Rope review

 Number 267 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 psychological thriller 'Rope.'

Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger)  have just strangled to death their former classmate David believing they have committed the perfect murder. But before they can dispose of the body, they host a dinner party where the guests include David's parents, his girlfriend and their old prep-school teacher Rupert (James Stewart.)

From a content standpoint, Rope is classic Hitchcock. it is a tense, thrilling affair despite only having one set and a minimal cast. Despite being low on spectacle, it is high on suspense. Considering it was based on a stage play and we get little in the way of action, this might be a surprise, but it's true.

The acting talent is high. Despite how James Stewart disliked his performance, I thought that he was great as Rupert. He soon starts to suspect something is amiss with his old students. when he discovers the worst, his righteous indignation is plain to see. But John Dall and Farley Granger were the true stars. John Dall had a horrible smarm which made him one of Hitchcock's slimiest villains while Farley Granger soon becomes a bag of nerves.

Rope was also one of Hitchcock's most experimental films, as it is essentially a one-take film. It was filmed in a handful of long takes. I don't think this was an experiment that worked. The camerawork would track characters as they walked from room to room before shuddering to a stop. When Hitchcock wanted to do a hidden cut, he would zoom into a dark background and then zoom back out. All this left me with motion sickness.

I would also question the story's believability. I didn't understand why Brandon didn't just kill Rupert, as he started to uncover the murder. Brandon has a loaded gun for this reason, yet he doesn't use it.

Despite the plot holes and dodgy camerawork, I did enjoy Rope. It was a tense, suspenseful thriller.

Dog Day Afternoon review

 Number 262 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sidney Lumet's 1975 biographical crime-drama 'Dog Day Afternoon.'

Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino) and Sal Naturile (John Cazale) have plans to rob a Brooklyn bank on one hot afternoon. But their plans quickly go awry, as what should have be a simple heist descends into chaos. This is all based on a true story.

It's been a while since I've watched a film that's had me on the edge of my seat, but Dog Day Afternoon fitted the bill. It was a terrific experience with a ferocious energy that made two hours fly by. There wasn't a dull moment and you couldn't look away for a minute.

Like I say, it was based on a true story, so it was highly authentic. This was only bettered through the brilliant use of improvisation. Much of the dialogue was ad-libbed by the actors themselves which only added to the energy and realism. It's now wonder this received a Best-Film nod.

Al Pacino and John Cazale were fantastic in the lead roles. As Sonny, Al Pacino demonstrated a nervous charisma, as he desperately tried to keep control of the volatile situation. It isn't helped that he also has to look after the unpredictable Sal. John Cazale was a real talent who died far too young. All five of the films he starred in received Best Film nominations. It's just a shame that he himself never received any Oscar nods.

Set during a slow, boring day, Dog Day Afternoon was anything but. It was an excellent piece of film-making.

Duck Soup review

 Number 261 on the top 1000 films of all time is Leo McCarey's pre-code musical black comedy starring the Marx Brothers - Duck Soup.

Rufus T Firefly (Groucho Marx) has just been elected president of the country of Freedonia. However, his bumbling antics soon bring his country into conflict with the neighbouring Sylvania. It isn't helped by how its ambassador Trentino has sent his own spies Pinky (Harpo Marx) and Chicolini (Chico Marx) into Freedonia.

A common rebuttal of any criticism of older films revolves around how it was a different time and they haven't aged well. Yet Charlie Chaplin, arguably the Marx Brothers' biggest contemporary, released a number of comedies that hold up to this day. They are funny, unlike Duck Soup.

I barely laughed. If I'm being generous, I may have chuckled once or twice, but only because of how badly the film was trying and failing to be funny. Running jokes are all well and good along as they aren't done to death. Duck Soup hammered all its jokes into the ground. It was funny seeing the grand fanfare for President Firefly only to not have him appear - or it would have been if we had this joke once. Not three or four times. It became old very quickly.

And rather than a comedy film, it seemed like an eternal set-up for jokes that weren't funny and really predictable. Sure, comedies like Airplane are choc-a-block with cheesy jokes, but at least those were funny. There wasn't anything funny about Pinky squirting water at people only to have it squirted down his trousers or how he kept winding up the popcorn seller by taking his hat. Pinky's constant tooting of his horn was irritating too.

Also, what was with the weird songs? I know this was a musical, but the songs didn't seem to fit at all. They added nothing to the film except emphasising its cheesiness.

This film was only sixty-eight minutes long, but it felt so much longer due to its unnecessary musical numbers and running jokes. Was it just a different time? I'm not so sure. I think this film would have been just as unfunny in the 1930's as it is now.

Wings of Desire review

 Number 258 on the top 1000 films of all time is Wim Wenders 1987 romantic fantasy 'Wings of Desire.'

Damiel (Bruno Ganz) and Cassiel (Otto Sander) are two angels watching over the citizens of Berlin able to hear thoughts but unable to engage in the human world. That all changes when Damiel falls in love with acrobat Marion (Solveig Dommartin) and decides to give up being an angel and become human.

It's been a while since I've fallen asleep watching a film, but it has also been a while since I've watched a film as slow, boring or pretentious as Wings of Desire. It had a lot of potential, which was all ultimately squandered in faux-philosophy.

The angels have the ability to hear people's thoughts and all the people they hear are thinking deep, profound thoughts. It's complete nonsense. Nobody thinks like that in real life. I'm sure we all like to think we're the next John Locke, but we're really not. Myself included. And their telepathy seems ultimately pointless as they have little positive effective in the human world. Cassiel hears the thoughts of a suicidal young man, but is unable to stop him from jumping to his death.

And when Damiel meets and falls in love with Marion - of which he decides to turn human for, I had all but lost interest. The film's redeeming feature was Peter Falk who played a human who had once been an angel. He provided some warmth into what was otherwise a cold, soulless film.

Harold and Maude review

Number 255 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1971 black romantic-comedy 'Harold and Maude.'

Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is a young man who has a morbid fascination with death. He regularly enjoys staging his own suicide much to the dislike of his mother who is worried about her social status. But Harold then meets the carefree seventy-nine year old Maude (Ruth Gordon.) The two form an unlikely relationship.

I didn't care for this film at all. I did not like Harold's character. It would be fair to describe him as a nihilist. He is spiritually deadened and struggles to find any meaning in life. it can be difficult to write these characters so they're not annoying, spoiled or entitles, which is exactly how I would define Harold.

It didn't help that he had no discernible reason for his nihilism. You can argue that his relative affluence and wealth has left him spiritually deadened. The disconnected relationship with his shallow mother has probably done little to help matters. But I can't pinpoint a specific catalyst. Harold didn't have any defined reason for being so dead. Bud Cort also played the role with a smugness that made him irritating.

I also didn't like the film's depiction of suicide. It was gratuitous. Harold stages his suicide in multiple ways from immolation, to blowing his brains out to hanging and even slitting his wrists in a vivid display of red. It was all horribly romanticised. This is even more so considering how the only meaning he finds in his life is through death. His mother constantly dismisses his behaviours too; true she sends him to a shrink, but he is equally dismissive.

I would say that this film's redeeming feature is Ruth Gordon as Maude. She was enjoyable as a hedonistic, ageing hippy who gives no second though to breaking the rules. Despite how charming she was, it is difficult to deny that her relationship with Harold was weird. Director Hal Ashby always insisted that there was nothing untoward about it, but I don't agree. She's sixty years older than him. Flip the genders and see whether it's still the same.

I didn't care for Harold and Maude. Ruth Gordon was a delight, but Hal Ashby's treatment of suicide was off-putting.

Harvey (1950) review

 Number 254 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1950 comedy-drama 'Harvey.'

Elwood Dowd (James Stewart) is a peculiar young man who lives with his aunt Veta Louise Simmons (Josephine Hull). What's so peculiar about him? He believes in a 6 foot tall white rabbit called Harvey. Harvey is his best friend, but he's imaginary. Considered a quack by his queers, it is possible that Elwood is wiser than us all.

In my last review, I reviewed the courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder starring James Stewart as the charming and whimsical lawyer Paul Biegler. However, Harvey, made a mere nine years earlier, lacked a lot oft he same charm and whimsy. Far from being a heart-warming, comedy drama, it was a soulless affair.

James Stewart lacked a lot of the charisma I saw him display in Anatomy of a Murder and the Philadelphia Story. Rather, with Elwood, he seemed to be in a mindless daze for the entire film. if anything, he was just a vessel for the imaginary Harvey. It wasn't the most compelling of characters or performances. I'm not really sure why he was nominated for an Oscar.

While Jimmy Stewart was nominated for an Oscar, Josephine Hull won for Best Supporting Actress. I was confused as to why Stewart was nominated, but I was shocked at how Hull won. Her performance was fine, but it was hardly Oscar-worthy. For one thing, she disappears halfway through the film only to reappear later. I know this was only a Supporting Oscar, but her screentime didn't seem to warrant such a prestigious award.

Going into this film, I was expecting this to be something similar to It's a Wonderful Life, where a character, in this case, Harvey, has an unexpected/unrealised effect on those around him. Yet, I saw little evidence of this. Dr Sanderson (Charles Drake) and Nurse Kelly (Peggy Dow) are a couple working at the sanitorium that Veta wants to commit Elwood to; it is also implied they are having marital problems. The head of the sanitorium Dr Charles (Cecil Kedaway) is lamentful that he never had a chance to holiday in Akron with a beautiful woman. However, after a supposed encounter with Harvey, the couple sort out their problems and Dr Chumley resolves to carry out his wish. Rubbish. There wasn't enough foundation for these emotional beats to land.

And I could very well say the same for the film Harvey. What should have been a fun feel-good affair left me feeling indifferent.

Anatomy of a Murder review

 Number 248 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1959 courtroom drama 'Anatomy of a Murder.'

Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a down-on-his-luck lawyer who has found his next case of Lt. Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) who shot dead the man who raped his wife Laura (Lee Remick.) The question isn't whether he did it, but why. The prosecution argues it was pre-meditated, but Frederick argues it was a case of 'irresistible impulse.' It is up to Biegler to prove the latter. Assisting him is his sardonic secretary Maida Rutledge (Eve Arden) and his drunk partner Parnell McCarthy (Arthur O'Connell.)

Courtroom dramas by their very nature can have the tendency to be dull. They are low on spectacle and sets - often it's two or two and a half hours of characters just droning on at one another. This is especially true, as we don't often see the crime, but, rather, its aftermath.

I was surprised to find Anatomy of a Murder was highly interesting. It was a watchable affair that moved along nicely. It helped that you had the charismatic Jimmy Stewart in the lead role who breathed a lot of life into what could have been an incredibly stuffy role. Real-life courts and barristers probably aren't as theatrical as he is, but they're probably a lot less interesting too.

I thought there was something fishy going on between the Manion couple. Maybe we would be surprised by concluding plot twist, so you can only imagine my disappointment when the story remained incredibly straightforward. Not that there is anything wrong with a straightforward plot. I think I'm just too used to the courtroom dramas being overly-complicated.

Thankfully, that wasn't the case with Anatomy of a Murder. It wasn't quite as good as 12 Angry Men, but it is certainly up there.

Before Midnight review

 Number 245 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Lintlaker's 2013 conclusion to his 'Before Trilogy' - 'Before Midnight.'

Nine years on from when we saw them last in Paris, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delphy) are married with twin girls holidaying in Greece. However, Jesse also has a fractious relationship with his son Hank from a previous marriage. It doesn't help that his ex-wife hates both him and Celine.

What do you think of when you hear perfect film trilogies? Lord of the Rings? Back to the Future? The Dollars trilogy? The Dark Knight? I would add the Before Trilogy to that illustrious list. While it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it is a highly satisfactory end to Lintlaker's Before trilogy.

In many ways, Before Midnight is the biggest film of the three. The cast is expanded by Celine and Jesse are holidaying with a group of friends. The film loses some of its intimate feel as we see the cast having extended conversations with each other, and the character dynamics and relationships take precedence over a stripped-back plot. But when you have characters and dialogue as real as you have here, this is no criticism at all.

With this installment, we see that Jesse and Celine have the most to lose. They have long left behind the honeymoon phase and are now married trying to navigate the complexities of life - least of all Jesse's estranged relationship with his ex-wife and son. Having lived in Paris for the last nine years, Celine is unwilling to give up her life to move to New York especially since Jesse's ex-wife hates her so much.

Yet such an important plot-point like this is very much left up to the viewer's imagination. The less-is-more approach has always been this trilogy's strength - it has always been light on plot, spectacle and budget, but this was too crucial of a detail to be relegated to mere exposition. The same can be said for Jesse's son Hank who, despite appearing at the beginning, never felt like anything more than a plot device.

I was also unsure about the ending. Just when it seems that Jesse and Celine's relationship might be torn apart after a terrible fight, they reconcile with Jesse making an impassioned plea that he isn't perfect and neither is their relationship, but that's just the way life works out sometimes. Considering how the trilogy has always been so big on authenticity, I was expecting something more bittersweet, but having couples make up after bad fights is just as realistic as having couples who don't.

These criticisms don't take away from what was a great conclusion to one of my new favourite film trilogies. Before Midnight was a great exploration of how the way we love can change with age. The script was as natural as ever with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy having as much chemistry as always. I was surprised to find out that there was no improvisation on set - the script was followed verbatim. Everything felt so real that I sometimes thought I was watching a documentary rather than a film.

Why Star Wars is overrated

 Yes fanboys, you've read that correctly. I think Star Wars is overrated, but before you start force choking and executing order 66 on me, hear me out.

I am a fan of Star Wars - the films at least, I have had little exposure with the extended universe, but I don't think they're some of the best films of all time. The original trilogy certainly don't deserve to be included in the top 1000 films of all time.

I can acknowledge Star Wars for what it is - mindless, escapist fun. It's nothing more than that - we're not talking hard sci-fi like Blade Runner or Star Trek where we get deep philosophical questions about what it means to be human. Star Wars is the hero's journey set in space. That's it.

I've always been puzzled when I've heard girls say that they don't get Star Wars. What's there to get? Are we talking about something as (supposedly) profound or deep as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Are we posed with meaningful questions about the nature of humanity like we get in the Terminator films? Star Wars is nothing more than a big boy's film: it's a Western set in space. Tatooine and the other outer rim systems are the Wild West - the Mos Eisley cantina is an easy substitute for the old-timey saloons. Instead of horses we have spaceships. Instead of the man in black, we have Darth Vader. Luke Skywalker is our hero in white. The bounty hunter Han Solo is the outlaw, roguish man with no name. The blasters substitute the magnum revolvers. Hell, instead of Indians and cowboys, we have the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire.

I think George Lucas would agree with me. When he was originally creating Star Wars, he wanted to make something closer to Flash Gordon and the Brothers' Grimm fairytales than Kubrick's Space Odyssey. He wanted to create a space fantasy where the audiences witnessed something fun, adventurous and whimsical. And that's what he did. It doesn't mean that these films are the best ever made.

Fans slate the Disney sequel saga for their awful writing and dialogue. That's fair criticism, but I would urge you to take off your rosy-tinted glasses. The original films are just as badly written. The evil, omnipotent Galactic Empire was stupid enough to make not one but two Death Stars with the same fatal flaw of having a massive hole in the middle, which any old rebel pilot can fly their X-Fighter into and shoot a few torpedoes into. This is an error so egregious that Family Guy mocked it and a whole new film had to be created to explain it - Rogue One. 

Furthermore, Leia kisses Luke in a New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back before confessing that she's always known they were brother and sister in the Return of the Jedi. A lot of this comes down to Lucas' originally writing a monstrously huge script for A New Hope - most of which had to be spread across a whole trilogy of films. This meant that he had to use the ending of Return of the Jedi for a New Hope, as he explained in the DVD commentary, which would explain the overly-cheesy and definitive ending that didn't leave much room for a sequel. 

Yet it isn't just his writing that is bad, but also his dialogue. Harrison Ford criticised it saying you can type this shit up, but you can't say it. There are varying reports about why Alec Guinness' character of Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi dies in a New Hope, but some say that Guinness begged to be killed off, so he didn't have to say the dialogue anymore. In Attack of the Clones, Hayden Christensen, who plays Anakin Skywalker, goes off about how much he hates sand. A lot of people slate Christensen's wooden performance, but how charismatic can you be when you have to recite a monologue about sand?

But Lucas wasn't just bad at writing or at dialogue, but also direction. Far from being a director who was at the forefront of the action, he gave his cast and crew little instruction. Producer Gary Kurtz described him as a loner who didn't get on with the large crew while Carrie Fisher said that when he did give direction it was little more than "faster" or "more intense," in the Empire of Dreams The Story of the Star Wars trilogy documentary. That's exactly the captain you want at the helm of your ship, right?

What I will give Star Wars credit for is its pioneering use of special and visual effects. Obviously, I wasn't alive to see the original films in cinema, but I've heard that it was an amazing experience, because of the effects. Lucas made terrific use of miniature models to create some brilliant action sequences.

This pioneering use of models eventually translated into CGI, which made the prequels such an entertaining watch. But it was just entertaining. Nothing more. Especially when Lucas took things too far and kept constantly re-releasing the original trilogy with unnecessary edits like replacing the original holographic emperor in The Empire Strikes Back, played by Marjorie Eaton, voiced by Clive Revill, with Ian Mcdermid who went onto play the evil emperor in the prequels. Another replacement saw Sebastian Shaw who played the force ghost of Anakin Skywalker in the Return of the Jedi being swapped out with Hayden Christensen.

I also don't think the prequels aren't as bad as the fanbase makes them out to be. Yes, the Phantom Menace is slow-paced and bogged down with trade negotiations, but they get progressively better from there. Despite being bad, they are still entertaining. Like the originals. And, like the originals, they all share the same weaknesses. Samuel L. Jackson had to say some god-awful dialogue in Return of the Sith: "our worse fears have been realised," and, who can forget Darth Vader cheesily screaming out nooooooooooooooo. Of course, we've already heard about the infamous sand monologue.

There is nothing a Star Wars fan hates more than Star Wars. And there is no fandom I hate more than the Star Wars one. (I wouldn't be surprised if I start getting force-choked before I finish writing this.) I get that all fanbases have their toxic, elitist elements, but the Star Wars fanbase seems rotten to the core.

Firstly, they're blinded by nostalgia for the originals, which as we've already established, aren't all they're cracked up to be. But these rosy-tinted glasses have become blinkers where they struggle to acknowledge anything out of their reality.

Now even a casual Star Wars fan like me can acknowledge that the Disney sequels aren't great - even by Star Wars' standards. In the opposite of the prequels, they start off well and get progressively worse. I enjoyed the Force Awakens - I thought Ray and Finn were great together. But then they're separated for the next two films. In lieu of not knowing what to do with Finn, they give a couple of love stories that don't work, all while Ray's writing becomes progressively more contrived.

This is all fair criticism, but due to the Star Wars fandom, who enjoys bullying actors on social media, I'm sure it doesn't go far enough. Star Wars fans so hated the character of Rose in the Last Jedi that they sent no shortage of racist and sexist hate to Rose's actress Kelly Marie Tran - so much so that she deleted her social media. There were plenty who insisted this wasn't indicative of the whole fanbase, but I'm not so sure. Ahmed Best who played JarJar Binks became suicidal over the hate he received from playing a fictional character. Jake Lloyd who played the young Anakin Skywalker in A Phantom Menace didn't grow up to be a Hollywood A-Lister, but a paranoid schizophrenic with a criminal record. Granted, this isn't directly the result of the fandom, but being constantly bullied certainly didn't help things either.

I realise this isn't strictly a Star Wins, but a fanbase being stupid thing - Leslie Jones in Ghostbusters and Josh Mcdermitt in the Walking Dead also suffered abuse at the hands of so-called fans. Hell, even Tom Felton, who played Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films, had people hissing and booing at him in the streets. Yet it always seems the Star Wars fanbase who seems the most vitrolic in their hate. And they are always the ones you less likely to be able to reason with.

Do you disagree with me? Prove me wrong in the comments, but don't talk to me the way you did with Kelly Marie Trans. And remember, I do like Star Wars.  They're just NOT the best films ever. May the force be with you all.

Before Sunset (2004) review

 Number 272 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Lintlaker's romantic-drama 'Before Sunset' - sequel to the 1995 Before Sunrise.

Jesse Wallace (Ethan Hawke) is an American writer on the last stage of his European book tour in Paris. he is promoting the book that he wrote about a fleeting romance he had with French lady Celine (Julie Delphy,) whom he met in Vienna nine years prior. The events of which constitute the plot of Before Sunrise. Little does he know that we will soon re-unite with her in Paris.

I absolutely loved Before Sunrise. It is low in spectacle, action and budget, but high in authenticity and romantic chemistry between its two leads. I loved the original so much that I couldn't wait to watch the sequel. It was reminiscence of the beginnings of relationships where everything is exciting, new and fresh. Did Before Sunset live up to the hype? Not quite.

It was still a highly entertaining film, but it lacked the spark that the first one had. In many ways, it was a rehash of the first one. Only this time, Jesse and Celine are in Paris, instead of Vienna, and instead of an entire night together, they only have an hour before Jesse has to return to America at sunset.

Considering it's been nine years since their last encounter, Jesse and Celine have as much chemistry, as they did before. The same can be said for Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy who co-wrote the film along with Richard Lintlaker. If you told me that the pair were dating in real life I wouldn't have been shocked as they were brilliant together. Obviously they weren't, as they weren't Ethan Hawke was finalising his divorce with wife Uma Thurman. Anyway, Jesse and Celine's dialogue sparkled. And the film had a fantastic air of authenticity. It didn't just feel real. It was real.

Yet the film still lacked something. It is only a paltry eighty minutes long, but it still felt longer than it should have been. On the surface, it seems that Jesse and Celine are picking up where they left off - even though they're both in new relationships - Jesse is married with a son, but we soon learn that they never truly recovered from their fateful encounter. Jesse is trapped in a loveless marriage while Celine never sees her photojournalist boyfriend. They're still both deeply in love with each other. While Before Sunrise showed the excitement of the beginning of the relationship, Before Sunset, seemed to focus more on the relationship after the honeymoon period has worn off.

This all culminates in a tearful confrontation at the film's climax. But this should have come sooner. I couldn't see what this film was building to - I wonder if it would have been similar to how Before Sunrise ended. But *spoilers*

it ended on a less ambiguous, but equally hopeful note. 

Richard Lintlaker captured lightning in the bottle with Before Sunrise. He couldn't quite do the same with Before Sunset, but it was still a great film nonetheless.

Arsenic and Old lace review

 Number 242 on the top 1000 films of all time is Frank Capra's 1944 black, screwball comedy 'Arsenic and Old Lace.'

Mortimer Brewster (Cary Grant) is a theatre critic and author who's just married minister's daughter Elaine (Priscilla Lane.) Before they go on their honeymoon, he goes to see his aunts Abby (Josephine Hull) and Martha (Jean Adair) who are living with his mentally deranged brother who believes that he is Teddy Roosevelt. There he is horrified to learn that his aunts have been poisoning lonely, old men and burying them in the cellar. To make things worse, Mortimer's other brother Jonathan (Raymond Massey) arrives - also a murderer and fugitive of justice.

You get screwball comedies and then you get this completely off-the-wall farce. It gives the genre of "screwball comedy" a whole new meaning. It was so kooky that I'm not even sure where to begin.

Actually let's start with Cary Grant who once again put his vaudeville background to good use. He was a delight as the straight-edged Mortimer Brewster who is trying not to lost his mind at his aunt's gleeful admissions that they are serial murderers. He was so funny both in his mannerisms and dialogue.

We also need to credit Josephine Hull and Jean Adair who brought a lovely whimsy to their roles as the killer aunts. Despite being murderers, they made the aunts so endearing. They were just as funny as Cary Grant especially in their physical comedy. One particular scene sees them trying to poison a potential lodger by lacing his wine with arsenic, yet every time he goes to take a sip, he gets distracted. Their constant excitement and disappointment was a joy to watch.

As the film progresses, things do become increasingly ridiculous - particularly when the murderous Jonathan enters the scene along with the hack German Doctor Herman Einstein (Peter Lorre) and a whole cohort of police officers. Chaos ensues as the film descends into a completely meaningless farce.

Despite the strange ending, Arsenic and Old Lace was a charming, funny and often ridiculous screwball comedy. 

Sleuth (1972) review

 Number 238 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joseph L. Mankiewicz' mystery thriller 'Sleuth.'

Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) is an eccentric crime writer with a love for puzzles, games and his mistress. He wants nothing more than to run off with her. The problem? He is still married. Enter his wife's lover, salon-owner and second-generation Italian immigrant Milo Tindle (Michael Caine.) Together the two hatch a plot for them to end up with their desired women.

You have to give Mankiewicz some credit. This is film with a minimal cast and sets, yet it is a true head-scratcher. It was a complicated affair. I'm not sure I understood everything even now. Despite that it is an interesting film that demands every ounce of your attention. At least for the many references to the crime genre in general. It is a meta text with many allusions to the likes of Agatha Christie etc.

It was originally adapted from a play by Anthony Schaffer and I wonder if it would have been more effective on stage and screen. The two-man cast and two or three sets would have lent itself well to Broadway. Considering it won a Tony, it obviously did.

Plus this film adaptation included a giant of the English theatrical world: Laurene Olivier. He was enjoyable as the eccentric Andrew Wyke, often giving the role an electrifying energy. This coupled with his larger-than-life performance certainly wouldn't have been out of place in the theatre. He was incredibly physical and incredibly theatrical. Andrew Wyke is an odd fellow who fancies himself the next Agatha Christie. His house is full of strange costumes and other peculiarities. Olivier played the role to a tee. He was rightly nominated for an Oscar.

Michael Caine - also Oscar-nominated - was every part his equal. He plays Tindal well and he soon enters a battle of wits with Andrew Wyke. Although the two start as uneasy allies, they then enter a cat-and-mouse game, as they desperately keep trying to outwit one another.

Although Sleuth was good on screen, I do think it was better suited to the stage. The intellectual plot, heavy dialogue, minimal sets and characters would have been perfect for any theatre hall.

The Last Picture Show review

 Number 236 on the top 1000 films of all time is Peter Bogdanvoich's 1971 coming-of-age drama: 'The Last Picture Show.'

Sonny Crawford (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane Jackson (Jeff Bridges) are two high-school seniors in the sleepy Texan oil-town of Anarene where nothing ever happens. They try to find some meaning in this meaningless place. The film is set in the 50's and co-stars Ellen Burstyn and Ben Johnson.

Christ, it was boring writing that summary. But it's difficult to make such a boring film sound interesting. The Last Picture Show takes place in a stagnant town that is slowly dying both culturally and financially. I would argue the film itself was dying a slow death, if it was even alive in the first place. And that's debatable.

When I think of Coming-of-Age dramas, I think of the adventure you find in Mud or the sheer loss of innocence of Stand By Me. Hell, I hated the Goonies, but at least that tried, and failed, to be fun. Yet there was nothing fun, memorable or adventurous in this dull film.

It reminded me of La Dolce Vita or even George Lucas' American Graffiti where a group of bored kids are running around getting into trouble, as they have little else to do. Duane, Sonny and the rest of their friends take their mentally slow friend to lose his virginity with a sex worker. Duane's girlfriend Jacy attends a skinny-dipping party where she strips naked and has to be reassured by the host that his little brother isn't a sex pest. it was all just weird. And it wasn't enjoyable either.

There is some considerable acting talent in this film. It starred future Oscar winner Jeff Bridges and future Triple Crown of Acting winner Ellen Burstyn, yet there isn't a memorable performance to speak of. All the characters, both male and female, blended into one.

Perhaps the only good thing I can say is about the film's black and white colour processing. Monochrome in film can look aesthetically pleasing even if it fails to add much.

This was such a boring film that I would we start getting tumbleweed rolling past at one point. I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep writing this review.

Ten films that should have been included on the top 1000 films of all time

 IMDB's top 1000 films of all time covers ninety-four years of film from Charlie Chaplin's 1925 The Kid to Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley's 2015 Vacation. Of course, it cannot include every film ever made, but I do think there are some egregious omissions. Considering there are at least thirty films that do not deserve to be on this list, I'm going to propose ten films that could take their place. This list is in no order, but chronology.

Bugsy Malone (1976)

If there's something that IMDB loves, it's both gangster films and musicals. The Godfather, Sweeney Todd and Les Miserables  all feature on the famous list. Bugsy Malone combines these two genres in a heart-warming pastiche of the mob films of old.

It tells the story of Bugsy Malone (Scott Baio) who is caught in a war between two rival gangsters. The film is notable for how it cast teenage actors in adult roles - like Jodie Foster in one of her earliest roles. Sure it gets a bit cheesy at the end, but so does Argo and that won the Best Film Oscar, despite lacking so many of the brilliant musical numbers Bugsy Malone has.

1984 (1984)

This is a film that needs no introduction. Considering how IMDB seems to love dystopia films, with Twelve Monkeys, Dark City and V for Vendetta all placing on the list, I don't understand why 1984 wasn't even mentioned.

1984 and its associated ideas of double speak and Big Brother have long entered the cultural lexicon. The film stars John Hurt as Winston Smith and Richard Burton, but I still don't understand why it wasn't included. It can substitute Brazil. At least 1984 actually has a point.

It (1990)

This adaptation of Stephen King's horror epic was actually a two-part TV film, so I guess that's why it didn't appear on IMDB's list. Yet I still think it deserves a place.

You could certainly argue that it might seem dated by today's standards, but Tim Curry's villainous performance as Pennywise the Clown was a lot scarier than the excessive gore, CGI and jump-cuts that dominate horror today. Best of all, it isn't nearly as long as Stephen King's 1000 page source material.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

NBK was highly controversial on its release. Some were critical of its extreme depictions of violence, while its distinctive visual style probably did nothing to help naysayers. Even writer Quentin Tarantino has since disowned this film.

But I think those who hated this film have missed its key idea. Director Oliver Stone was criticising the true-crime phenomenon that fascinated society even in the 90's. He was making the point of how the media irresponsibly glorifies criminals, which is as true back then as it is now.

Some love NBK. Some hate it. I loved it and I think it deserved a place on this list. it could easily replace Field of Dreams. At least NBK has something to say.

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (2002)

Relax, fan boys. The prequels aren't as bad as you say. As long as you don't take them too seriously, they're good fun to watch. And Attack of the Clones has plenty of fun, action sequences to carry it through.

Yes the dialogue is pretty bad with the characterisations being very thin, but how does this make it any different from any of the other Star Wars films?

The other films (sans Phantom Menace, obviously) appear on this list, so why not Attack of the Clones too? At least there isn't a Death Star where the villains were so stupid the designed it with a giant hole - a plot chasm so great, they had to make a whole film to fix it. May the force be with you.

Three and Out (2008)

I must be the only person who would put this on a top 1000 film list. This British black tragicomedy was panned by audiences and critics alike.

But I loved it. It was equal parts hilarious and heart-breaking with great performances from Mackenzie Crook, Colm Meaney, Gemma Arteton and Imelda Staunton. It was a film severely hurt by a disastrous marketing campaign.

Some might say this is a terrible film, but so is Running Scared and the Boondock Saints and they still featured on the list.

The Road (2009)

The Road is a bloody depressing film. Perhaps that's why it didn't feature. But Blue Valentine is equally depressing and that still featured. The Road is another adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy book featuring a father and son traversing an apocalyptic wasteland. Yes, it is downbeat and frustratingly vague, but it is still a powerful tale of hope and redemption.

No Country for Old Men - another Cormac McCarthy adaptation - placed at number 204th. Why wasn't the Road included too?

Carrie (2013)

Remakes are rarely a welcome sight among audiences. Most see them as shameless cash grabs, as was the case with the 2013 remake of Carrie.

But I'm going to be controversial and say that Carrie deserved its place on this list alongside the 1976 original. For one, it has a more faithful representation of Carrie, and two it has the excellent Chloe Grace-Moretz taking over from Sissy Spacek.

Despite what some critics have said, there are also some genuine scares too.

Whiplash (October 2014)

Whiplash received critical acclaim. It was won a whole host of awards including multiple Oscars. JK Simmons won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as a tyrannical music teacher. it was directed by Damian Chazelle who two years later won a Best Director Oscar.

So why wasn't this film included on IMDB's list? I am absolutely baffled. It is a brilliant film - yes the ending doesn't make sense, but neither does The Hunger Games and that was still selected over Whiplash. Why?

Big Hero 6 (November 2014)

Frozen was a Disney film included on the IMDB list. Big Hero 6 was not. Frozen was picked over Big Hero 6. FROZEN!!! Big Hero Six was a fantastic film that had one of the cutest Disney protagonists since Wall-E. It had gorgeous animation and perfectly balanced humour and heartbreak. I can't think of many other films that make me cry from both laughter and sadness.

Have I missed out of any films? Let me know your thoughts below.

Big Hero 6 review

 I don't understand why this Disney animated film didn't chart on the top 1000 films of all time. It is an excellent adaptation of a Marvel comic.

Hiro Hamada (Ryan Potter) is a fourteen-year-old robotics genius. His older brother Tadasho (Daniel Henney) is his hero who has built the inflatable robot Baymax (Scott Adsit.) However, when Tadashi dies in a fire, Hiro begins to suspect he was murdered. Hiro teams up with Baymax and Tadashi's friends: Wasabi (Damon Wayans Jr), Go Go (Jamie Chung), Fred (TJ Miller) and Honey Lemon (Genesis Rodriguez) to find out the truth. Alan Tudyk and James Cromwell co-star.

Why is this film so good? One simple answer. Baymax. In designing him, director Don Hall wanted to do something different to the robots we've seen in the Terminator and Wall-E. Taking inspiration from real-life research into huggable robots, he created one of the most adorable characters ever. Paired with some brilliant animation, Baymax was one of Disney's most endearing protagonists.

I loved seeing him bumbling around in his misguided attempts to try and help people. He provided a lot of the film's humour especially in the earlier sections. All credit goes to Scott Halzit who, despite playing an emotionless robot, still imbued Baymax with so much humanity. 

But beyond the comedy and the adorable Baymax, there was so much heart and emotional weight - a lot more than you might expect from an animated film. This is Disney after all.

After Tadashi's death, Hiro is absolutely crushed and is ready to give up, but Baymax is ready to coach him through it - providing him with all the emotional support he needs. So are Tadashi's friends. They become a superhero team working together to beat the masked antagonist they suspect of killing Tadashi. The supporting characters were all great with their own personalities and quirks. Okay, I'm not a fan of TJ Miller who played Fred. He isn't funny. He's just annoying, but even he wasn't that bad here.

And the emotional weight continues to the end when we uncover the true motivations of our mysterious villain. It takes a lot for a film to balance both comedy and emotion, but Big Hero 6 did it well. It's rare that a film makes you cry from both laughter and sadness, but I was close to tears for many different reasons.

Big Hero Six was a triumph of the film. It was well-written, beautifully animated, comedy-drama that had one of the cutest protagonists ever. And, of course, it had a great soundtrack with Fallout Boy penning Immortals just for this film. Who doesn't like Fallout Boy? What a combination.

Carrie (2013) review

 Unlike the 1976 original the 2013 adaptation of Stephen King's horror novel did not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

Carrie White (Chloe Grace-Moretz) is the most unpopular girl in school. She is bullied mercilessly by her classmates and tormented by her fanatically religious mother Margaret (Julianne Moore). Carrie soon discovers she has telekinetic powers which she uses to exact her revenge on all those who have wronged her.

Something that always bothered me about the 1976 film was its portrayal of Carrie.

*spoilers ahead*

Up until the ending, it showed her as an innocent victim pushes too far by her classmates. That is until she is shown haunting her classmate Sue (the only person who tried making up for how she treated Carrie) from beyond the grave. This was a move that very much countermanded all of Carrie's character development. She was no longer a bullied victim, but a vengeful, malevolent spirit. I was pleased to see that the remake didn't follow this same idea even if that was their original plan. Carrie remained a symbol of what happens when the bullied kid finally snaps. 

In the 1975 film, Sissy Spacek received universal praise and an Oscar nod for her portrayal of Carrie. Chloe Grace-Moretz was just as good in creating a balanced and nuanced character who was both sympathetic and pitiful. I saw this in theatres over ten years ago and the scene I still remember is Carrie breaking down in fear when her mother locks her in the prayer closet. Some have said this horror film is light on scares, but I'd argue this scene is pretty damn scary.

Julianne Moore was also great as Carrie's unhinged, religiously fanatical mother. Out of the different villains in this film, she is probably the scariest. When you understand the way she is, it's no surprise that Carrie turned out so socially awkward. Moore was definitely better than Portia Doubleday, Alex Russell and Krissa Strain who played Carrie's bullies. A mixture of subpar acting and thin characterisations made them little more than your standard, two-dimensional high school bullies.

You could certainly argue that this remake of Carrie wasn't necessary, but as studio executives pointed out, high-school bullying is as much of a problem now as it was in the seventies - worse with the advent of phones, social media and cyber-bullying. If we don't more to protect victims, we're going to have a whole load more Carries on our hands.

Star Wars Attack of the Clones (2002) review

 It might not surprise some of you to learn that this film does not land a place on the top 1000 films of all time. The Star Wars prequels were polarising to say the least, but I think Attack of the Clones deserves a place (not a high place, but a place nonetheless.)

Attack of the Clones picks up ten years after the Phantom Menace left off where the prophetic chosen one Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is now a Padawan learner under Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan Mcgregor.) The galaxy is on the edge of civil war, as more systems secede from the Republic to join a Separatist movement led by Count Dooku (Christopher Lee.) Meanwhile, Anakin begins an illicit romance with Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman.)

I'm sure there are many Star Wars' fans who are frothing at the mouth when I suggest that Attack of the Clones is good enough to have merited a place on the top 1000 films, but as long as you take it for what it is - good fun, there's no reason that it shouldn't have a place. Don't worry, I'm not going to start advocating for a Phantom Menace or the sequels.

Yes, Hayden Christensen is pretty creepy/wooden throughout the film, but no creepier than Leia kissing Luke not once but twice and then having her confess that she's always known that Luke is her brother. Not to mention that Christensen had some awful dialogue to recite. How charismatic can you be when you have to talk about sand? I would also question how much chemistry he had with Natalie Portman.

Yet where Star Wars always delivers is the action sequences and Attack of the Clones delivers here. These are the parts I remember the most about this film. We get some awesome light-sabre rattling as Obi-Wan and Anakin fight Count Dooku, before we learn why Yoda is the greatest Jedi of all time. The fight in the Geonosis arena also led to some thrilling viewing.

This more action-oriented edition of the Star Wars saga helped to steer the franchise away from the more tedious aspects of A Phantom Menace. Long gone are the trade negotiations. It also marked a darker tonal shift, as we gain more insight into what made Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader. There are plenty of dark scenes, as Anakin channels his inner-angsty teenager, and massacres the group of sand-people who captured and tortured his mother to death.

Like I say, I wouldn't have placed Attack of the Clones highly on my top 1000 film list, but I would have still given it its dues. Yes, it has flaws, but these flaws apply to the franchise as a whole - and A New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back feature in the top twenty, so there you go.

 

1984 (1984) review

 This adaptation of George Orwell's seminal 1984 failed to chart on the top top 1000 films of all time.

It tells the story of midlevel bureaucrat Winston Smith (John Hurt) who is living in a dystopian land ruled by the totalitarian government called Big Brother. Wanting to escape the tyrannical regime, he begins a relationship with a woman called Julia (Suzanna Hamilton) as they both join a resistance movement led by the mysterious O'Brien (Richard Burton.)

Considering 1984's impact on popular culture, I am surprised it doesn't feature on the top 1000 films of all time. Words like doublespeak, Orwellian and Big Brother have all since entered the cultural lexicon. In 1984, when Orwell originally penned 1984, you would have been called a tin-foil conspiracy theorist for claiming the government is spying on is. Now it's conspiracy fact. Not fiction.

Even Orwell himself has become a cultural icon - something he would have hated by the way. I don't think that 1984 would have been out of place on IMDB's top 1000 film list. It would be among good company, as similar dystopic films like Brazil or V for Vendetta also feature.

And 1984 is just a good if incredibly bleak film. John Hurt brings our hero Winston Smith to life with a world-worn cynicism that soon becomes an unlikely bravery, as he quietly looks for ways to undermine the oppressive regime that he is working for.

The whole film has a dirty, grimy, feel as we see a population going through the motions. This isn't a world where if you scratch below the idyllic service, you'll see the seedy underworld: in 1984, the people know they're living a miserable existence, they just don't care. They're thriving in apathy and indifference.

Just like Winston is until he begins an illicit relationship with Julia who was just as good as her co-star, but the true star was Hollywood heavy hitter Richard Burton. He was great as the villainous O'Brien. On the surface, he seems to be part of the resistance movement, luring in Winston and Julia, but he was just a trap to flush out traitors.

From here, the film rushes toward a conclusion that was too fast for my living. We definitely could have spent more time with Julia and Winston's relationship, before it inevitably self-destructs. For that reason, I wouldn't have ranked it highly on the top 1000 films, but I would rank it nonetheless. 

Bugsy Malone (1976) review

 This film does not feature on the top 1000 films. It is a musical pastiche of the gangster genre with teenagers playing the role of adults. It tells the story of the titular 'Bugsy Malone' (Scott Baio) who is caught in a war between rival mobsters Fat Sam (John Cassisi) and Dandy Dan (Martin Lev). Jodie Foster co-stars in one of her earliest roles.

I would count the Godfather as one of my favourite films and the Sopranos as one of my favourite TV series. You could say I am a big fan of the mobster genre. And I am an even bigger fan of this pastiche. it lovingly poked fun at a genre that as a whole takes itself too seriously.

Instead of tommy guns, we have cream-shooting splurge guns. If you're splurged then your street cred is dead and you are no longer a gangster. It's a clever way sanitising the often gratuitous violence you often find in gangster films. Who can forget the famous scene where Sunny Corleone is massacred in a volley of machine-gun fire?

Musicals aren't for everyone - I don't always like them - but the songs in Bugsy Malone are memorable whether it is of the janitor Fizzy singing about an audition that he will probably never have or Fat Sam's henchmen celebrating being bad guys, there are plenty of great musical numbers. Considering the film is set in the prohibition/jazz era, it is only appropriate.

The teenager actors all did a good job creating strong, likeable characters. We've already talked about the two-time Oscar winner Jodie Foster, but Scott Baio, John Cassisi, Martin Lev and all the rest were great as well. Despite being primarily a comedy, there was a lot of heart and a lot of drama.

Sure, you can argue the ending becomes a bit soppy, but this is a pastiche after all. It's unlikely that we'll have a scene where all of Michael Corleone's enemies are gunned down while his son is being christened.

Overall, Bugsy Malone was a self-aware heart-warming pastiche of one of my favourite genres. It is a great family film for children and parents alike.

Chungking Express review

 Number 234 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hong Kong art house romantic-drama Chungking Express.

Chungking Express tells two separate love stories which only interconnect where one ends and the other begins. The first sees a Hong Kong police officer He Qiwu (Takeshi Kaneshiro) trying to come to terms with the ending of a relationship, while growing closer to a mysterious, unnamed woman in a blonde wig (Brigitte Lin) who is trying to survive in a dark, criminal underworld. The second story sees another policeman only known by his serial number 663 (Tony Leung) as he grows closer to the cafe waitress Faye (Faye Wong) after another failed relationship.

Of the two stories, I much preferred the second one. I found the first to be more of a loose sketch rather than an actual story. He Qiwu was such a wet blanket of a character. I get it. I've been him, moping around after a bad break-up. I'm sure I was an absolute misery to be around. What fun is somebody who is always feeling sorry for themselves? While it was realistic, it didn't make for a very compelling protagonist.

His female co-star had a more interesting story, but she wasn't afforded enough time to tell it. We see that she has been wronged in this criminal underworld and she is trying to take revenge on everybody who screwed her over. Yet her story was left incredibly vague and unexplained. Her actions certainly didn't have a lot of clarity. Although maybe this was because of the intentional motion blur that director Wong Kar-Wait used. And who knew there was such a big Indian minority in Hong Kong? Evidently not me who didn't realise the real Chungking estate does indeed host a whole bunch of Nepalese and South Asian immigrants.

Overall, the first story took itself too seriously. Not so for the second which was more light-hearted. It helped you had the comic relief character of the cafe manager played by Chan Kam-Cheun. He was constantly pushing 663 to move on. And it also helped that Tony Leung's character had more backbone than the other copper. Rather than moping around in self-despair, he's trying to get on with his life - if not actively moving on.

One way he's doing this is by frequenting a cafe where he starts getting friendly with the waitress Faye - who plays California Dreamin' by the Mamas and Papas on repeat. She is immediately smitten with him and her attempts to get closer to him - like cleaning and organising his flat when he isn't there - usually leading to some comic moments. It's quite a charming little story.

And Chungking Express is a charming enough film. It's actually two films in one with the second story being a lot better than the first.