Hannah and her Sisters review

 Number 340 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's comedy-drama 'Hannah and her Sisters'

Hannah and her Sisters follows the entwined lives of three couples across a twenty-four month period. The first story focusses on TV writer Mickey and the destruction of his marriage with his wife Hannah (Mia Farrow,) all told in flashback. The second focusses on Hannah and her new husband Elliot (Michael Caine) as he falls in love with Hannah's sister Lee Barbara Hershey. The third story focusses on Hannah's other sister Holly (Dianne West) a former cocaine addict who is trying to break into Broadway with her friend and rival April (Carrie Fisher.)

I have yet to come across a Woody Allen film that I have actually liked. Hannah and her Sister was no exception. In fact, it had everything I don't like in a Woody Allen film: Woody Allen, inappropriate relationships and a distinct lack of laughs.

Woody Allen always seems to play the same character in his films: a neurotic, middle-aged Jewish writer. The novelty ran out five films ago. Now this character has become incredibly tedious. Mickey was no exception especially considering his hypochondriac ways. This hypochondria then stems into an existential crisis as Mickey starts looking for religion - a religion other than Judaism. This wasn't a character that I wanted to root for. At least he wasn't dating a seventeen-year-old.

The inappropriate relationship was saved for Michael Caine's character Elliot who cheats on his wife with her sister. Sure you can argue that Allen was depicting a true fact of life, but it didn't make the character very likeable. I'm also going to be controversial and say that Caine didn't support the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Sure, he was the best part of a bad film, but that didn't mean he gave an Oscar-winning performance. The same goes for Dianne Wiest who won for Best Supporting Actress.

The biggest problem about the film was that all the characters were unlikeable. They seemed to spend all their time fighting with each other from Mickey to Hannah to Elliot and Hannah to April and Holly to Hannah's parents. The whole barrel was rotten. There wasn't one character I cared for or even wanted to care for.

It didn't help that the film was so expository with title cards doing the cinematic equivalent of telling and not showing. As is par for the course for a Woody Allen film, Hannah and her Sisters was just not funny. I didn't crack a smile until the thirty-five minute mark and I don't think I laughed more than three or four times.

This is the sixth Woody Allen film that I haven't liked. Who knows? Maybe I'll like the next one. I'm not holding my breath.

Moon review

 Number 339 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction film 'Moon.'

Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is the sole engineer responsible for maintaining an energy-mining facility on the dark side of the moon. His only companion is the AI computer GERTY voiced by Kevin Spacey. However, Sam was a personal crisis when he realises he is actually a clone.

Duncan Jones directed this film in his debut where he was heavily influenced by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. The comparisons were plain to see. Both films contain a minimal cast with an AI-esque robot that has dubious intentions. The main difference is where Kubrick prioritised his big ideas over his characters. Duncan Jones balanced the two very well. This was no surprise, as he soon went onto direct the excellent Source Code.

Sam Bell was a memorable character whose world is rocked when he finds out that he is a clone of the original Sam Bell. And he only discovers this when he finds his doppleganger after hunting for answers. This allowed Rockwell to show off his considerable acting skills, as he plays a duel role where is playing against himself. No wonder he won an Oscar eight years later.

But this role really outlawed him to run run the gamut in terms of character work. He played confusion, distress, anger, joy and happiness. As Duncan Jones only had one character with any considerable screentime, he needed a good actor to go along with that. He had written the role of Sam Bell specifically for Rockwell. Luckily, he accepted both for Jones and for us, as Rockwell carried the film.

True, there are other characters like Benedict Wong and Matt Berry who played Bell's superiors back on Earth or Dominique McElligot who played Bell's wife, but these were supporting roles at most. Bell's wife probably could have used a bit more development.

Despite being heavily influenced by Hal in A Space Odyssey, Spacey too the character of Gerty to a different place by making him a benevolent robot. It was a refreshing change. Spacey helped to provide some light humour to what was otherwise a pretty dour film.

Duncan Jones made Moon on a small budget of $5 million. He kept the budget small by having a small cast and re-using old sets from other films and TV shows like Red Dwarf. Yet the film never felt cheap. He knew how to get the most out of his money.

And Jones knew how to make a good science-fiction film. Moon, not only posed interesting existential questions, but had interesting characters to boot.

Three Colours: Blue review

 Number 336 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kryzstof Kieslowski's first installment of his French Three Colours trilogy: Blue.

Julie (Juliette Binoche) has just survived a car crash. Her daughter and famous composer husband did not. Shutting down from the world, she tries to close herself off to everything, but her past life continues to intrude into the present.

As is the nature of this list, I often watch film trilogies out of order. Here I watched the final film 'Red' first. Luckily, these three films are only linked thematically and not narratively. Each film in this trilogy corresponds with a colour of the French flag - in this case, blue. This film also explores the theme of 'libertie' or freedom.

As much as Julie tries freeing herself from her past, it always finds a way to resurface. She was a tragic character. And Binoche made her both believable and likeable. Kieslowski used her a way to explore the theme of grief. Shutting down as Julie does is an all too common response to this severe trauma. Yet she has constant reminders of the past to having a stranger trying to return her daughter's necklace to her having a relationship with her late husband's best friend. Together, they try to complete her husband's final symphony.

The colour blue was also factored into the film's cinematography with many of the scenes having a distinctive blue filter achieved by placing a filtered gel over the lens. This is another motif that carried over to the other films. It made the film look so nice on-screen, as well as really dialling into Julie's grief.

Three Colours: Blue was a good film with a unique colour aesthetic which really helped it to explore the theme of grief.

Frankenstein (1931) review

 Number 335 on the top 1000 films of all time is the pre-code Gothic drama 'Frankenstein.'

Based on Mary Shelley's book of the same name, Frankenstein follows the Bavarian scientist Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) in his attempts to create life. This culminates in him creating a monster played by Boris Karloff. This monster is made out of dead bodies. Meanwhile, his fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and cousin Victor (John Boles) try to talk him out of his madness.

Frankenstien is a film that needs no introduction. Even if you haven't read the book you are familiar with the story. I have read the book and I think the film over-simplified the plot and characters.

At seventy minutes long, there wasn't enough time to properly explore the characters in any depth. As a result, they felt shallow, superficial and under-developed. Neither Dr Frankenstein or his monster had the humanity they had in the book.

Frankenstein's monster was little more than a simple killing brute and not the misunderstood yet articulate being he was in the book. He's supposed to be somebody you both pity and are scared off - not just something to be feared. Similarly, Dr Frankenstein lent a little too much into the "mad" aspect of "mad scientist." he wasn't so much of an evil genius, as just evil. It was a radical departure from the books where he was a brilliant if misguided scientist.

This film is beloved by many - having spurned countless sequels, parodies and imitators, so I'm obviously in the minority with my opinions. But I didn't care for Frankenstein. It was an overly-stripped affair that lacked the heart and humanity which made the book so beloved.

Cinderella Man review

 Number 334 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ron Howard's 2004 biographical sports-drama 'Cinderella Man.'

Cinderella Man tells the true story of the washed-up boxer James Braddock (Russell Crowe) who recaptured his former glory during the Great Depression. Renee Zellweger and Paul Giamatti co-star.

I've said it before and I will say it again. I've never been a fan of boxing films. Whether it's Rocky. Raging Bull or Million Dollar Baby, they're of little interest to me. Cinderella Man was no exception. I don't think it helped that I don't much like Russell Crowe as an actor. He always seems so serious and gruff - even in roles that might require some levity.

Braddock was a man seriously down on his luck. Like many men during the Great Depression, he was struggling to put food on the table, seeking out a meagre living as a dockworker, due to his failed boxing career.  Yet, I wasn't convinced by Crowe's performance. He didn't properly showcase the vulnerability of the character. Even in the scene where he has to go begging for money, I felt little sympathy. Maybe I'm just heartless.

I don't think he had much chemistry with Renee Zellwegger who played Braddock's wife. She was good, but not good with Crowe. For that reason, I didn't enjoy their scenes together. Weirdly enough, I actually preferred the boxing scenes.

These were all more entertaining to watch than I thought they would be - probably because they used real boxers, most of the time. Although this wasn't great for Crowe who sustained multiple injuries while filming.

The film's redeeming feature was Paul Giamatti who played Braddock's coach and manager Joe Gould. Giamatti bought a terrific energy to the role. There was probably a reason why he was nominated for an Oscar and Crowe wasn't - although, it should also be noted that Crowe actively campaigned for Giamatti rather than himself.

All in all, while Cinderella Man might be a heart-warming rags to riches story, I didn't care for it. Crowe's performance lacked heart and he also lacked chemistry with Renee Zellweger. Giamatti truly earned his Oscar nomination though.

Shadow of a Doubt review

 Number 323 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's psychological thriller 'Shadow of a Doubt.'

Charlotte "Charlie" Newton (Teresa Wright) is a young woman who lives with her family in Santa Rosa, California. Bored with her life, she is overjoyed when her uncle Charles "Charlie" Oakley (Joseph Cotten) visits. Little does she realise is that Uncle Charlie is a serial killer on the run from the police. 

I've watched at least ten Hitchcock films in my time and I would count this as one of my least favourites. This is in stark contrast to Hitchcock who thought this was one of his best films. Sorry, Mr Hitchcock, but we shall have to agree to disagree.

I found Shadow of a Doubt to be overly-theatrical. It was stagey with an excess of dialogue. Some of this dialogue was attributed to side characters like a waitress in a diner. I was confused as to why she was speaking so much considering that she wasn't a major character.

Charlotte had two younger siblings, who were, quite possibly, two of the most annoying characters ever seen on screen. Christ, they were insufferable. They very much embodied the pompous, stuck-up little brats that you see too often on film.

And the sound-mixing was strange too. Maybe I was watching a bad bootleg, but I struggled in hearing some of the dialogue. It didn't help that the characters spoke over one another. At times, Charlotte's speech had a distinct echo.

Finally, the ending wasn't convincing at all. *Spoilers*

Upon hearing that Charlotte has discovered his secret, Uncle Charlie tries pushing her out of a moving train, only for her to get the upper hand and push him from the train instead. I just didn't find that believable at all.

Overall, this was not a film I cared for. 

Head-on Review

 Number 321 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 20024 German-Turkish drama 'Head-On.'

Cahit Tomruk (Birol Unel) is a Turkish-German alcoholic widower. Sibel Guner (Sibel Kekili) is a young Turkish-Germany lady who is desperately trying to escape her controlling, oppressive family. Both characters are severely psychologically damaged, but soon enter a marriage of convenience.

This was an entertaining if uneven film. It all followed a rather predictable plot hitting over-familiar beats. Cahit is your standard cinnamon roll - a suicidally depressed man who is angry at the world around him. While he is hot and fiery on the outside, Sibel soon starts peeling back the layers to find a soft centre. Soon Cahit starts falling in love with her for real. The same goes for Sibel. What initially starts as a sham marriage soon turns into something real.

As the name suggests, Head-On also wasn't afraid to tackle some heavy themes ... well... head-on. Sibel, just like Cahit is suicidally depressed -  the two of them met in a clinic after we see their failed suicide attempts. This is a theme that occurs throughout the film. It certainly makes for some uncomfortable viewing, but it never feels gratuitous.

I did enjoy the ending, as it took me by surprise. *Spoilers*

You might think that Cahit and Sibel would live happily ever after as they realise their true feelings for each other. However, they end up separated. Sibel promises to run away with Cahit, but then stands him up, leaving him all alone. It was a nice way to deviate from the predictable plot.

But there's nothing wrong with predictability if it is done well. And Head-On was done well. It's no surprise that it won the Golden Bear. 

Pink Floyd: the Wall

 Number 320 on the top 1000 films of all time is the surrealist, musical part-animated drama 'Pink Floyd: The Wall.'

Pink (Bob Geldof) is a rock star who is becoming paranoid and alienated from society. To protect his increasingly fragile mental state, he builds a figurative wall.

Pink Floyd are one of, if not, my favourite band, so this film was perfect for me. However, if you've never listened to a Pink Floyd song then this film would be lost on you. I am surprised that this film had enough mainstream appeal to appear on this list. Its surrealist nature coupled with its lack of conventional narrative can make it inaccessible to all but the most ardent of Pink Floyd films.

You could argue that this film was an extended music video for Pink Floyd's double album: the Wall. In many ways, that was the intention behind the film - with many of the songs punctuating key moments of the film. All of this accompanied the Terry Jones-esque animation with the overall end result being a fever dream.

The storyline, for what it was, closely mirrored the themes of the album, which again would be lost on non Pink Floyd fans - you have the same themes of isolation, alienation and disconnect from society. There were some scary images too like Pink hallucinating himself as a Fascist dictator at a Neo-Nazi rally - that was populated with real Neo-Nazis singing along to Waiting for the Worms. Another scary scene is the school children marching into the meat grinder and wearing freaky masks. Appropriately, this scene is set to Another Brick in the Wall.

I wasn't entirely convinced by the acting either. Bob Geldof didn't have too much to do other than stare existentially into the middle-distance. Reportedly, he almost didn't take the role, as he didn't like Pink Floyd's music, so that might have contributed to his lacklustre performance.

The Wall also had a troubled production with director Alan Parker and writer and Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters, often coming to blows. I wonder if that contributed to the disjointed film. But, then again, I think the disjointedness was supposed to be part of the point. The film is all about alienation and disconnection.

I certainly enjoyed the film, but that's more because of the great soundtrack, rather than the film itself. And if you aren't a Pink Floyd fan, you might not like this film at all. Upon its premiere, Steven Spielberg asked "what the fuck was that?" An accurate reaction for sure.

Rain Man review

 Number 319 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1988 road, comedy-drama Rain Man.

Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) is a spoiled and selfish wheeler and dealer in Los Angeles. When his wealthy father dies, he is disappointed to learn that he has been virtually cut out of his will in favour of an anonymous benefactor who will be inheriting his father's $3 million estate. Little does Charlie realises that this benefactor is his autistic savant brother Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) who Charlie didn't even know exist.

Rain Man is a highly-regarded film. It won Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Director and Best Actor (for Hoffman) at the 61st Academy awards. While it was good, I don't think it was Oscar-worthy. It was competing against the likes of Mississippi Burning for Best Film and Actor (Gene Hackman) but I'd argue Mississippi Burning was better.

Let's talk about Tom Cruise first. Although he was good as Charlie, he wasn't incredible. Charlie was a jerk and it was obvious that he would go through a redemption arc as he spent more time with Raymond, but Cruise didn't sell me on this transformation. It was a shame as he is a fine dramatic actor. I just with he took these roles more often rather than the big action hero.

While Hoffman was very good as Raymond, I'm not sure he deserved the Oscar. It was a convincing representation of autism, all thanks to Hoffman spending a year preparing for the role by spending time with the autistic community, but it still felt quite surface-level. There wasn't the depth I was expecting. we see glimpses of Raymond's humanity beneath his neurodiversity, but not the whole picture. I can't think of a standout scene where Hoffman won his Oscar.

If anything I preferred Valeria Golino who played Charlie's girlfriend Susanna. She was fast to call out Charlie on how he is using Raymond for his money which is in sharp contrast to how she genuinely cares for him. She later leaves Charlie before reconciling with him, which was rather contrived.

All in all, Rain Man was a good film. But not a great film and certainly not Oscar-worthy.

Days of Heaven review

 Number 317 on the top 1000 films of all time is Terrence Malik's 1978 romantic period-drama film 'Days of Heaven.'

Richard Gere and Brooke Adams play Bill and Abby - two lovers in 1916 Chicago. After Bill kills his employer, he and Abby flee to find work at a Texan farm. There they concoct a plan for Abby to marry the dying farm-owner, played by Sam Shepard, with the idea of inheriting his money after he dies, but then she falls in love with him.

After the Thin Red Line, this is the second Terrence Malik film that I've seen. I am swiftly realising that I do not like Terrence Malik films. They are tedious, pretentious and over-long. Yes, Days of Heaven, was only ninety-five minutes, but that's still too long for what was ultimately a boring film.

There were too many weird close-ups of insects and animals and not enough of things actually happening. Much like, the Thin Red Line, and that was a war film. Yet all we got was endless philosophising rather than exciting war scenes.

I was bored of Days of Heaven within the first five minutes which naturally meant I missed all the film's set-up and introduction. But even if I hadn't I don't think I would have missed much. The performances were just as bland as the script which was a surprise as you have good actors like Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and Sam Shepard. Yet the weird love triangle felt unconvincing due to the lacklustre acting. Even writing this now, I am struggling to remember the character's names.

If I were to compliment the film on anything, it would be its cinematography particularly the climatic sequence with the farm being set on fire. There was a reason why it won the Best Cinematography Oscar.

Otherwise, this was a bland, boring and tedious film. Par for the course for Terrence Malik.