not to mention Kane is a jerk. Why should we care about him or Rosebud or this overrated film?

The Hustler (1961)

The Hustler features at 266th on this list, but it really should be -1000th.

This film was so dull. The lack of music makes it incredibly boring. I want to say it would only appeal to pool enthusiasts, but even that seems unlikely. Light on action, spectacle or anything interesting, this was a tedious watch. Not even the iconic Paul Newman could save it.

Blowup (1966)

This blow-out of a film features at 629th on the top 1000 list.

It was pretentious, monotonous nonsense. Supposedly, a photographer is trying to solve a murder he's unwittingly photographed, so why is it so boring? Why doesn't this guy care about solving the crime? Why are we watching him developing photos? Why are watching mimes miming playing tennis?

It was like Fellini stopped making La Dolce Vita and transplanted his annoying artistic genius characters into the least suspenseful murder mystery ever.

2001: a Space Odyssey (1968)

I'm going to cone out and say it. This film is overrated. It's Kubrick's most overrated film. And it's certainly not the 116th greatest of all time.

Come at me sci-fi nerds, I don't care. 2001: a Space Odyssey falls into the classic sci-fi cliche of an overly-clever writer showing off how clever they are, by writing an overly-complicated script full of big ideas, but generic characters. I remember Hal, but I don't remember any of the humans.

And I don't think that even Kubrick knew what he was doing with that pretentious ending.

The Name of the Rose (1986)

If you're wondering what Sean Connery was doing after James Bond, the answer is that he was acting in one of the most boring murder-mysteries ever. I say he was acting, but he was just being himself.

His co-star Christian Slater was equally insipid. Top tip film-makers. If you're going to make a murder-mystery don't set it in some middle-aged monastery complete with monks singing in Latin. The people who ranked this as 506th on this list must have quickly fallen asleep. I could have fallen asleep and not missed anything.

The Godfather Part 3 (1990)

The Godfather Part 3 has to be one of the worse third instalments of any trilogy ever. It ranks as 663rd on the top 1000 films: the Godfather and the Godfather Part 2 rank 2nd and 3rd respectively. That tells you everything you need to know.

The Godfather is one of the best films of all time; it's my favourite film ever. But the third part has no right existing.

Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo only made it because they had fallen on hard times and needed a hit. The Godfather part 3 with its convoluted plot and Sofia Coppola's god-awful performance was not this hit.

Gosford Park (2001)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I hate period dramas. Turning it into a murder mystery doesn't make it anymore interesting especially when you take an hour to get to the actual murder.

Yes, Gosford Park stars the creme da la creme of British acting royalty including Eileen Atkins, Richard E Grant, Derek Jacobi, Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Stephen Fry and Kelly Macdonald, but it is still full of annoying rich people having annoying rich people problems. No wonder it's 992nd on the top 1000 list.

Match Point (2005)

Match Point was like every American's wet dream about London. The American in question is writer/director Woody Allen. I thought that his rom-com Manhattan was God awful. I don't find his comedies very funny.

His psychological thrillers aren't much better. Match Point features one of the most predatory protagonists ever and one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen on-screen.

It's puzzling that IMDB ranked this at 568th on the top 1000 films of all time.

A Single Man (2009)

A Single Man was directed by fashion-designer and perfume-maker Tom Ford. And it had all the feel and look of an extended perfume advert.

It was artistic, pretentious rubbish. Despite starring Oscar-winners Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, it was a painfully slow watch. Why was it rated the 725th best film of all time?

The Raid (2011)

Upon making this film, director Gareth Evans wanted to make a straight, honest action film. In fairness, that was he did.

It's just a shame that he couldn't have made a decent film in the process. Endless martial art fights, gunfire and explosions are no substitute for interesting characters (of which there were none.) I think the same twelve-year-old boys who ranked Running Scared and the Boondock Saints within the top 1000 films also voted for the Raid. It clocks in at a shockingly high 716th.

Have I made your blood pressure rise yet? Are you ready to cus me out in those comments? Why don't you calm down before you have a stroke? There'll be another list coming soon enough.

Another ten films on the top 1000 films of all time too traumatic to watch again

 On the list of the top 1000 films of all time there are plenty of films too upsetting, heart-break or downright traumatic for a rewatch. I've already done one list on the subject. Here's the second. This list is in no order but chronology.

The Wicker Man (1973)

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the original film - not the Nicholas Cage remake.

Some have said that the Wicker Man is one of the scariest horror films ever made and for good reason. It follows a policeman investigating the disappearance of a little girl on a remote Scottish island, but here he finds the residents practise an obscure form of paganism.

The ending scene where the residents gaily sing while the Wicker man effigy burns is so chilling that it warrants a place on this list. Modern-day folk-horror films like the Witch and Midsommar owe a lot to the pioneering Wicker Man. It ranks 620th on the top 1000 film list.

Mississippi Burning (1988) 

Mississippi Burning is 470th on the top 1000 films list. It is simple to dismiss America's fascination with race relations, as a perverse obsession, but when you watch this film it's easy to see why it's such a big deal.

Two FBI agents, played Wilhelm Dafoe and Gene Hackman, are investigating  the disappearance of three Civil Rights activists in a small Mississippi town. But the town's residents are horrifically racist to the town's black population. This racial violence is what makes this film so disturbing to watch - all the more so, when you realise it is all based on a true story.

American History X (1998)

Ranking at 37th, American History X is the highest ranked film on this list. It also highlights America's modern-day struggle with race relations.

Edward Norton plays a reformed neo-Nazi who is trying to stop his little brother going down the same route. It is a brutally upsetting film with the infamous curb-stomp scene making it too traumatic for a rewatch.

The Pianist (2002)

At 48, the Pianist is the second-highest film on this list.

Holocaust films are always a difficult watch. The Pianist is no exception. It is an unflinching look at one of humanity's darkest moments.

But it also has an Oscar-winning performance from Adrian Brody. Yet its unrelenting look at the depravity of humanity makes it too upsetting to watch again. This is particularly relevant, as it is based on a true story.

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

Hotel Rwanda ranks 169th on the top 1000 films of all time.

From genocide in Europe, we go to the Rwandan Genocide where the Tutsi were systematically executed by the Hutu. We are a violent, self-destructive species.

However, in all this darkness, we see some hope in the form of the real-life Paul Rusesabagina who sheltered one thousand refugees in his hotel. There are some who question the true nature of heroism, but that doesn't take anything away from this brilliant if tear-jerking film. With great performances from Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo and Joaquin Phoenix, it even made me cry.

United 93 (2006)

Paul Greengrass' docudrama ranks 632nd on the top 1000 films of all time.

From heroism to Africa, we go to heroism in the US. More specifically heroism on 9/11. Yes, that 9/11. If you know anything about 9/11, you already know what this film is about. That's what makes this film so tragic.

It is a true tale of courage and valour, which is told powerfully. It's the only film on this list I've been brave enough to watch twice, but I'm definitely not brave enough to watch it for a third time. Now, let's take a moment to remember all the heroes on the United 93 flight.

The Kite Runner (2007)

Number 655 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Kite Runner.

Although not as traumatic as is source material, the Kite Runner is still a rough watch. It details an adult man returning to his childhood home of Afghanistan, so that he can right the wrongs of the past. However, Afghanistan has since been taken over by the Taliban and the country he knew has long gone.

If you're wondering why this film is so upsetting, it wasn't just the horrific stoning scene, but the complete loss of childhood innocence.

Incendies (2010)

Denis Villeneuve's drama ranks as number 160 on the top 1000 films of all time.

This film sees two siblings on a discovery of self-identity which has horrifying consequences for all involved.

I once said that Old Boy has one of the most shocking plot-twists of all time, but Incendies is a close second.

Set against the backdrop of the Lebanese Civil War, it's guaranteed to give you PTSD.

The Flowers of War (2011)

Clocking in at 674th on the top 1000 list, we have the Flowers of War.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more people need to know about the Rape of Nanking. The Japanese massacred a Chinese city, shooting the men and raping the women.

The Flowers of War captures this horror in stark detail. It also looks gorgeous on screen. And it's certainly not style over substance. Along with Hotel Rwanda, it's one of the few films that made me cry. There are some who argue that Christian Bale, as a white man, had no business being in a Chinese story, but that takes nothing away from the excellent child actors or the terrifying social context.

12 Years a Slave (2013)

12 Years a Slave is the third-highest ranked film on this list at number 72.

Is there any wonder why 12 Years a Slave won the Best film Oscar? It is a fantastic if harrowing depiction of one of America's darkest periods.

With Chiwetel Eijofar giving the performance of his career, this film pulls absolutely no punches. Every time it raises your soul up, it then punches it back down.

Have I missed any films? Let me know in the comments below.

Hoosiers review

 Number 702 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1986 sports-drama film 'Hoosiers.'

Norman Dale (Gene Hackman) is a washed-up, former college basketball coach who arrives in a small Indiana town to start teaching high-school basketball. To aid him, he recruits the alcoholic Shooter Flatch (Dennis Hopper). However, with the entire team dead-set against outsiders, Dale's task to train the team becomes easier said than done.

I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would, which was a surprise as I am not a basketball fan. Where this film succeeded and (arguably failed) was its focus on Dale and Shooter. Hackman and Hopper were great in the lead roles. Dale was obviously a maverick with crazy ideas. This earns him the distrust of the fellow teachers and the resentment of his students. However, he remains steadfast in his methods, grudgingly earning the respect of those around him. Despite Hackman's dismissiveness of the film's success, he performed well.

Dennis Hopper, who earned his only acting nomination from this film also performed well. He was great as the alcoholic, down-and-out Shooter Flatch. It was a stark contrast to the larger-than-life Frank Booth that he played in Blue Velvet. This role was far more human and understated. Hopper gave the character of Shooter a great vulnerability.

But while Dale and Shooter were great characters played by great actors, I cannot say the same about the rest of the cast. Many of them blurred into one including the many teachers dismissive of Dale's methods, but, in particularly, the actual basketball team. The film is about basketball so why don't we see more of the actual basketball players? Even as I'm writing this, I'm struggling to remember their names or any of their distinguishing features. There was someone called Ollie or Will who introduces himself as being too short and not very good at basketball. This begs the questions about why he is even on the team. Surely, everybody on the team has to be good. It made no sense that they would have any bad players on the team.

Moreover, there was the character of Jimmy. He is regarded as some type of wunderkund who left the team after the death of the previous coach. After much umming and urring, he finally decides to return. You think he would be a massive player, but then he fades into the rest of the team. He barely has any dialogue. It was like he was a plot device rather than an actual character.

Although the film does focus on basketball with lots of slow-motion and corny music, it needed to focus on the actual players, as much as the game itself. For me that a complete technical foul.

Blow review

 Number 681 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ted Demme's 2001 biographical crime-drama 'Blow.'

Blow tells the story of George Jung (Johnny Depp), one of the biggest drug-traffickers in American History. We see his meteoric rise to infamy, including working with Pablo Escobar (Cliff Curtis) to his momentous downfall. Penelope Cruz, Rachel Griffiths and Ray Liotta co-star.

Is it far to say that film blows? Not quite, but there was definitely more bad than good. Things start interestingly enough, as we see George's rise - his relationship with his parents, his graduation from selling weed to trafficking cocaine, and his introduction to some of the biggest narco-traffickers ever. Despite the awful wigs he had to wear, Johnny Depp was charismatic as usual.

Then it all came crashing down in a second half that was founded on unlikelihoods. It stopped being an interesting look into criminality and became a hokey family-drama.

Firstly, let's start with Penelope Cruz who played George Jung's second wife Mirtha. Granted, the two had better chemistry than Depp and Framke Potente who played his first wife, but the relationship was difficult to believe. We are introduced to Mirtha, as the fiancee of a Colombian gangster who takes an instant disliking to Jung. Yet Jung is able to steal away his wife, no questions asked. In this criminal underworld, people get killed for lesser offences, yet George Jung faces no repercussions. 

But this is nothing compared to what's to come. After Jung is betrayed by his criminal associates, he decides to pack it all in and retire from crime and live a normal life. It sounds great except it's a load of rubbish. You don't just retire from a life like this; you're in it until you die. The mob doesn't let you retire; why should the cartel be any different? How do they know you won't be spilling your guts to the FBI? This is based on a real story, so I guess it must be true, but it was still difficult to stomach. 

The same goes for Penelope Cruz who was quite rightly nominated for a Golden Raspberry award. Her portrayal of Mirtha was just annoying and whiny. Also, Cliff Curtis wasn't physically imposing enough to pull off playing Pablo Escobar. He lacked the aura of menace that Wagner Mourra had on Narcos. Lastly, Rachel Griffths was badly miscast as George Jung's mother. She's five years younger than Johnny Depp and no amount of grey hair dye could convince me otherwise. Ray Liotta was more convincing as Jung's father.

It's a shame that this film's second half was so bad. It had all the potential of being another Goodfellas, but it was just a blow-out.

The Flowers of War review

 Number 647 on the top 1000 films of all time is Zhang Yimou's 2011 Chinese historical drama-war film - 'The Flowers of War.'

Set during the rape of Nanking, we see a group of Chinese school girls led by Shu (Zhang Xinyi) taking cover in a church led by Father Ingleman. But with this priest's recent death, the responsibility falls to his young apprentice George Chen (Huang Tianyuan.) They are soon joined by a group of high-class prostitutes led by Mi Yo (Ni Ni) and American mortician John Miller (Christian Bale).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: more people need to know about the atrocities that Japan committed against China in the run-up to the Second World War. In the West, this has always been over-shadowed in favour of the Western Front, but the rape of Nanking is one of Japan's most heinous crimes. An entire city was decimated with its men shot and women raped.

Zhang Yimou quite rightly did not shy away from showcasing the sadism of the Japanese. We saw their brutality in unflinching detail. It was upsetting to watch, but it was only being honest to what happened in real life. I thought the acting from all the child actors was very good.

The actresses playing the schoolgirls were excellent, displaying a maturity beyond their years. Despite the terrible things done to them, they never cry and complain. This was especially true of Zhang Xinyi who excelled as their leader Shu. But it also applied to Huang Tinyuan who portrayed George Chen. Despite not being much older than them, he tries his best to protect the school girls. Yet it is obvious that he is quickly out of his depth. It was difficult not to feel sorry for him as he tackled his insurmountable task. The characterisation and the acting all round was good.

The Flowers of War received a mixed reception from critics with most criticism centring on John Miller being an unnecessary distraction who was playing a white saviour. Initially, I was tempted to agree with this. John Miller was a cliched, predictable character who added so little to the first half of the film that it could have survived without him. Up until the forty-five minute mark, much of the Flowers of War focussed on the school girls with Shu taking centre-stage. She also narrates the film.

However, I did enjoy watching John Miller fulfil his reluctant hero character arc. Yes, it is predictable, but it is still enjoyable to watch. I also don't agree with him being a white saviour. How much saving does he actually do? Despite his best efforts, he does little to stop a rogue squad of Japanese soldiers attacking the church; instead it is the lone Chinese Major Li who saves everybody.

And when the Japanese demand that the girls sing at a special play it isn't Miller who suggests a solution, but Mi Yo. And when two of the prostitutes sneak out of the church, needlessly putting themselves into danger, Miller does not bring them back safe and sound. If anything he is a white failure - trying to save everybody but mostly failing. Not to mention, he was based on the real-life American missionary Minnie Vautrin.

There was also some who argue that the film was style over substance. Yes, while there was a lot of spectacle with plenty of slow-motion and vivid colours, it never detracted from the plot. This is in comparison to most Wuxia films which place spectacle front-and-centre. While the Flowers of War did focus on myth and legend, it was always tied to the plot. Even the sequence of the prostitutes singing to the schoolgirls enhanced rather than detracted from the film.

Zhang Yimou wanted to separate the Flowers of War from other similar films by highlighting and celebrating the efforts of women in the war. He certainly achieved that goal. Despite their best efforts, George and John are largely useless - yes they show remarkable bravery and self-sacrifice at the film's conclusion, but this is after four of their number have been killed.

Instead, we see the incredible strength and resourcefulness of the female characters. I've already spoken about the schoolgirls, but the prostitutes were equally intelligent and tough. Yes, the two groups quarrel on occasion - you get tiffs, arguments and fights, but, in the end they work together for the greater good.

Ultimately, I think the Flowers of War was a triumph. It looked gorgeous while also having strong writing, acting and characters. It's just way too traumatic to watch for a second time.  

After Hours review

 Number 625 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's 1985 black-comedy 'After Hours.'

Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) is an office worker trying to get home from Manhattan's Soho district. However, a series of misadventures makes this task more difficult than it sounds.

What do you think when you think of a Martin Scorsesee film? Endless swear words? Gangster flicks? Robert De Niro? I bet you wouldn't think of this 1980's black-comedy. Compared to the likes of Raging Bull or Taxi Driver, it's definitely not as explosive or well-known.

It was definitely one of his zaniest, most-off-the-wall films with plenty of off-beat humour to keep the plot running along nicely. The premise is simple enough: an office worker desperate to get home keeps coming up against increasingly outlandish barriers. Yes, the film doe stray into the world of absurdist fiction, but you're willing to suspend your disbelief.

It helps that you had Griffin Dunne who gave Paul Hackett an everyman quality, which kept the film grounded. He was in a relatable situation; I'm sure there are many of us have had desperate journeys trying to get home after a late night. I certainly have, although I haven't remained as affable as Paul did, despite everything happening to him.

It certainly might not be as memorable as the Departed, but it might be a nice palette-cleanser after Scorsesee's more violent efforts like Gangs of New York. Either way, this is one of Scorsesee's more overlooked efforts with a great ending that brought everything full-circle.

Blowup Review

 Number 629 on the top 1000 films of all time is Michelangelo Antonioni's 1966 psychological mystery drama 'Blowup.'

Thomas (David Hemmings) is a photographer during the London's Swinging sixties. He believes he has unwittingly photographed a murder that is somehow connected to the mysterious woman Jane (Vanessa Redgrave.) This was Italian Antonioni's first English-language film.

Blowup? More like blow-out. This film was boring and tedious. If you looked up dull in the dictionary, you would see a picture of Blowup. It revolves around Thomas discovering a murder, yet this doesn't occur until an hour into the film. You get some movies that take a while to get going and then you have this...maybe if this film was three hours long (thank God it wasn't) the slow start would have been justifiable, but Blowup was under two hours.

There was no reason to have an hour of Thomas photographing models or photographing Jane and her lover in the park. I get it, the film is about photography, Thomas is a photographer, but seeing photos being developed hardly makes for the most entertaining or dramatic of cinema.

Not to mention that Thomas is one of the most unlikeable protagonists that I have seen on film. In the creative world, you get the pretentious, artistic genius archetype. Thomas embodies this and more. He is arrogant, spoiled, creepy and incredibly predatory. When he is photographing the model Verushka, he is constantly licking her ear. He has a weird sexual dalliance with two aspiring models, this scene went on for far longer than it should have, and there is an unwelcome sexual tension between him and Jane.

Thomas also seems remarkably uncaring about whether he solves the mystery or not. For some reason, he goes to a dope house to bring his obviously intoxicated friend to see the dead body. But by the time he actually gets there, the body has disappeared and he's more concerned with watching a group of mimes miming playing tennis. What was up with that? Why were we watching that?

It was like they had wandered off the set of La Dolce Vita and onto the set of Blowup. In fact, this whole film was like if Fellini had taken his existentially lost, young, annoying, artistic characters and transplanted them into a Hitchcock thriller.

But Blowup had none of the tension or suspense of a Hitchcock thriller. The severe lack of non-diegetic music did not help. Instead, we got a strange and unnecessary scene of the Yardbirds playing out a gig, and Jeff Beck smashing his guitar.

*spoiler alert*

The mystery is never solved. We never find out who killed this man or why, which I think was supposed to be the point, but it also made the film pointless. It left a lot of annoying plot holes. When Jane spots Thomas taking photos of her, she complains vehemently and visits his studio multiple times to get a copy of them. Why is she so interested? Who knows? And who cares? Obviously Antonioni didn't.

And I know this was the sixties, but Thomas' photos are so grainy and blurred, I don't know how he spotted any dead body in them. it was a bit like the so-called photos that prove the existence of Bigfoot or aliens.

Blowup was a tedious film. Not enough drama, tension or likeable characters. And too many shots of characters standing around staring into the middle-distance and bloody mimes playing tennis.

Lolita review

Number 600 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick’s black-comedy, psychological thriller ‘Lolita.’ 

English academic Humbert Humbert (James Mason) arrives in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, to spend the summer there before staring work. He soon marries his landlady Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) but then becomes infatuated with her fourteen-year-old daughter Dolores “Lolita” Haze (Sue Lyons.)

This is a film that needs no introduction. It, and Vladamir Nabokov’s book it was based upon, are highly controversial due to their themes of paedophilia. The film was even considered ‘unfilmable,’ so I was surprised by its underwhelming nature. Admittedly, I haven’t read the book nor am I fully familiar with the story, but I was expecting something more lurid.

Compared to modern-day films, Lolita was incredibly tame. Granted, Kubrick was up against the strict production code and studio restrictions meaning he had to tone down the erotic aspects of Humbert and Lolita’s relationship, but I was still expecting something more. I understand that Kubrick couldn’t be explicit, but I thought there would be more subtle references to the film’s darker themes.

Perhaps I’ve been misled by the film’s sensational reputation. If I had been more familiar with the original story, I would know differently, but I can only judge the film based on what I’ve seen.

The characterisation of Humbert and Lolita also surprised me. Mason played Humbert as a retiring and reserved academic, which he was, but he seemed an unlikely candidate to be attracted to his step-daughter. I understand that depicting him as an unshaven, over-weight slob in a singlet would be a cliché, but I did not find Mason to be a believable nonce.

To get round the censors, Kubrick upped Lolita’s age from twelve, as she originally was in the book (I know that much at least) to fourteen. Sue Lyon was fourteen, but was cast, because she looked older. The producers wanted audiences to believe that Lolita could be a sex object. I can understand why they would change her age, but I don’t agree with deliberately casting an actress who looks older than her years.

It changed the dynamic of her character and the dynamic of her relationship with Humbert. Compared from fourteen to twelve, you’re slightly more mature and aware of your surroundings and of your own sexual desires. This added sentience transformed Lolita from an innocent victim to even an unrealising participant of Humbert’s predatory behaviour.

But as I’ve said ad nauseum, I am not familiar with the original text, so I could very well be mis-reading the film. I do think that my opinion might be different if I had read the book first, but based on what I’ve seen, I wasn’t a fan of Lolita.

13 Assassins review

 Number 676 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2010 Japanese samurai film '13 Assassins.'

Set at the end of the Edo period, the tyrannical Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki) is set to be appointed to the Tokugawa Shogunate council. Realising the dangers that entails, the Shogun justice minister Sir Doi Toshitisura (Mikijiro Hira) enlists the help of experienced samurai Shimada Shinzaemon (Koji Yashuko) to assassinate Lord Naritsugu. Shinzaemon recruits twelve other samurai to help him in his mission.

13 Assassins hearkened back to the days of Akira Kurosawa and his wide range of samurai films. you had all the elements you would expect including deep philosophising, harikari and the Bushido code of honour. It also had one of the most despicable villains that I have ever seen on screen.

Whereas most other villains have one redeemable quality, Lord Naritsugu is evil through and through. he is a sexual sadist who revels in torturing his victims. He is also an absolute despot, determined to crush any resistance around him. Goro Inagaki did well in turning this pure evil into a believable character.

Although the film is confusing at first with the introduction of each of the titular thirteen assassins - it takes a while for things to get going, but when it does the film is enjoyable. That is, until the ending, which let down a good film.

*spoilers ahead*

The film's final forty-five minutes are an extended battle scene where the thirteen assassins take on Naritsugu's two hundred men. Realising they are hopelessly outnumbered, they buy a local town and booby-trap it in clever ways. They rig parts of the town with dynamite while also creating spring-loaded walls to trap the soldiers. Then the assassins rein arrows down upon them.

This was a clever way to even the odds so that it baffled me when Shinzaemon declares that they'll stop their cheap tricks and they would fight the remaining 130 soldiers hand-to-hand. You've already killed seventy of their soldiers. Why not kill another seventy or another hundred before you take on the rest by sword-fighting. It seems like a silly way to get yourself killed.

And that's exactly what happened here. Although the characters initially have ridiculous amounts of plot-armour, this wears away as the 13 assassins die one by one. It all seemed like an unnecessary way to cause conflict. The 13 assassins had the high ground, they had the winning advantage, and then they threw it all away.

The end sequence was also intense, non-stop, relentless action while it was all brilliantly choregraphed, it became tiresome after a while. I would have much preferred to see this sequence broken into two. There is an initial skirmish where the 13 Assassins attack Naritsugu, but he escapes, killing some of them in the process. They then regroup and attack him again achieving their mission. We definitely needed some breathing space rather than the never-ending sword play.

And can we just mention the thirteenth assassin - the hunter - Kiga Koyata. He takes a sword to the neck, seemingly dies, but miraculously comes back to life in the film's conclusion. He declares he's had worse wounds from hunting wild boars. Some have said he's immortal, others think he was a trickster deity while others thought he really had died and what we see was a hallucination. Either way, it was weird.

I've seen a few samurai/Akira Kurosawa films in my time. They certainly have their fanbase, but I won't be joining them anytime soon.

The Wicker Man (1973) review

 Number 620 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1973 folk-horror 'The Wicker Man.'

Police sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward) is a devout Christian investigating the disappearance of a little girl on a remote Scottish Isle. There, he is is appalled to find the residents, led by Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee) have rejected Christianity in favour of a dangerous form of paganism.

Horror films generally fall into one of two cliches: over-reliance on jump-scares or over-reliance on gore. Thankfully, director Robin Hardy and writer Anthony Schaffer deftly navigated these cliches. Schaffer deliberately eschewed the latter cliche in favour of a tense, unsettling atmosphere.

From the moment that Neil Howie steps onto the island, it's obvious that somebody isn't quite right. Nobody seems to know who the missing girl is nor do make any effort to help him. Instead they prefer to have sex in public and teach children about phallic symbols in school. And it is all treated as completely normal which is what makes it so scary.

It's normal to everybody, but Howie who is horrified by the debauchery he witnesses. Woodward played the straight man, so to speak, with all the moral indignation that we would expect to see. But I think the true star was Christopher Lee who played the villainous Lord Summerisle.

Lord Summerisle is a cult-leader who has brainwashed the island's residents in happily following his every word even when it crosses ethical boundaries. They blindly follow their pagan beliefs, gaily singing and dancing through the film's most terrifying sequences. Nowhere is this more apparent than the film's chilling conclusion. I won't spoil it here, but this is a horror film, so there's no happily ever after.

As the film was made on a shoestring budget, Lee was more than happy to work for free. This really shows his dedication to his craft.

Folk-horror has made a resurgence with the likes of Midsommar and the Witch, but they all pay homage to the pioneering Wicker Man.

Dark City (1998) review

 Number 514 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir science-fiction film 'Dark City.'

Dark City is set in a dystopic future where the Earth is being secretly controlled by an alien race called the Strangers, who have telekinetic powers. It follows an amnesiac John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) being framed for a murder he can't remember committing. Nor can he remember being married to his wife - nightclub singer Emma (Jennifer Connelly.) Murdoch must figure out the truth while he is being pursued by police-inspector Frank Bumstead (William Hurt.)

Dark City fell victim of one of the classic traps of science-fiction, and noir for that matter, - overly-clever writers who in their rush to show off how clever they are by writing a complicated and convoluted script that they forget to include memorable characters. When writing this review, I had to look up the character's names, as I struggled to remember any of them. I only remember how weird and confusing the film was.

It's entirely possible that I just wasn't smart enough to understand the film. Studio executives were afraid that "stupid" viewers like myself wouldn't get the film, so they insisted that an expository voice-over was added to the beginning. That helped me find my feet, but I soon lost them again.

It didn't help that I had no characters to ground me. William Hurt was bland as the police detective and Kiefer Sutherland was over-the-top as the "mad scientist," Dr Schreber. I say OTT, he was positively camp. Even the future Oscar-winning Jennifer Connelly brought little to the screen. Rufus Sewell was positively fine as John Murdoch, but nothing more than that.

Reportedly, Dark City was one of the Wachowksi sisters' biggest inspirations when it came to making the Matrix - another film that isn't for the stupid like me. But that isn't where the comparisons stop. Both films share the cyber-punk, techno-dystopia housing people who are unknowingly living a lie. Like Neo, John Murdoch becomes the one and escapes the Matrix. Oh my God. I can actually remember the film's plot.

I'm sure there are fans who loved Dark City. It probably has a cult following somewhere or another. But it won't be a cult I will be joining anytime soon.

The Visitor review

 Number 589 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tom McCarthy's 2007 drama 'The Visitor.'

Walter Vale (Richard Jenkins) is a widowed academic living a lonely life in Connecticut. Upon his arrival in his New York flat, he meets an immigrant couple already living there - the Syrian Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and the Senegalese Zainab (Danai Gurira) and he forms an unlikely friendship with them.

This film completely flew under my radar. If it hadn't been for this list, I would never have heard of it, but it really surprised me. It was an understated, touching, but powerful story of human communication and connection.

It helped having Richard Jenkins at the helm. he really brought a lot of vulnerability and humanity to the role. It would have been all too easy to have portrayed Walter Vale, as a bitter, old recluse - like Jack Nicholson in as Good as it Gets, but instead he was a lonely old man, living an unsatisfactory existence. It is through his friendship with Tarek and Zainab that he starts to enjoy life again.

Nowhere is this more present than through the theme of music. The film begins with Jenkins trying and failing to learn the piano. He later bonds with Tarek when the latter teaches him how to play Djembe - a West African goblet drum. The two even play together in Central Park.

Haaz Sleiman and Danai Gurira were very good as Tarek and Zainab. Tarek's optimism made him charismatic and likeable whereas Zainab's initial distrust and hostility made her realistic. They had good chemistry together and they worked well with Walter Vale. Initially Zainab distrusts Walter, but over time the two become closer.

I think that a film like the Visitor could have fallen into so many pitfalls, but McCarthy navigated all these with ease. Despite the film focussing on the immigrant experience in the US, it is never preachy or condescending. McCarthy told a nicely well-rounded story that gave a three-dimensional aspect to the conversation.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with the relationship between Walter and Tarek's mother Mouna (Hiam Abbass.) After he is arrested, she comes to New York to help him. In the process, he forms a close relationship with Walter. In the hands of a lesser director, their platonic relationship could have become romantic or even sexual. Thank god, that did not happen. Although the two share plenty of intimate moments, they are not sexual in nature. There were hints of a romantic interest between the two, but nothing more than that. Not that it was necessary. Their relationship was wonderfully understated.

As was the film. The Visitor came out of nowhere, but it surprised me in the process. This is definitely a film I could watch over and over again. 

Match Point review

 Number 568 on the top 1000 films of all time us Woody Allen's psychological thriller 'Match Point.'

Spoilers ahead

Christ Wilton (Jonathan Rhy Meyers) is an Irish former professional tennis player who marries into an upper-class English family. However, he risks everything when he starts an affair with his brother-in-law's American girlfriend Nola (Scarlett Johansson.)

Let's start with the Jonathan Rhys Meyers-shaped elephant in the room. Chris Wilton is Irish. It's a big part of his character. It's his nickname at one point. Meyers is Irish. Why does Meyers play the character with an English accent? It made no sense.

Anyway...I have seen a few Woody Allen comedies in my time and I have never been a fan. Judging from Match Point, I'm not a fan of his dramas either. He originally conceived this with an American cast and setting, but after failing to get funding, he reimagined it for an British setting and cast. The only exception was Scarlett Johansson who was a last-minute replacement for Kate Winslet.

Match Point divided critics with the Yanks loving it and Brits hating it. Guess what side I fall down on? It doesn't surprise me that American audiences loved this film; it has everything they know and love about British cinema, or think they know and love: good-looking men like Matthew Goode and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, posh English accents, afternoon tea, London landmarks, black taxis and upper-class people doing upper-class things like clay-pigeon shooting. it was like Allen had a list of criteria he needed to hit, I was half-expecting to see Dick Van Dyke singing about cleaning chimneys.

Allen's script was not good. The dialogue was clunky and unnatural with the English characters speaking in American English - Wilson says he was buying a sweater when any other English person would have been buying a jumper. Never mind a silver spoon, it was like the characters were walking around with dictionaries in their mouth. Plus, the plot was rushed. Chris and Nola have an instant-love connection with no catalyst prompting their illicit affair. neither of their parents didn't do anything to deserve being cheated on, not that anybody ever does, but it did make their relationship even more shallow.

Yet this wasn't all down to Allen. Granted the cast wasn't working with the best of scripts, but their performances were not good. Meyers was creepy, Johansson was whiny and annoying - the two of them had no on-screen chemistry at all, and Emily Mortimer, who played Chris' wife Chloe, had all the charisma of a ham sandwich. I understand that she was supposed to be boring, or, at least, too boring to interest Chris, but we saw little evidence of this, before he starts sleeping with Nola.

At two hours and five minutes, this was Allen's longest film, but it could be have been fifteen minutes shorter. The film culminates in the most half-arsed police investigation ever. After Nola falls victim to the surprise pregnancy cliche, Chris is caught in a dilemma to leave Chloe for her or to keep living his double-life. He does neither. He concocts a hair-brained scheme to shoot Nola's neighbour and then her and then stages the scene to look like a drug-fuelled burglary. 

Despite the flaws in his plan, despite how the ghostly apparitions of Nola and her neighbour appearing (the less said about this the better) appear to Chris taunting him about being caught, despite how Chris carelessly drops a piece of incriminating evidence on the script, despite how the police call him in for questioning, despite how everything paints toward him getting caught, he gets away with the crime scot-free.

One of the policemen solves the crime in his dream and is sure that Chris is lying, but is easily persuaded otherwise by his colleague. It's all just ridiculous. it was like Allen was worried he didn't have enough conflict for the final act, so he shoe-horned in this silly police investigation, which he knew wouldn't go anywhere.

Match Point was like every American's wet dream about British culture. But as is often the case, the dream is nothing like the reality. Tennis is a key theme of the film, but Allen served up a complete dud. A while ago, I wrote an article about films that should not be on the top 1000 films of all time. If I were to write another list, Match Point would surely be at the top.

Sympathy for Mr Vengeance review

 Number 549 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Korean neo-noir crime thriller 'Sympathy for Mr Vengeance.'

Spoilers ahead

The deaf/mute Ryu (Shin Ho-Kyun) is a factory worker with a sister who desperately needs a kidney transplant. After he is fired from his job and is robbed by organ traffickers who run off with his kidney, he concocts a hair-brained scheme to kidnap the daughter of a rich man and hold her to ransom to pay for another kidney. But then things start to go wrong.

Sympathy for Mr Vengeance is Park Chan-Wook's first film in his Vengeance trilogy, later followed by Old Boy and Lady Vengeance. While I would consider Old Boy one of the best films of all time ever made, I cannot speak so highly of Sympathy for Mr Vengeance.

This film was confused and unfocussed. It straddled multiple genres without ever really engaging in one. Although it is labelled as a neo-noir, crime-thriller, it strayed into black/gross-out comedy like when it showed the organ traffickers engaging in casual necrophilia. Yet this humour was so off-beat that it wasn't funny at all.

At other times it tried being a romance with Ryu and his girlfriend Yong-Mi Cha ( Bae Boona) plotting to kidnap the little girl - Yu-Sun, but for reasons I'll explain later, this didn't work either. The film also strayed into horror with its gratuitous use of gore, plus the ghostly apparition of Yu-Sun.

But Sympathy for Mr Vengeance also didn't have a central protagonist. You think it would be Ryu and to a lesser extent Yeong-Mi, but after Ryu's sister and Yu-sun die, Yeong-Mi is promptly forgotten about, as is her relationship with Ryu, and the film shifts focus to Yu-Sun's father Park Dong-Jin (Song Kang-ho.) He swears revenge on those who killed Yu-Sun, which sees the film remembering about Ryu and Yeong-Mi, but this shift in protagonist was confusing and disjointed.

Speaking of disjointed, the film was poorly edited. It had a bad habit of cross-cutting in an incohesive way - we crosscut from Ryu's sister's body being discovered to her having an autopsy. But also in key scenes, the camera cut away to a completely unrelated scene which left certain plot threads dangling. For example, Ryu and Yeong-Mi discuss kidnapping Yu-Sun one minute, the next she's in their flat not worse for wear.

In one scene, Dong is tied up to a lamp post, the next he's walking about without a scratch. Finally, when Ryu goes to take revenge on the three organ traffickers who stole his kidney, he kills tow of them, but then the third one comes at him with a knife. What happens next? I don't know, because the camera cuts away. Later on, we are told that he has killed her too and has eaten her kidney.

I get that the film was going for a whole "if you set off on a quest for vengeance you must first dig two graves," which is true," as mostly everybody ends up dead, but this was lost in disjointed storytelling and confusing editing.