Mad Max review

 Mad Max does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time. However, its sequel does. It only made sense that at some point I would go back and watch the original.

Mad Max is set in a post-apocalyptic, near-future Australia where law and order has all but collapsed. Motorcycle gangs rule the road while the few remaining police try to keep control. One such officer is the maverick Max (Mel Gibson) who swears revenge on the bikers after they kill the policeman. 

Upon watching this I could see why it wasn't on the top 1000 films of all time. Granted some of my criticisms can be attributed to the film's meagre 350k budget, but a film doesn't need a large budget to be a good film.

Firstly, the genre of the film didn't match the content. For the post-apocalyptic film, the Australian roads and infrastructure was remarkably intact. Reportedly this was because the post-apocalyptic aspect was little more than an after-thought. Director George Miller couldn't afford lots of extras and half-destroyed set pieces, so he made the film post-apocalyptic. He also couldn't afford stunt performs, so the lead actors largely did this own stunts.

Speaking of lead actors, Miller also lacked the budget for high-profile stars hence why a twenty-one year old Mel Gibson was cast as Max. I think there's a reason why Mel Gibson has won Oscars for directing and producing. Like other directors/actors, he is much better as the former than the latter. He was rather hammy as Max.

Across the board, the acting wasn't great. The villains in the motorcycle gang soon blended into one. It didn't help they were also lumbered with clunky dialogue and strange acting choices like how the bikers would make weird animal noises. Joanne Samuel was also pretty bland as Max's wife Jessica, but in fairness, Jessica had all the charisma of a stale ham sandwich.

Ultimately, I was left disappointed by Max Max. Considering it launched a massive world-wide franchise I was expecting something more but I was left with very little.  

The Purple Rose of Cairo review

 Number 562 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's fantasy romantic-drama 'The Purple Rose of Cairo.'

Set in Depression-era New-Jersey, 'the Purple Rose of Cairo' follows cinephile Cecilia (Mia Farrow) seeking escapism from her abusive marriage to brutal husband Monk (Danny Aiello) through frequent visits to the movies. While watching the Purple Rose of Cairo, she falls in love with archaeologist Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) who also falls in love with her and leaves the film world to see her.

My long-term reader(s) will know that I'm not a fan of Woody Allen films. They're not funny and Woody Allen always plays the same character. And we're not even going into his numerous controversies. Sufficed to ay, I was not expecting to enjoy the Purple Rose of Cairo. However, I was pleasantly surprised.

I wouldn't go so far to say I enjoyed the Purple Rose, but I also didn't outright despise it. It helped that Woody Allen didn't appear in his film like he usually does. And, when he does, he is always playing the same character - a middle-aged, neurotic, Jewish comedian/writer. Basically he's playing himself.

Instead you had Mia Farrow in the lead and she was fine. She was inoffensive and rather charming. She brought an enjoyable wide-eyed innocence to Cecilia. But despite starring a naive starlet, she soon found the courage to lead her abusive husband Monk.

Monk was played by Danny Aiello who I found disappointing. This was six years before he gave an Oscar-nominated performance in Spike Lee's 'Do the Right Thing.' He was much more convincing there than here. Sure he was menacing, but only in so far as romantic-comedy villains can be. At least he had more charisma than Jeff Daniels who was a bit of a wet blanket as Tom Baxter.

Although the film's concept was novel enough with plenty of meta-humour - not only does Tom Baxter become self-aware, but so do the rest of the characters in Purple Cairo. I don't think it was enough to sustain a whole film. Despite how the runtime was only a paltry eighty-two minutes, I was longing for it to finish by the end. Some of that was down to the clunky dialogue too.

Like I say, I actually liked the Purple Rose of Cairo. It was one of Woody Allen's least inoffensive films, but that isn't saying much really.

The King of Comedy review

 Number 556 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's black-comedy film 'The King of Comedy.'

Rupert Pupkin (Robert De Niro) is an up-and-coming stand-up comedian. He wants nothing more than to be a world-wide comedy star. After a chance encounter with successful comedian and talk-show host Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis) which results in Pupkin being invited onto his show, Pupkin then develops a dangerous obsession with the comedy star.

In 2019, Todd Philipps made Joker with Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role. Upon release, it was instantly compared to the King of Comedy and with good reason. Both main characters are paranoid comedians. Both have Robert De Niro, although in Joker, he is playing the Jerry Lewis role. And both films were absolutely terrific.

Just like Arthur Fleck in Joker, Rupert Pupkin is a dangerously unreliable narrator. How much can you trust anything he says? He goes through the film in a paranoid delusion believing that he is Jerry Langford's' best friend when that is far from the case at all. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wonder whether Rupert met Langford at all or whether it was just another paranoid delusion. Either way, it was a great comment on society's obsession with celebrity culture that has always existed.

And that leads me to Jerry Lewis' perfect casting as Jerry Langford. As one half of the iconic Martin and Lewis partnership, you can't imagine anyone else playing one of the US' greatest comedians. Or rather I should say a disaffected comedian who no longer has the patience for crazed fans.

Speaking of crazed fans, that brings us to Robert De Niro who, in some ways, played a similar role to his earlier Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. Both men were dangerously unhinged, but Pupkin was all too believable. De Niro was convincing as the crazy superfan who would stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He was the literal embodiment of every toxic fandom ever.

I thoroughly enjoyed the King of Comedy. The lead actors were great and I loved the delicious dramatic irony. One of Scorsesee's best films for sure.

Barton Fink review

 Number 548 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen Brothers' black-comedy Barton Fink.

Barton Fink (John Turturro) is an aspiring screen-writer who finally gets his big break in Hollywood. However, the true reality of Hollywood screen-writing is far removed from the dream. Jon Polito and John Goodman co-star.

In the pantheon of Coen Brothers' films, I would rank this as one of their lower-tiered efforts. The brothers are well-known for their surreal films like Oh brother, wherefore art thou or The Big Lebowski, as well as more straightforward films like Miller's Crossing and No Country for Old Men. Barton Fink seemed to straddle both worlds without really landing in either.

Barton soon becomes mixed-up in a murder which sees him strike up an unusual friendship with the gregarious Charlie Meadows (John Goodman) which, in fairness, does finish in a fiery and dreamscape climax. Yet the earlier parts of the film deal with more grounded ideas like Barton trying to write a script to appease the big-shot Hollywood producer Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner.) If the film could have been surreal or straightforward, I would have been okay with it, but not both.

John Turturro and Jon Polito also starred in Miller's Crossing - a prohibition-era gangster film. Both of them were terrific bringing frenetic energy to the role. They were memorable. Here I can't say the same. Granted Jon Polito was only a supporting character - a lackey to Michael Lerner, but he didn't bring the same energy to the role. Neither did Turturro. They played the roles with restraint when excess would have been better.

That summarises my criticism of this film really: it tried to be too many things and ended up being hardly anything.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas review

 Number 555 on the top 1000 films of all time is Terry Gilliam's black-comedy 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.'

Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp) is a journalist sent to Las Vegas to cover an important motorcycle race. He is joined by his friend and laywer Dr Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro.) Once there, they get high on every drug doing and get into all manner of chaos.

Terry Gilliam is well-known for his surreal, incomprehensible films like Brazil and Twelve Monkeys. However, while those films had some semblance of a storyline 'Fear and Loathing' was an exercise in excess. 'Brazil was about a civil servant looking for love in a hellscape world while Twelve Monkeys focussed on trying to reverse an apocalypse. Sure these films were weird, but I think there was at least supposed to be a point. Or for Twelve Monkeys anyway. Like Brazil, Fear and Loathing seemed to be weird for the sake of weird.

The antics of Raoul Duke and Dr Gonzo soon became tiresome especially as Dr Gonzo is a pretty nasty psychopath. It didn't help that neither Depp or Del Toro were particularly memorable in their roles. And this is saying something considering the calibre of the actors: Del Toro went onto win a Best Supporting Oscar for Stephen Soderbergh's Traffic a few years later. Depp also has a few Oscar nods under his belt. Yet he was just boring lacking any of the usual charisma he brings to a role. And I didn't like Dr Gonzo so I didn't care for Del Toro's performance.

In terms of comedy, it didn't make me laugh very much. Sure, the situations are black and we're supposed to be laughing at and not with the characters, but I spent much of the film rolling my eyes rather than laughing out loud. None of the psychadelic visuals or quirky camera angles could do anything to make the film more interesting.

Instead this was a tedious, overly-indulgent affair which was about two hours too long. I was very glad when the credits started rolling.

25th Hour review

 Number 558 on the top 1000 films of all time is Spike Lee's crime-thriller '25th Hour.'

Monty Brogan (Edward Norton) is a crime lord twenty-five hours away from going to prison. In that time, he has to settle affairs with his girlfriend Naturelle (Rosario Dawson) friends - the obnoxious stockbroker Frank Slaughtery (Barry Pepper) and English teacher Jacob (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and father James (Brian Cox.)

This film had Spike Lee written all over it. It strongly reminded me of Lee's earlier film Do the Right Thing. Similarly, to arguably one of his most famous films, 25th Hour was very heavy-handed in its storytelling. Much of the dialogue had a hammy, over-the-top quality from Ukrainian crime-lord Uncle Nikolai to the obnoxious Frank speaking about closing deals to Ed Norton's famous tirade in the mirror.

This famous diatribe decrying basically any and every ethnic group in New York was ripped straight from David Benioff's source material, except for the addition of Al Qaeda - probably to reflect the changing post 9/11 climate. Maybe my indignation should really be with Ed Norton's delivery instead.

This was definitely one of his worst performances. He was unconvincing as the crime lord Monty because Monty himself was unbelievable. A hardened crime lord was caught by the police because they find his drug money stuffed down the sofa. It's less Pablo Escobar and more world's dumbest criminals. I had to remind myself this was a Tony Soprano type character and not your average hood. 

Similarly, how was Monty so naive about the realities of jail? He is terrified about the thought of going there, which I would understand if he were your average petty crook, but he is high-ranking enough to justify a sit-down with the Ukrainian mob. Surely a man in Monty's position would be able to look after himself in prison or at least be well-connected with those who could protect him.

Norton also lacked a lot of chemistry between co-stars Barry Pepper and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I couldn't believe the three were best friends least of all as Frank and Jacob spend more time together than with Monty. Jacob was also very creepy as he entertained a sexual attraction to his seventeen-year-old student Mary (Anna Paquin) This was an ultimately pointless subplot that went nowhere. All this culminated in a rather laughable climax where Monty goads Frank into beating him up to deter any prison rapists. Pepper was less than convincing than his emotional anguish here.

Finally, Norton also lacked romantic chemistry with Rosario Dawson. They weren't believable together. He was okay opposite Brian Cox, but not even the formidable shoulders of Brian Cox could carry the whole film on his back.

I want to like 25th Hour, but it was just a ham-fisted, eye-rolling affair,.

The Bourne Supremacy

 Number 553 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action-thriller The Bourne Supremacy.

Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is a former CIA agent with amnesia. After the events of the last film, he is trying to live a normal life in India with his girlfriend Maria (Franka Potente.) However, he is forced out of hiding when he is framed for a crime he didn't commit. Joan Allen, Julia styles, Brian Cox and Karl urban co star.

I've never been a fan of this film series and this film did little to move the needle. The main reason was that the characterisations and characters were paper-thin. Julia Styles's character of technician Nicky Parsons was little more than a snivelling wreck. Was she this much of a wet blanket in the first film? Or did director Paul Greengrass want to do Julie Styles dirty? Karl Urban wasn't particularly menacing as a Russian hit man either. He had more of a look of an overgrown emo rather than a ruthless murderer.

This brings me onto the film's plot focussing on Jason and Marie or rather Jason as Marie

*spoilers*

is killed by mistake early in the film. Emo Karl Urban was trying to kill Jason but he killed Marie instead. In the Bourne Identity I was highly critical of their relationship, declaring they had no romantic chemistry. The same applied here. 

As well as trying to clear his name, Bourne also wants to revenge on emo Karl Urban which I would have found believable if their relationship was more believable. It doesn't help that he doesn't seem that cut up about her death. He doesn't even shed one tear and only remembers her death when it's convenient. It was very much the fridging the wife cliche done very badly. 

Matt Damon was nothing special as Bourne. I guess he did the action sequences well enough but he was fairly wooden when it came to anything more emotional. Any redeeming factors? Brian Cox's inclusion as a corrupt CIA chief? Cox is usually very good in whatever he's in but not even he could save this generic action film.

The Bourne Supremacy? There was nothing supreme about this film at all.

Frost/Nixon review

 Number 552 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ron Howard's historical drama Frost/Nixon.

1970's America was rocked by the Watergate Scandal which saw Richard Nixon resign the presidency. To rehabilitate this his image, Nixon (played by Frank Langella) gives a series of tell-all interviews by English has-been talk-show host David Frost (Michael Sheen.) Kevin bacon, Rebecca Hall, Matthew McFayden and Sam Rockwell all co-star in this dramatisation of the true-life story.

Forst/Nixon reminded me of another Watergate-themed film: All the President's Men which focussed on the actual investigation into Watergate. Although I like that film on the first watch, subsequent rewatches proved it hard-going and confusing. I thought it would be a similar case here, but I'm glad to say I was wrong.

Frost-Nixon was a surprisingly gripping film especially so as it was a very talkey film, by its nature. Ron Howard employed a docu-drama esque style where he had talking heads speaking directly to the camera and providing helpful bits of exposition for dopey viewers like me.

However, what this film hinged on the most was the strength of its two leads. Sheen and Langella certainly delivered the goods. Initially, Frost seems like a deer in the headlights, woefully unprepared, as he allows Nixon to dominate the conversation. He is less Jeremy Paxman and more Graham Norton, but as the interview progresses we see his confidence build.

Frank Langella was also a worthy opponent. He was great as Richard Nixon. He rightly deserved a Best Actor nomintation, which paired well with the Tony Award he received for the original stage production of the film. Frost/Nixon began life as a theatre play written by Peter Morgan who also wrote the screenplay, receiving an Oscar nomination. True he took some creative license, but he still crafted an interesting script.

If I were to criticise anything, it would be Rebecca Hall's inclusion as Frost's girlfriend Caroline Cushing. Cushing was a rather boring and pointless character. Wait sorry. She did buy cheeseburgers for Frost.

That aside I did enjoy Frost/Nixon. it was a surprising watch but a welcome one to be sure.

The Sandlot review

 Number 551 on the top 1000 films of all time is the sports coming-of-age drama 'The Sandlot.'

Scotty Smalls (Tom Guiry) is the new kid on the block. Struggling to make friends, he reluctantly begins playing baseball with a group of eight neighbourhood kids led by the popular Benny Rodriguez (Mike Vitar.)

The Sandlot reminded me of the The Goonies. You had a group of little boys finding out the real treasure was the friendship they made along the way. There were plenty of shenanigans and misadventures which makes the audience pine for their youth.

Except the Goonies was better as instead of having four or five annoying pre-pubescent boys who couldn't stop laughing, you had eight of them. At times I wanted to watch this film on mute, they were so annoying. And they weren't particularly well-characterised. Except for Scotty and Benny, they all blended into one.

That's not true. I'm being unfair. You could distinguish the characters on how annoying they were. You had the two brothers Timmy Timmons (Victor Dimattia) and Tommy "Repeat" Timmons (Shane Obedzinski) with Tommy repeating everything his brother said. Then you had Michael "Squints" Palledorous (Chauncey Leopardi) who tricks the older lifeguard into kissing him. The two later go onto get married. In today's age, this would more likely result in a restraining order. #metoomovement. It was all so weird and unrealistic. God and then there was the super obnoxious Hamilton "Ham" Porter (Patrick Renna.)

Speaking of unrealistic, you had the unrealistically naive and innocent protagonist Scotty. I get that he is a completely inept sportsman. I get it. I'm no better. I write reviews nobody reads instead of batting in the MLB but unlike Scotty I can catch and throw a ball. It was so silly that he couldn't do this. Plus, how has he never heard of Babe Ruth? I'm a limey with no interest in baseball and even I've heard of him.

The second half of the film also functioned on a really bad plot hole. *spoilers*

During one game, the kids bat their baseball into a garden patrolled by a fearsome English Mastiff called the Beast. They are unable to retrieve it and their game stops. However, Scotty keeps the game going by stealing his stepdad's baseball signed by Babe Ruth.

This is great until this too goes into the mastiff's lair. And as it was signed by Babe Ruth, they have to get it back. But so nobody notices the difference at home, the boys raise ninety cents by selling bottles and they buy a temporary replacement ball.

Why didn't they just do that in the first place? It's not like it was difficult for them to raise the money? One scene Benny was telling them to find bottles. The next they're buying a new ball. There was no reason for Scotty to steal his dad's baseball.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great coming-of-age dramas out there...Stand By Me, Mud, City of God if you want to call it that. But the Sandlot was not one of them.

Show me Love (Fucking Åmål) review

 Number 547 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Swedish coming-of-age romantic-comedy.

Agnes Ahlberg (Rebecka Lilijeberg) is a sixteen-year-old recluse. She has no friends but is secretly in love with her classmate Elin (Alexandra Dahlstrom) a party girl who hates the boring town of Amal where both girls live.

Show Me Love was Lukas Moodysson's directiorial debut. He would go onto to direct the tragic Lilya-4-ever which also starred a lost, naive female protagonist, although in far more dire circumstances tha here. To be honest, Lilya-4-ever was a far better film.

Show Me Love had the look of a low-budget teen drama. Considering its budget was nine million Swediwsh Kroner, under £80,000 (no doubt less than this thirty years ago) I guess there's a reason it looks like a test version of Skins.

Of course a low budget doesn't dictate a film being bad. However, it helps if the film has likeable characters. Both Agnes and Elin were annoying. Agnes bemoans being lonely and friendless but is rude to the only other girl who turned up to her birthday party, which quite rightfully, comes back to bite her on the arse. Meanwhile, Elin comes across as incredibly shallow.

Yes, of course, they're teenagers and that's what teenagers are like, but it also didn't make their characters heroes I wanted to see succeed. I'll concede that they became more likeable as they were allowed to mature and develop. It's just a shame that they were so damn annoying at first.

The film also had a strange ending scene as if Moodysson didn't know how to end his debut.

*spoilers*

Cornered in the school bathroom with fears of bother their relationship and sexuality being outed, the two girls choose to out their relationship to the school and are all the better for it. This would have been a good ending except then there was another scene of them drinking chocolate milk in Agnes' room. Very weird and ultimately pointless. It would have been far more powerful to have ended it with the outing scene.

Maybe I should give Moodysson some grace. This was his debut after all. Without this film, he would never have gone onto direct the heartbreaking Lilya-4-ever.

Goodbye Lenin review

 Number 541 on the top 1000 films of all time is the German tragicomedy 'Goodbye Lenin.'

On the eve of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the emotionally fragile mother and staunch Socialist Unity Party supporter Christiane Kerner (Katrin Suss) falls into a coma. Upon waking up, the wall has fallen and Germany has been re-unified. However, her son Alex (Daniel Bruhl) resolves to hide the truth, in case, the shock kills her.

I think it's quite easy to compare this film to the later German film: the Lives of Others. Released three years later, this film is also set in the newly-reunited Germany although with a far more dour tone.

Not necessarily a bad thing, but Goodbye Lenin had a far more hopeful and optimistic tone. The Lives of Others was all about exposing subterfuge, but Goodbye Lenin hinged on subterfuge. Most of all from Alex who is desperately trying to keep the truth from his mother even as his web of lies spins out of control.

Alex was played by Daniel Bruhl in his breakout role. Since then he has gone onto appear in Hollywood films like Inglorious Basterds and Rush. But Goodbye Lenin was where everything started. Alex's dedication into keeping the truth from his mother soon grew into an unhealthy obsession that threatens to tear apart his relationship with hi sister Ariane (Maria Simon) and girlfriend Lara (Chulpun Kamatova.)

Although the charade starts with the best of intentions it soon unravels as Christiane starts getting glimpses of the real world. No amount of fake news reports that Alex films especially will do anything to stop Christiane from discovering the truth.

All this would be good and well expect this narrative work is undone in the film's final act. After Christiane recovers well enough to visit the family dacha and reveal a devastating family secret, she suddenly relapses and has to return to hospital. It all just seemed a rather cheap way to generate conflict.

That being said, I did enjoy Goodbye Lenin. I enjoyed its hopeful, optimistic tone and it did launch Daniel Bruhl's career. Although it wasn't Oscar-nominated it quite rightly won other awards like Cesars and Lolas.

Kramer Vs Kramer review

 Number 540 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal drama Kramer vs Kramer.

Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman,) his wife Joanne (Meryl Streep) and their son Billy (Justin Henry) seem to be the perfect happy family. That is until wife Joanne abruptly says that she is leaving her family meaning Ted has to balance his advertising job and being a single father. Later on, Joanne returns and demands custody of Billy. A vicious battle ensues.

Kramer Vs Kramer explores a number of different themes like fathers' rights, single parenthood and gender roles. There are some who would argue that it portrays the difficulties that single fathers have in raising their family. Others would say that single fathers do exactly the same as single mothers do except they demand a lot more praise for it. The film does well in not taking any particular side but instead leaves the audience to make their own decisions.

At first Ted Kramer seems like a bad father - stressed out at doing well in his new advertising job, he struggles in balancing his new responsibilities as a single father. Meanwhile, Billy hates living with his father and wants nothing more than for his mum to come home. The tensions lead the two to fight a lot. Whether you sympathise with Ted or not depends on what side of the aforementioned debate you land on,  but I think Hoffman did well in making him an objectively understandable, if not sympathetic, character. You understand his irascibility even if you don't agree with it. Hoffman won his first of two acting Oscars for this role and it was well-earned.

Justin Henry was also very good in his debut acting role which went onto land him a Best Supporting Actor nomination. He had a natural chemistry with Hoffman which led to them being able to easily improvise many of the film's most famous scenes together like the ice cream for dinner scene. And just like Ted, while you might not find Billy sympathetic, you at least understand why he is acting the way he does.

Rounding out the cast is Meryl Streep. While she was great, earning the first of her three Acting Oscars, her character of Joanne was the weakest part of the film. Compared to her husband and son, she is quite shallow. The film doesn't take the same time to really delve into her motivations. We get a vague idea that she lost her self-confidence in her marriage. Having found herself again, she decides to take her son back. However, because she is largely absent for most of the film, I didn't find her very believable. Her decision to suddenly return sounded a little contrived like Robert Benton needed a new source of conflict after Ted and Billy reconcile their differences. But Benton went onto win the Best Directing Oscar while the film itself won Best Picture along with the acting wins, so what do I know?

What I do know is that this was a powerful film. It takes a neutral position and never talks down or preaches to its viewer. Instead it leaves them to make their own decision. Who do you think Billy should live with? His mum or his dad? Let me know in the comments below.

Adaptation review

 Number 538 on the top 1000 films of all time is the metafictional comedy-drama Adaptation.

Adaptation follows real-life screenwriter Charlie Kauffman (Nicholas Cage) as he struggles to adapt Susan Orleans' book 'The Orchid Thief' to the screen. Not even his identical twin brother Donald (also played by Cage) can help him. An interwoven subplot sees Susan Orleans' (Meryl Streep) process behind writing book including an attraction to John Laroche (Chris Cooper) a horticulturalist whose arrest for poaching orchids was the inspiration for Susan's book.

If there was a list for the top 1000 zaniest films of all time than Adaptation would surely be number one. The metafictional nature of the film ensures that you are in for an entertaining if somewhat convoluted ride. It is a film that centres on the topic of writing films itself. And its subject matter is Charlie Kauffman (who also wrote the screenplay.) Charlie Kauffman himself is portrayed as socially anxious and incredibly neurotic unlike his more confident twin brother Donald.  The film opens with a behind-the-scenes clip of Kauffman's famous film Being John Malkovich and only gets weirder from there as we see the intense writer's block that forms upon his struggles to adapt the Orchid Thief.

Nicholas Cage plays the Kauffman twins (although Donald is fictional.) Cage is a strange actor. At times he is capable of brilliance like when he won an Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, but at other times he is so incredibly over-the-top. In this role, I think he managed to balance both traits well. At times, you can truly understand the pain that Kauffman is experiencing as well as his alienation from life. At other times, you can see the stranger side of Cage coming out especially in scenes where he is acting against himself. I guess his zany portrayal matched the zany nature of the film.

More enjoyable was Meryl Streep as the emotionally conflicted Susan Orleans. She develops a begrudging affection for Laroche and eventually becomes his secret lover. She brought a lot of emotional gravitas to the role. And her actions propelled us into the rather chaotic final act which was surprisingly gripping compared to the rest of the film.

*spoiler alert*

Donald Kauffman is also a screen-writer - far more successful than his twin brother. Charlie asks Donald to interview Susan while pretending to be his brother. Donald becomes suspicious of Susan and secretly follows her where he discovers she is having an affair with Laroche. Susan doesn't want to be exposed so she resolves to kill Donald. A big chase through a swamp ensues involving guns, alligators and a fatal car crash. It was an unexpected end to an unexpected movie.

Lastly, I will give a quick shoutout to Chris Cooper who won the Oscar for playing John Laroche. It was certainly a good performance as he provided some nuance to a strange character.

Strange is probably the best way I  could describe Adaptation. It was a thoroughly off-kilter and zany movie.

Rushmore review

 Number 537 on the top 1000 films of all time is Wes Anderson's comedy, coming-of-age drama 'Rushmore.'

Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) is an upstart private school student who is a chronic under-achiever. Under threat of expulsion, he befriends local industrialist Herman Blume (Bill Murray) while developing an attraction to teacher Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams.) However, Fischer doesn't realise that Blake is also attracted to her.

Rushmore was Wes Anderson's second film before he gained his established reputation as an auteur. That much is clear in Rushmore's visual aesthetic. The symmetrical composition and vibrant colours reminded me of Anderson's later coming-of-age drama Moonrise Kingdom. It's just a shame that Rushmore lacked the same interesting or charming characters.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with the rather annoying Max Fischer. He very much embodied the misunderstood genius who is far too clever for everybody else except he isn't clever at all. If he was, then he wouldn't be threatened with expulsion from school. Instead he became been more annoying and tedious especially when a love triangle develops between him, Frume and Cross.

This isn't to disparage Bill Murray or Olivia Williams. Their characters were far more interesting and their performances more likeable. Murray brought some much-needed humour to the film, while Williams brought the gravitas. It's just a shame that the main character was so annoying.

In my review of Moonrise Kingdom, I had described it as substance AND style. However, Rushmore was style over substance.

Dead Man review

 Number 531 on the top 1000 films of all time is the acid Western 'Dead Man.'

William Blake (Johnny Depp) is a 19th century timid accountant who accidentally kills a man. He is forced to go on the run. While a fugitive, he befriends Nobody (Gary Farmer) an enigmatic Native American who believes that Blake is the reincarnation of the famous poet of the same name.

After Down By Law and Night on Earth, this is the third Jim Jarmusch film that I've seen. Although Jarmusch rejects the idea of being an auteur, I can't think of a better description of his films. They are always on the weird side with a healthy slice of surrealism. Dead Man was no exception.

Just like his third film Down by Law, Dead Man was in monochrome. This feeds into Jarmusch's minimalist style, but also removes any distraction for the audience. Instead their focus is purely on the characters led by the accountant William Blake played by Johnny Depp.

In many of his films, Depp plays an oddball character in a normal world. Here the inverse is true. Depp plays the relatively normal William Blake in a strange world full of strange characters such as the very surreal Nobody. It was enjoyable seeing Depp in a fish out of water role even if it wasn't one of his most memorable performances. Farmer was also enjoyable as Nobody.

Jim Jarmusch, perhaps because he is a musician himself, is well-known for casting musicians in his films. Johnny Depp also has an accomplished music career while Tom Waits has appeared in a couple of Jarmusch films. But as well as having music royalty appear in his films, he also has them provide scores. The brilliant Neil Young composed a largely guitar soundtrack that fitted the film perfectly.

Dead Man was an enjoyable film. It was surreal and strange with an interesting lead performance from Johnny Depp.