Thank you for Smoking review

 Number 637 on the top 1000 films of all time is the black-comedy Thank you for Smoking.

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a high-ranking cigarette exec who lobbies for the tobacco industry. He must carefully balance his job and his relationship with his estranged 12-year-old son Joey (Cameron Bright.) Sam Elliot, Katie Holmes, Rob Lowe, JK Simmons and Robert Duvall co-star.

This wasn't an absolutely awful movie. I could see its intention to be a satire and it definitely had its funny moments, but it was also quite superficial. There could have been a lot more depth. Nowhere is this more true than with the character of Nick Naylor.

It's quite obvious that he was supposed to be a shallow character and his character arc would show him maturing into somebody deeper. He is supposed to go from an unlikable, self-confident jerk into a man who can recognise the error of his ways. Except this doesn't really happen.

True, I would question how liable you could ever make a tobacco lobbyist. Especially one who cohorts with other lobbyists of other questionable industries or have difficult relationships with their children. But I also have an anti-smoking bias - always have done. This type of character would never appeal to me.

Nick Naylor reminded me of characters I have seen in George Clooney's films like  Up in the Air and Michael Clayton, but unlike those characters, Nick Naylor doesn't go through a satisfactory transformation. Or a transformation at all. He begins as an unlikable and immoral jerk and ends as a slightly less unlikable and immoral jerk. 

After his boss stabs him in the back, Naylor publicly calls him out. His boss goes up in smoke, as does the reporter who honey-trapped Naylor into revealing information that she uses for a damning expose. All the characters around him face consequences. Except for Nick Naylor himself. He unfairly goes off as a hero with a son who believes in him again. Although their relationship was never that damaged in the first place.

It's a shame as this film had lots of potential. But the pay-off was disappointing and unearned.

Lost Highway review

 Number 635 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's surrealist neo-noir psychological thriller 'Lost Highway.'

Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) is a saxophonist who is accused of murdering his girlfriend Renee (Patricia Arquette.) After being jailed, he mysteriously disappears only to be replaced by a completely different man - Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty) a mechanic who has connections with frightening mobster Mr Eddy (Robert Loggia.)

This is film is classic Lynchian horror - think Mulholland Drive. It is surreal beyond belief. Painfully surreal. And too often that surrealism got in the way of what could have been a very psychological thriller.

I'm not the smartest or most attentive of viewers so I struggle in following neo-noir films or even the old-time noir films like The Big Sleep at the best of times. This was only exacerbated by the surrealism. I could just about follow the storyline without the body-swapping or abstract dreams, but with? I was more lost than the titular lost highway.

This is probably a criticism of my own cerebral capabilities rather than Lynch's direction - although I would argue that the film started very slowly. It dramatised Fred and Renee's sexual relationship. It was probably only fifteen or twenty minutes, but it felt like it was going on for ages. And I think the film's pacing is a legitimate criticism. At times, it moved along at a blistering pace. At other times, all his momentum stopped whenever things got more abstract.

What I can't criticise is the casting of Robert Loggia who brought an electrifying energy to his role of Mr Loggia the bad guy. It had the same fear factor of Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet. Appropriately after being passed over for Blue Velvet, Loggia directed a tirade at Lynch - which is what subsequently won him the part here.

I've seen a few Lynch films now and with the exception of The Straight Story, I can't say I'm a fan. All too weird for me.

Spellbound review

 Number 634 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's psychological thriller Spellbound.

Dr Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is a reportedly icy and cold psychoanalyst at Green Manors mental hospital in Vermont. Upon the retirement of her old director, he is replaced by the far younger Dr Anthony Edwardes (Gregory Peck.) The two of them immediately fall in love, but then Dr Edwardes reveals that he is really an imposter who killed the real Dr Edwardes and is masquerading as him. Dr Petersen refuses to let this be the truth and two of them resolve to find the real killer.

In terms of Alfred Hitchcock thrillers, this wasn't one of his best. His thrillers are never the most believable - you can just look at Rope or the Lady Vanishes, and these types of films aren't supposed to be taken that seriously, but Spellbound was really pushing my suspension of disbelief to its absolute max.

The biggest problem? The central relationship between Doctors Petersen and Edwardes. Bergman and Peck didn't really have any chemistry together and neither of them had the charisma to lead such a big picture. I couldn't believe the two of them being together at all. This was strange for a number of reasons, least of all, as reportedly Bergman and Peck had an affair while filming. Obviously this off-screen chemistry didn't translate to the on-screen. 

Neither did the charisma or talent that Peck and Bergman showed in other films and performances. Peck was great opposite Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday and, of course, he went onto win an Acting Oscar for To Kill a Mockingbird. Meanwhile, Bergman was an accomplished actress in her own right starring opposite Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. She went onto become just one of a handful of actors to win three Acting Oscars. Separately, Bergman and Peck were legends in their own rights. Together? They were boring.

Unfortunately, as their relationship was the centrepiece of the film, it didn't make for interesting watching at all. Everything was just so unlikely. It's a shame as Hitchcock is often known as the master of suspense. But there was little suspense here...I really wasn't invested in learning how everything turned out at all. And with a psychological thriller like this? That's a major faux pas.

The Big Blue review

 Number 628 on the top 1000 films of all time is Luc Besson's French sports drama 'The Big Blue.'

Although The Big Blue was based on a real story, it is largely dramatised and fictionalised. It tells the friendship and later rivalry of two leading 20th century free divers Jacques Mayol (Jean-Marc Barr) and Enzo Molinari (Jean Reno.) It co-stars Rosanna Arquette as Mayol's fictional girlfriend Johana Baker.

This was very much the case of a film not landing properly for its audience. Its audience being me. Maybe a different audience would have appreciated this film more, but I found it overly-long, tedious and bloated. Perhaps that's because I had unknowingly watched the director's cut which is a good half-hour longer than the original version. But perhaps another reason is that the film was just boring with some strange casting choices.

I was a little puzzled as to why the very French Jean Reno was playing the very Italian Enzo Molinari (renamed from Enzo Maiorca.) Of course there is nothing wrong with an actor playing a character of a different nationality, but you would at least expect that actor to do the accent of their character. Jean Reno sounded as French as anything. It was like watching Sean Connery play the Italian Maiorca with his thick Scottish accent. Distracting to say the least.

The Big Blue reminded me a little of the film Rush. This film told of the rivalry between two famed racing car drivers: James Hunt and Nikki Lauda. Similar in plot to the Big Blue, but also similar in the annoyingness of the characters. Of course, it's impossible to become a champion of anything without having confidence in yourself, but there is a difference between confidence and arrogance. Hunt and Lauda, and, by extension, Molinari and Mayol definitely strayed into the arrogant territory. As their rivalry grew, so did their egos. And so did their unlikability as characters. True the producers did take lots of dramatic license, but it wasn't the best-employed.

All in all, the Big Blue was a pretty missable film. I don't think my life would have changed much if I hadn't seen it or its unlikable characters that I had no reason to care or root for.

Stranger than Fiction review

 Number 626 on the top 1000 films of all time is an IRS agent who lives a strictly-regimented life. Everything about him is boring. Everyday is the same. That is until he starts hearing author Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) narrate his life. When she narrates, he is going to die, he frantically tries to prevent his death. Maggie Gyllenhaal, Queen Latifah and Dustin Hoffman co-star.

Stranger than Fiction covered familiar thematic territory. You never know when you're going to die so you should make the most of the time you have left. It wasn't anything new, but the execution of the film made it feel fresh and original. I've seen almost 800 films on the aforementioned list and I can't remember seeing this plot before. It also led to some funny cases of dramatic irony as Harold Crick desperately tried to catch up to the audience and to Karen Eiffel.

I also thought the two leads were very good. Like many American comedy actors, I find Will Ferrell to be very over-the-top, but in a quieter, more reserved role, he was very good. Like other critics have noted, when comedy actors like Ferrell are given a chance to show their dramatic chops, they always shine.

Emma Thompson was also great as Karen Eiffel - a writer with serious case of writer's block. She has the perfect voice for narration, but was also great in front of the camera too - especially when she realises she ahs been narrating people to their deaths.

Less convincing was Maggie Gyllenhaal as anti-capitalist baker Ana Pascal. After Crick comes to audit her business, she initially seems to rebuff him, adopting an anti-my taxes-going-to-bomb-children attitude. But Crick then falls in love with her. More weirdly, she then falls in love with him. Would an anti-capitalist anarchist fall in love with a very a capitalist government agent? Highly unlikely. The two were not believable together.

It's a shame that the film was marred by this unrealistic relationship, as I did enjoy it. Its premise was highly creative and the lead actors were very good.

Cell 211 Review

 Number 622 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Spanish prison film Cell 211.

Juan 'Calzones' Oliver (Alberto Ammann) is a prison guard beginning work on the day a riot breaks out led by fearsome prisoner Malamadre (Luis Tosar.) To survive, Juan pretends he is one of the prisoners.

Cell 211 stormed the 2010 Goya Awards (Spain's version of the Oscars.) It was nominated for fifteen awards and won eight including Best Film, Actor for Luis Tosar and Best New Actor for Alberrto Ammann.

It was a good film although I'm not sure it was Best Film material. It wasn't the most subtle of films nor was it the most realistic. Obviously I've never been to prison before; my knowledge of it is based on what I've seen on TV and in the films, so it might not be the most accurate. From what I've seen, prison has always appeared to be a tribal place. There are different gangs of different ethnicities. Thus I found it unbelievable that a whole prison would unite behind the one leader of Malamadre. Rather it would be different factions who would work together under different leaders.

All the prisoners under Malamadre got on too well to be entirely realistic either. They're united in their opposition toward the prison system - however, in reality, I think there would be a lot more petty squabbling between the prisoners.

The nature of prison dramas means that the prisoners can sometimes be a bit one-note. Sure Malamadre was scary, brutal and charismatic, but that's all he was. He was missing the necessary depth to make Luis Tosar be truly deserving of the Best Actor Goya.

I was far more impressed with Alberto Ammann who really ran the whole gamut of emotion which made his character more believable. No wonder he won the Best Newcomer Goya award and then went onto to wow international audiences as the charismatic and terrifying narco-trafficker Pacho in Narcos.

Cell 211 wasn't a bad film. It also wasn't particularly believable or deep either. 

Milk review

 Number 624 on the top 1000 films of all time is Gus Van Zandt's biopic Milk.

Milk tells the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) the first openly gay publicly elected official in California. Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna and James Franco co-star.

As a rule, I'm generally not interested in biopics especially when I have no interest in the person being portrayed. I thought that would be the case when Harvey Milk, but I was proven wrong. Clever narrative framing and an Oscar-winning performance from Sean Penn was enough to change my mind.

A problem I have with biopics is generally they're just boring and try to include too much. You sometimes need a corkboard and a mile of string to keep track of everybody. However, Gus Van Zandt employed the clever framing device of Milk transcribing a letter that should only be read in the wake of his assassination (considering this is stated in the first few minutes I don't think that it's a spoiler to say that Milk was indeed assassinated.)

But this letter was a great way to frame the narrative and keep the audience grounded in the real. Of course, it helped that you had seen Sean Penn in the lead role. He rightly won his second of three Oscars for his portrayal. This is saying a lot as he was up against some stiff competition like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler and Richard Jenkins in the Visitor. However, it was Penn's ability to give a performance that was funny, serious but also inspirational to the right people that netted him acting gold.

I also really enjoyed James Franco. As a comedy actor, he can often be over-the-top, but as Milk's boyfriend and later campaign manager Scott Smith, I thought he had excellent chemistry with Sean Penn. Alas I cannot say the same for Diego Luna who played a later flame of Harvey Milk: Jack Lira. Lira was less formed as character and he felt more extraneous to the plot.

However, I think the film was initially missing a tangible villain. Sure you had Milk fighting an anti-gay system, but this isn't manifested in any one character. Not at first anyway. Sure you had the evangelist Anita Bryant who ran a rival political campaign on an anti-LGBTQ message, but she always felt too peripheral to be a true villain.

The film's true villain was Dan White (Josh Brolin) a fellow conservative city supervisor who often butted heads with Milk. Yet he doesn't appear until almost halfway throughout the film. Sure, Josh Brolin is always good, but it would have been better if he had appeared earlier in the film.

All that, notwithstanding, I thoroughly enjoyed Milk. Considering it was a biopic, I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. 

The Player review

 Number 623 on the top 1000 films of all time is Robert Altman's satirical black-comedy thriller 'The Player.'

Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins) is a Hollywood exec who gets to greenlight which movies are made or not. His position is threatened by the new young upstart Larry Levy (Peter Gallagher.) Meanwhile Mill is receiving death threats from a disgruntled writer he rejected - that is until Mill kills him or at least thinks he does. Whoopi Goldberg, Dean Stockwell and Richard E. Grant co-star.

In many ways, The Player was a Hollywood film about Hollywood. it was absolutely littered with celebrity cameos in blink and you'll miss them moments ranging from Cher to Malcolm Mcdowell to Burt Reynolds to Julia Roberts.

The Player reminded me of Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood which he described as a love letter to Hollywood. Maybe the Player wasn't a love letter as such, but it definitely smelled like a Hollywood director showing off how much he knew about Hollywood. And without any subtlety either. After a while it all felt a bit too self-indulgent.

Sure I like Hollywood films, but not enough to watch Robert Altman give himself a pat on the back for two hours. It was a shame as all the Hollywood glitz and glamour distracted from the more interesting murder plot.

I found it far more engaging watching the always great Tim Robbins try to figure out a murder plot before becoming involved in one himself. Film critic Gene Siskel said that even if you didn't care about Hollywood, you could still appreciate The Player as being a good thriller. I'd agree with that.

Once you stripped away all the sparkly Hollywood wrapping paper, you were left with a thrilling present. There was just a hell of a lot of wrapping paper.

Coraline review

 Number 610 on the top 1000 films of all time is Henry Selik's stop-motion animated horror-comedy Coraline.

Coraline (Dakota Fanning) has just moved into a new neighbourhood with her parents. Bored and neglected by her workaholic parents, she stumbles upon a whole new 'other-world,' where her parents have been replaced by loving, button-eyed dopplegangers. But is everything too good to be true?Teri Hatcher, French and Saunders and Ian Mcshane co-star.

Coraline surprised me. I wasn't much of a fan of Selik's feature-length directorial debut The Nightmare Before Christmas generally finding it too weird and zany. Don't get me wrong. Coraline was weird too, but it was also grounded in all too familiar themes of connection and family.

Like teenagers everywhere, Coraline just wants to feel like she belongs somewhere. Her parents are too busy to have time for her, she is in a new town without any friends and so she finds this new other world where all her prayers have been answered. But, of course, there's a more sinister side.

It helped you had fifteen-year-old Dakota Fanning in the lead who helped to bring this lonely character to life. The casting was good all round with comedy legends French and Saunders helping to inject some much needed light-relief in what was a deceptively dark film. Hatcher and Mcshane were also good in supporting roles.

And obviously the visuals were strong as well with the stop-motion being simultaneously ominous, creepy, other-worldly, psychedelic and eye-popping. What else would you expect from a Henry Selik stop-motion film?

Sympathy for Lady Vengeance review

 Number 618 on the top 1000 films of all time is the South Korean neo-noir, psychological thriller ' Sympathy for Lady Vengeance.'

Lee Geum-Ja (Lee Young-oe) has just been released from prison. Her crime? She was falsely convicted for the murder of a five -year-old schoolboy thirteen years earlier. She swears revenge on the real killer Baek Han-sung (Choi Min-Sik.)

Let's star off with the criticism, which I'm sad to say was Choi Min-Sik. He is one of Korea's most pre-eminent actors wowing audiences in Old Boy, but also terrifying them in I saw the Devil. In the latter, he paid a monstrous serial killer. Yet as murderer Mr Baek, he was disappointing. He lacked the same intensity as his other role roles. And he wasn't anymore threatening than a bank manager.

Lady Vengeance is the third installment of Park Chan-Wook's Vengeance trilogy after Sympathy for Mr Vengeance and the aforementioned Old Boy. Old Boy still remains my favourite. Everything about it was perfect - confusing and complicated sure, but not as much as Lady Vengeance.

True everything does resolve and become clear, but it took a while to get there. There is a lot of set-up in the beginning as the film delves into Geum-Ja's fellow inmates, who in one way or another help her to track down Mr Baek. It was interesting to an extent. After a while, I was waiting for them to hurry up to the next plot point.

Despite the slow start, it all built toward a thrilling conclusion - perhaps the darkest of the Vengeance trilogy. *spoilers to follow.*

 Having tracked down Mr Baek and imprisoned him in an old school, Geumg-Ja discovers he has killed other children. She invites the victim's families to exact their own vengeance. Enter a 12 Angry Men-esque scene, where the families debate the morality behind the actions they're about to take. Here Park Chan-Wook rightly took his time to delve into the psychology underpinning such a morally-deprived act.

There exists two versions of the film. A standard version and one where the colour progressively fades into monochrome. Unknowingly, I had watched the latter. I thought this was a great device that really highlighted how in the pursuit of vengeance, we become black-in-white in our thinking. There is no longer space for nuance or doubt. Maybe some would argue this is on-the-nose storytelling, but I still enjoyed it.

And I did enjoy Lady Vengeance. A slow start, a great ending, but also a disappointing performance from Choi Min-Sik.

Mash review

 Number 616 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Robert Altman's war-comedy film Mash.

Mash follows the antics of three medical officers Captain Hawkeye Pierce (Donald Sutherland,) Captain Trapper John Mcintyre (Eliot Gould) and Captain Duke Forrest (Tom Skerrit) during the Korean war. Robert Duvall, Sally Kellerman and Rene Auberjonois co-star.

If you don't know the film Mash then you certainly know the subsequent TV show. Sufficed to say, it was one of the most popular American sitcoms with the most watched TV show finale ever. This is all in spite of how Altman absolutely despised the show.

And like how he despised the TV show, i despised the film. Many critics including the distinguished Roger Ebert, regard it as one of the funniest satires of war ever. Evidently, we we were watching different films, as I, far from my sides hurting from laughing, my eyes were hurting from rolling back in my head.

I barely cracked a smile through the two-hour run-time. it wasn't a funny film. Through a modern lens, you could certainly argue the humour hasn't aged well. I'm sure many modern women wouldn't be happy with how Margaret Houlihan was the butt of every joke.

Through every other lens, it just wasn't funny. It didn't help all the characters were really unlikeable. Hawkeye and Trapper were supposed to be loveable rogues, but they're also insubordinate jerks who like to cause trouble. They were obnoxious and annoying. They weren't characters I wanted to laugh with or at. And even the poor victim Houlihan was too much of a wet blanket to be truly interesting to watch.

In some ways, their characters reflected the actors playing them. Sutherland and Gould famously clashed with Altman and his improvisational directorial style - going so far as to try and get him fired by studio execs. Scriptwriter Ring Lardon JR also had his own problems with Altman. This is despite how he won the Oscar for best screenplay. It definitely changes your perspective of the film.

And my perspective? It was an unfunny film with unlikeable characters.

Blood Simple review

 Number 586 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir 'Blood Simple.'

Barman Ray (John Getz) is having an affair with his boss Marty's (Dan Hedaya) wife Abby (Frances Mcdormand.) Upon discovering this, Marty arranges sleazy PI Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh) to kill them both.

Blood Simple was the directorial debut of the Coen Brothers. They also wrote and produced the film. And they certainly laid the groundwork for their future careers. This was long before they were winning Academy Awards or creating the most surreal of cinema, but they set the stage for things to come.

Often I find Coen Brothers' films too zany and weird, but Blood Simple was relatively straightforward. Or as straightforward as any noir film can be. As one can expect, Blood Simple has many twists and turns although it all makes sense in the end. I think...kinda...

Speaking of debuts, this was also the screen debut of the always terrific Frances Mcdormand. Just like the Coen Brothers, she was laying the groundwork for her future career. What an illustrious career it has been. She remains one of only three actors to win three Best Acting Oscars - sharing the honour with Katherine Hepburn and Daniel Day-Lewis. Standing on shoulders of giants to say the least... 

Along with Katy Hepburn, Frances Mcdormand has really improved representation of women characters on-screen. Long gone are the days of women either being dumb blondes, sex objects or scream queens. The likes of Mcdormand and Hepburn proved that women are capable of playing just as interesting, tough and fully-formed characters as men do. 

Abby is no exception. She's more than capable of protecting herself from all the sleazy men in her life - you only need to look at how she deals with the sleazy PI Visser. He is just one of the many sleazy men in Abby's life - all played by relatively unknown actors who haven't gone onto have the same careers as Frances Mcdormand.

It's a credit to the Coen Brothers that they were able to write, produce and direct, such a thrilling and inventive neo-noir film with such an unknown cast.

Midnight in Paris review

 Number 608 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's fantasy comedy 'Midnight in Paris.'

Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a struggling Hollywood writer holidaying in Paris with his nagging fiancee Inez (Rachel Mcadams.) Pender seeks respite with midnight walks in Paris' back streets where he discovers he can travel back to 1920's Paris and meet the famous writers and artists like Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Picasso who once called Paris home. The film's supporting cast includes Adrian Brody, Tom Hiddleston, Kathy Bates and Marion Cotillard.

This is the eighth Woody Allen film I've watched. By now everybody knows that I do not like Woody Allen films. All too often I find them to be pretentious, unfunny or just stupid. I was not expecting to like Midnight in Paris, but by some minor miracle I did. I'm still confused now.

For starters it was actually funny. I actually laughed out loud more than once instead of just sitting stony-faced throughout the whole film. In the past, I have found Woody Allen films to be all set-up and no punchline. But here, I was laughing in the first few minutes.

I enjoyed the playfullness that Owen Wilson brought to the role and the whimsical element that the time travel brought to the plot. The mechanics of it weren't explained. Nor did they need to be. To have done so would have only complicated a film that didn't need to be. Similar to The Purple Rose of Cairo, the time travel was considered more as magic realism rather than convoluted science-fiction. It was treated as established fact of the universe.

It helped the characters weren't insufferable faux-intellectuals except for Inez's faux-academic friend Paul (Michael Sheen) but he was intentionally supposed to be insufferable. In contrast, Gil and Inez were both down-to-earth characters. Gil wasn't pretending to be anything else, but a writer looking for inspiration. Inez wasn't pretending to be anything else, but a tired girlfriend bored with her fiancee's strange antics. There was no pretentiousness with Wilson and Mcadams giving grounded performances. It helped that Owen Wilson is a lot more likeable than Woody Allen who often stars in his own film where he always plays himself.

If there is one thing that has always impressed me with Woody Allen films, it is the cinematography and set design. I loved the 1920's Paris scenes that truly captured the excess and opulence of the jazz era. The likes of Tom Hiddleston, Adrian Brody and the always terrific Kathy Bates also did well in bringing their respective characters to life.

The film touches on themes of nostalgia and looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Yet the film ends on the note of Gil resisting the temptation to stay in the past. Instead he returns to the present but with a new perspective. It's not so much the grass is always greener on the other side, but where you water it. Although Allen often likes to include some type of philosophical message in his films, these often fall flat. This was NOT the case here. I was not expecting that at all.

And I wasn't expecting to actually enjoy a Woody Allen film, but sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction.

Dazed and Confused review

 Number 607 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Lintlaker's coming-of-age drama 'Dazed and Confused.'

It is the last day of school in a high school in an unnamed Texan town. Over the course of one wild night, we see the school's students get up to mischief as they prepare for the summer holiday. The huge ensemble cast includes Jason London as quarterback Randall 'Pink' Floyd, Ben Affleck as bully Fred O'Bannion, Anthony Rapp and Adam Goldberg as intellectuals Mike Newhouse and Tony Olson and Matthew McConaughey as ageing stoner David Wooderson.

Richard Lintlaker is perhaps best-known for the excellent Before Trilogy. Similarly to Dazed and Confused, the Before Trilogy lacks a traditional storyline. In case it's an intensely character-driven story that gets really into the psychology of the characters involved. They tell a slice-of-life narrative that neglects big set pieces for the fascinating minutiae of everyday life. However, the biggest difference between the Before Trilogy and Dazed and Confused is that I actually cared about the characters in the Before Trilogy. I can't think of one semi-likeable character within the latter...or any characters I was actually rooting for.

This seems to be a common occurence when I watch coming-of-age dramas: usually the characters are obnoxious, annoying or just plain unlikeable. The Goonies, the Sandlot and the The Breakfast Club fit the bill perfectly and you can easily add Dazed and Confused to that list. The film opens with a dreadful hazing ritual where we see the older high school seniors bullying all the freshmen. It looked awful and made me really glad I never went to school in the US. 

It was also just really uncomfortable to watch especially since it seemed to be played for laughs rather than serious psychological bullying. Obviously O'Bannion and his cronies were supposed to be the villains of the piece and you're not supposed to root for them, but I really did hate them. It didn't help that Ben Affleck was as wooden as ever. 

Yet I also didn't particularly care for the kids they were bullying either. Their biggest target Mitch Kramer [Wiley Wiggins] is rescued by Pink who then takes him on a night drive to vandalise the local neighbourhood. Again not the best way to endear a character to an audience. Sure Kramer had other friends who didn't engage in that, but they weren't particularly memorable. After a while the characters all blurred into one. The same could be said for a lot of the older boys too.

The same went for all of the senior girls who engaged in the same hazing tactics as the boys although the film didn't focus as much on the freshmen. Even Tony and Mike who, I think, were supposed to be the semi-likeable characters became a bit grating after a while especially when Mike couldn't let sleeping dogs lie and got his own arse kicked.

Finally, Dazed and Confused was known for launching Matthew McConaughey's career. This was his breakout role and probably the most memorable part of the film, but even he wasn't anything that special. There was little beyond his character past the signature catchphrase 'alright, alright, alright.'

I didn't enjoy Dazed and Confused at all. It embodied everything I don't like about coming-of-age dramas: no storyline and instead a group of unrelatable, unlikeable teenager protagonists making idiots of themselves and expecting us to like them.

Eastern Promises review

 Number 605 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Cronenberg's crime-drama 'Eastern Promises.'

Anna Khitrova (Naomi Watts) is an English-Russian midwife whose next patient is Russian sexual-trafficking victim Tatiana. Tatiana is pregnant and dies in childbirth but her daughter survives. When Anna tries to locate the newborn baby's family, she is drawn into the Russian criminal underworld spearheaded by Nikolai Luzhin - driver for the Russian mafia boss Sermyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) and his loose cannon son Kiril (Vincent Cassel.)

There was a lot to like about this film and I was definitely all in up until the film's final act where it lost me. But before we get too negative let's talk about the positives of the film. I would be doing a major disservice if I didn't speak about Viggo Mortenson - one of the most chameleonic and versatile actors working in Hollywood today. And he was terrific as the morally grey Nikolai - driver to the Russian mafia. There is a reason he received a whole slieu of nominations (including an Oscar nod) and Best Actor awards like the Bafta for the role. 

I also very much enjoyed Armin Mueller-Stahl as the villainous Sermyon - he is a character living a double life. On the outside, he is a charming and amicable restauranter but on the inside he is a vicious criminal. Mueller-Stahl played both parts of the role very well. At first he didn't seem anymore dangerous than a lovable grandpa, but scratch beneath the surface and he was a chilling psychopath. Vincent Cassel also brought a great chaotic energy to the unpredictable Kiril - even if this did border on the unbelievable at times.

David Cronenberg is well-known for being a master of body-horror and Eastern Promise is certainly no exception. It had its share of violence and throat-slitting which, while being stomach-churning, also had a feeling of authenticity. Cronenberg rejected the gangsters using guns, as in real life they tend to use knives. The two Chechen assassins have linolem cutting knives which could easily be disguised as tools. It is more difficult to do that with guns. Speaking of the two Chechen assassins, their fight with Nikolai has to be the highlight of the film. It was a thrilling, exciting climax, but also one that arrived too early. Everything that came after was anticlimatic and disappointing. Spoiler territory to follow.

The two Chechens try to kill Nikolai after mistakenly believing that he is Kiril. Why do they think this? Nikolai was set up by a rival capo after both he and Kiril were involved in the killing of an associate. This was a brilliantly-choregraphed fight scene, but largely inconsequential. What happens to the capo who set up Nikolai? We don't know because the film jumps to the reveal that Nikolai is actually an undercover Russian agent on loan to the London police. He then provides them evidence to arrest Sermyon for the earlier statuory rape of Tatiana. The arrest itself is left off-screen.

Instead we see Kiril attempt to kidnap and murder Tatiana's baby on his father's orders before being talked around by Nikolai. Compared to the thrilling fight scene, it was a damp squib of an ending. It was building toward a big bang but instead finished with a whisper. Naomi Watts was also less than convincing in her role of Anna very much lacking the intensity of her co-stars.

Eastern Promises is definitely a good example of a film that started stronger than it finished. It had so much potential that was just wasted.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang review

 Number 602 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shane Black's 2005 crime-caper Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr) isa  burglar and petty crook who after on the run from the police worms his way into a high-profile acting role and fancy Hollywood party. Thetre he meets private detective 'Gay' Perry Van Shrike (Val Kilmer._ Lockhart becomes mixed up in Van Shrike's murder investigation. Michelle Monaghan co-stars.

In the 1990's, Roberty Downey Jr was one of the hottest properties in Hollywood earning Oscar nods for playing Charlie Chaplin. This all came crashing down at the end of the decade following a string of high-profile drug arrests and imprisonments. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang marked a clear resurgence in his career.

In many ways, the lovable rogue of Harry Lockhart served as a bleuprint for Downey most famous role of Tony Stark aka Iron Man. Lockhart is a charismatic if annoying jerk whose mile-an-hour mouth gets him into a lot of trouble. Mix that in with the straight-laced Van Shrike (Val Kilmer) and you have a very funny film.

Much of the film's humour comes from its meta-fictional, tongue-in-cheek tone with Lockhart providing amusing narration that pokes fun at the noir films of old. More specifically, he pokes fun at the convoluted plots that you might see in noir films starring Old Bogey. Personally, I've always found these films too smart for their own good, so it was nice seeing this be referenced. Although i would argue this film's storyline was similarly convoluted almost needed a cork bord and multiple reels of twine to figure out.

Yes, the film was convoluted but I would also argue that Michelle Monaghan was under-utilised. She seemed to spend much of the film in a sexy santa costume and could have had more to do. She is a good actress with a proven career from TV's True Detective to the silver screen with Gone Baby Gone. It would have been nice to have seen her do more.

Nevertheless, I did enjoy Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. And I very much enjoyed its parodying of the noir films of old.

Fearless review

 Number 597 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hong Kong Wuxia film 'Fearless.'

Fearless tells the true-life story of martial arts legend Huo Yuanjia (Jet Li.) He became a hero across China by restoring national pride after China lost cultural status to Europe, the US and Russia in the dying years of the Qing Dynasty.

Wuxia films have never been my thing. Although they always look great with terrific fight choreography and beautiful cinematography like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Hero - also starring Jet Li. I've always found the storylines lacking. The exception might be IP Man, but it wasn't as good.

I think much of this was down to the character of Huo Yuanjia who wasn't as interesting as he could have been. The film started a little too early in his life as we see the effect his father had on his life. It was important backstory that fed into Yuanjia's motivations, but it could have been excised. It removed too much focus from Yuanjia.

This wasn't necessarily the fault of Jet Li, but of the direction of Ronny Yu. Jet Li was perfectly fine as the hero of this film and at least Fearless had more forward momentum than Jet Li's earlier martial arts epic 'Hero.' Although, a bit like IP man, the villains could have used more work. The actors they hired to play the foreign fighters were cliched to the max.

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of Wuxia films and I'm not sure that Fearless is going to do anything to change that.

Shine film

 Number 593 on the top 1000 films of all time is the musical biopic 'Shine.'

Shine ells the true-life story of famed Australian pianist David Helfgott from his childhood to the start of his career, where he was played by Noah Taylor, to his eventual mental breakdown where Geoffrey Rush took over the mantle.

Shine is perhaps best-known for its success at the 69th Academy awards where it generated seven nominations and one win. Armin Mueller-Stahl was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for playing David's tyrannical father Peter. For playing David, Geoffrey Rush took home the Best Actor gong.

Sure Rush was great, but did he shine enough to merit an Oscar? I'm not so sure. And I think that's more because he wasn't given a chance to shine. He shared the role of David with Noah Taylor and I'd argue that Taylor dominated the role. He had the more interesting parts. We see the fledgling beginnings of David's career, his tempestuous relationship with his father - more on that later - and the beginnings of David's breakdown. Rush takes over the latter half of the film, as we see David's life post-breakdown. It wasn't as interesting. Noah Taylor was more deserving of the Oscar nod, not because of the difference in acting quality, but in screen-time ratio.

However, Armin Mueller-Stahl was well-deserving of his Best Supporting Actor nomination. He cut a well-intentioned if misguided father figure trying to live out his failed dreams through his children. A toxic parent, but a great performance. Ultimately, Mueller-Stahl lost to Cuba Gooding Jr in Jerry Maguire, but this was still a memorable performance.

In some ways, Shine reminded me of Ron Howard's later film 'A Beautiful Mind,' which explored similar tortured genius mathematician John Nash. Although David was a more likable character and the plus side of having two actors portray him was that we got a well-rounded, three-dimensional character.

I'm not sure if Shine shone bright enough to be truly Oscar-worthy, but it was a good film nonetheless.

Malcolm X review

 Number 595 on the top 1000 films of all time is Spike Lee's epic biopic 'Malcolm X.'

Malcolm X (Denzel Washington) follows the life of the famed civil rights leader from his beginnings as a petty crook to his initial conversion to Islam in prison to becoming one of the highest ranking members of the Nation of Islam - perhaps evening becoming more powerful than leader Elijah Muhammed (Al Freeman Junior.)

I've seen a few Spike Lee films and if could describe them in a word, it would be heavy-handed. They're never as subtle as they could be. He's well-known for his focus on institutionalised racism and the African-American experience, so an adaptation of Malcolm X's life by an African-American director seemed like the perfect idea. Especially when the initially-attached white Norman Jewison was rejected because it was deemed a black director would be more appropriate. However, Malcolm X was a bloated, heavy-handed affair. Sure it was entertaining enough, but over-long and on the nose.

When I say over-long, I'm not kidding as it clocked in at just over two hundred minutes. And that was largely down to Spike Lee having financial control over the project thanks to many donors helping to fund the film. Like many biopics, it started too early into the main character's life and repeats too many key events - like Malcolm's father being brutalised by the KKK. Much of the film's third act focussed on Malcolm's many speeches, as he gained power within the Nation of Islam. Spike Lee insisted that you can't have a Malcolm X film without his speeches, but did we need every single speech? One or two would have sufficed.

This isn't to discredit Denzel Washington of course. He is a fine actor well-worthy of his two acting Oscars. Many people argue he should have won instead of Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Sure Pacino was great here, but I might argue that Malcolm X went on a far more interesting journey which was strongly portrayed by Washington. It was fascinating watching Malcolm Little go from a streetwise, cocky street hustler to a dedicated student of Islam where he sheds his "slave name" of Little to charismatic leader.

No, I'm saving my criticism for Spike Lee and his heavy-handed storytelling. Unlike 25th Hour and Do the Right Thing, there were no racially charged monologues, but there was a weird tracking shot like at the end of Blackkklansman.

Ultimately Malcolm X wasn't an inherently bad film, but it was bloated and not particularly subtle.

Three Colours: White review

 Number 588 on the top 1000 films of all time is the French comedy-drama 'Three Colours White - the middle sibling in Kryzsztof Kieslowski's 'Three Colours' trilogy.

Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) is a Polish immigrant living in France whose wife Dominique (Julie Delphy) is divorcing him. He resolves to improve his life and exact revenge on his ex-wife.

Of the Three Colours trilogy, I would say this is my favourite. All three films have their own emotional nadirs, but this one seemed to resonate the most. Three Colours: White is named because like in some films, it follows the tricolour of the French flag and that qualities each colour represents. These different qualities link the film thematically - in this case equality - although you can argue freedom/liberation are present too.

Karol Karol begins as a most pathetic man - a man being divorced by his wife due to his own impotence. The fact he seems sympathetic makes him even more pathetic. After Dominique invokes divorce proceedings and frames him for an arson attack on their shared-owned salon, he becomes a beggar in Paris. Although he goes through self-pity at first, he soon meets fellow Polish immigrant Mikolai (Janusz Gajos) who galvanises him into taking action.

Although there's nothing wrong with going through hard times, it's never being round somebody who's always feeling sorry for themselves so I enjoyed seeing turn from an omega male into - maybe not alpha, but perhaps delta? Metaphors aside, it was enjoyable seeing him regain his confidence and his standing in society, which becomes much easier once he returns to Poland.

Zbigniew was very good in the role and displayed all of the different aspects of the character well. I also enjoyed Julie Delphy as his estranged wife Dominique. She is perhaps best known to international audience for her work in the excellent Before Trilogy, but she was equally good in this antagonistic role.

If I were to criticise anything, it would be the ending. I won't spoil anything, but suffice to say, it seems that Karol and Dominique are on the brink of reconciliation. Considering Karol spends much of the film getting back at his wife, it's strange that by the film's conclusion he is trying to get back with his wife.

That notwithstanding I've finally completed the Three Colours trilogy. White is definitely my favourite.

Planet Terror review

 Number 591 on the top 1000 films of all time is Robert Rodriguez' action-comedy zombie film: Planet Terror. Planet Terror shares this position with its sister film Death Proof. I will review both films separately.

Planet Terror follows the remnants of society as they struggle to repel a zombie outbreak. The survivors include the town's sheriff Hague (Michael Biehn,) his barbecue chef brother JT (Jeff Fahey,) career criminal El Wrey (Freddy Rodriguez) his stripper girlfriend Cherry (Rose Mcgowan) and Dr Dakota Block (Marley Skelton.) Josh Brolin, Bruce Willis and Naveen Andrews all co-star.

Planet Terror was directed by Robert Rodriguez with support from producer Quentin Tarantino. The film was intended as a homage to the exploitation B movies to the 1970's, so it was over-the-top, brash and, well, just silly. I know it was a homage, not meant to be taken seriously, but it was daft. Even as a parody of sorts, I found it difficult to take it seriously.

Perhaps that's because of my dislike of the action movies it was parodying. Character development and emotional weight took second stage to gunfire and explosions. Sure the characters weren't meant to be too complex, but neither were they supposed to be paper-thin. El Wray was little more than your lovable rogue gone good.

It didn't help you had Freddy Rodriguez playing him. Don't get me wrong, he great as the mild-mannered undertake in the TV series Six Feet Under, but I had difficulty believing him to be some tough-as-nails gangster. I could say the same for many of the other characters and actors.

Although Planet Terror was more critically regarded than its sister film Death Proof, it didn't score well commercially. Reportedly, the disgraced Harvey Weinstein killed in distribution due to his displeasure of Rose Mcgowan being cast. That being said, I much preferred Death Proof.

Yes, I know, Planet Terror is a popcorn film not meant to be taken seriously, but I also didn't think it was supposed to be so damn silly either.

Death Proof review

 Number 591 on the top 1000 films of all time is Quentin Tarantino's psychological thriller Death Proof. Death Proof shares this position with its sister film Planet Terror which were released together under the moniker Grindhouse. I will review both films separately.

Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) is a serial killer stuntman who kills women using his specially-modified car. Rose Mcgowan, Sydney Poitier, Rosario Dawson, Sam Bell among others co-star as the women he targets.

Tarantino generally regards Death Proof as his worse. Having now finally seen them all, I don't agree. I think that honour would go to the bloated and dialogue-heavy 'The Hateful Eight.' Neither is Death Proof one of his best - the simple but effective Reservoir Dogs takes the throne.

True, Death Proof is a relatively simple and straightforward film, but it lacked the same emotional pathos that Reservoir Dogs reached. Although maybe Death Proof didn't need it. It was a simple story of a psychopathic stuntman getting his just-desserts. Yes, it is rather self-validating with many callbacks to his previous films like Kill Bill - which would go over the head of casual viewers, but it was nowhere near as bad as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Kurt Russell was very good as the terrifying killer stuman and it was particularly fun seeing him go from predator to prey. His reaction to getting shot was probably one of the most realistic I've seen in many films. Speaking of realism, Tarantino does dialogue well. Its realistic yet snappy - the Hateful Eight not included of course.

While Stuntman Mike goes from predator to prey, his would-be victims played by Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms become his hunter. This was a great and unexpected twist that I didn't see coming. It was something that made you sit up and realise this wasn't your average slasher film. It was a Tarantino slasher film complete with great performances from his women cast - performances matched Kurt Russell. Albeit, it all led to a rather abrupt and random ending.

That being said, I enjoyed Death Proof for what it was - a fun and thrilling slasher. It wasn't one of Tarantino's best, but definitely not his worse either.

The Tree of Life review

Terrence Malik's 'The Tree of Life' does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

It is a highly experimental family-dama telling the story of the 1950's American family - father (Brad Pitt,) mother (Jessica Chastain) and their three sons Jack (Hunter McCracken,) RL and Steve (Tye Sheridan.) However when RL dies, the family begins to fall apart with Steve and Mr O'Brien having a tumultuous relationship. In the modern-day, an adult Jack (Sean Penn) reflects on his troubled family life.

Although the Tree of Life doesn't feature on the top 1000 films of all time list, it would definitely be number one on the top 1000 pretentious Oscar-bait list. I call it Oscar-bait. The better term would be failed Oscar-bait. It was nominated for three Oscars: director, picture and cinematography, it ultimately didn't win any. Although the cinematography was gorgeous especially the surreal visuals of the birth of the universe, it all became tedious after a while.

It reminded me of Mailk's third film: the equally pretentious The Thin Red Line, which had lots of random close-ups of bugs. Okay, it was cool and arty. But what was the point of it all? Was there even a point? Did there need to be a point? Knowing Malik, there probably was, but it all went over my head.

Another similarity is how Malik is once again wasted his casted. I can't really comment on whether Pitt, Chastain and Penn were good or bad, because they played visual to Malik's cerebral visuals. For Christ's sake, these actors have five acting Oscars between them. Sean Penn has three Oscars, yet he was completely irrelevant to the plot. Cut him out and nothing would change except for a twenty-minute shorter run-time.

The Tree of Life was classic Terrence Malik. High-brow, intellectual and just so damn pretentious.

Enter the Dragon review

Number 583 on the top 1000 films of all time is the martial arts drama Enter the Dragon.

 Lee (Bruce Lee) is an ace martial artist and instructor at the Shaolin Temple. He is approached by the English spy Braithewaite (Geoffrey Weeks) to go on an undercover operation. The objective? To investigate crime lord and former Shaolin Temple student Han. (Shih Kien) Han is suspected of running a human and drug trafficking operation from his own island under the guise of a martial arts competition. Lee is sent to compete. He is aided by the playboy and gambler Roper (John Saxon) and Williams (Jim Kelly) who is on the run after being accosted by racist police.

If there are two types of films I don’t like, it’s action films and martial arts films. Enter the Dragon did not do anything to move the needle. Like many other martial arts, action films I’ve seen, Enter the Dragon was all too cheesy and over-the-top with admittedly well-choregraphed action sequences but rather deftless dialogue.

There have been some who have compared it to a martial arts version of a James Bond film, which would be an apt comparison. Swap the guns for Kung Fu and the suave Sean Connery for the straight forward Lee and it’s almost a spitting image. There was a multitude of unnecessary henchmen and even more unnecessary female characters who didn’t really add anything to the plot. Neither did Williams to be honest except for highlighting how bad the bad guy really was.

Enter the Dragon is regarded as being one of the most influential martial arts films of all time and you could argue that it certainly pioneered the genre in Hollywood. Subsequent Wuxia films like the IP man franchise or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon owe a lot to Enter the Dragon. It would be unfair to criticise it for its martial art sequences, but, while they were all well-choregraphed, they all became a bit tedious after a while. The same could be said for the actual film, which all culminated to a rather damp squib of an ending. It all seemed to be building toward a big bang but instead finished with little more than a whimper. Yes, Han gets his just desserts, but I was expecting something more dramatic.

 Like many of the films on this list, especially the Wuxia and action films, there is a definite audience for films like Enter the Dragon. But I am definitely not part of that audience.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind review

Number 582 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg’s science-fiction drama ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind.’

Close Encounters tells the story of two characters: electrical linesman and family man, Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) and single mother Jillian (Melinda Dillon) as their lives change forever after encounters with UFOs and aliens.

Spielberg is one of the most famous film directors in history. From The Colour Purple, to Jurassic Park, to Lincoln, Schindler’s List, he has done everything from period piece to tragedy to biopic. In the seventies, he is credited to kicking off the summer blockbuster trend with the iconic Jaws. I was expecting big things from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but I was left disappointed. I would definitely say it was one of Spielberg’s weaker efforts. The key reason was its pace. It was just slow.

It lacked the same narrative tension that Jaws or Jurassic Park contained. Far from being an edge-of-your seat thriller, I found myself sinking back into my sofa. The suspense was lacking. That’s because I didn’t really care for the characters. Richard Dreyfuss maybe best known for his role Matt Hooper in Jaws, where he was a far more interesting character. Spielberg demanded that Roy be an every-man character instead of a copper or a man in uniform and that’s where this character failed. In anything, he was too normal. There wasn’t too much to distinguish him from any other character. Dreyfuss wasn’t particularly memorable.

His wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) was equally annoying, but I think that was more down to how her character was written. After Roy encounters the aliens, he starts becoming obsessed with them. Ronnie initially indulges his fantasies before she loses his patience with him. She functions as an antagonist stopping Roy from achieving his goals. It was a necessary role, I guess, but not a likeable one. And it did slow up the story. I really didn’t care about Roy’s failing relationship with his family.

The actual interesting part of the story lay with the single mother Jillian whose three-year-old son Barry is abducted by the aliens. This is preceded by a particularly scary sequence where the aliens set off every appliance in Jillian’s home, as she desperately tries to stop Barry from walking toward the light. This was probably one of the best-executed scenes in the film: if the rest of Close Encounters was like this, it would have been more interesting to watch.

However, one aspect of Spielberg’s films that can never be criticised is John William’s film score. Similar to Jaws, he composed a simple five-tone motif that the aliens use to communicate with humans. And just like Jaws, this motif has become iconic throughout the film world.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call Close Encounters of the Third Kind a bad film. It isn’t bad, but in comparison to some of Spielberg’s most popular hits, it definitely struggles to leave the ground.

Shortcuts review

Number 563 on the top 1000 films of all time is Robert Altman’s comedy drama: Short Cuts. 

Short Cuts tells a slice of life story of a group of strangers in LA whose lives occasionally intersect. There is the Finnegan family consisting of TV personality Howard (Bruce Davison,) his wife Anne (Andie Mcdowell) and their son Casey. There is also the Wymans: Ralph (Matthew Modine) and Marian (Julianne Moore,) and not forgetting Marian’s sister, Sherri (Madeline Stowe) whose husband, cop Gene (Tim Robbins) is cheating on her. Chris Penn, Robert Downey Junior, Frances Mcdormand, Tom Waits and a whole host of others all co-star.

Shortcuts reminded me of other slice-of-life films like Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia or the repulsive Happiness – insert links. Just like Short Cuts which clocked in at a monstrous 188 minutes, Magnolia and Happiness are similarly epic in length. This is also matched by their huge ensemble casts including the likes of Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman and others I need to check. Through the very nature of slice-of-life films, you need interesting characters. They are absolutely essential for the plot to succeed. In this regard, Short Cuts wasn’t comparable to Magnolia at all, but at least it wasn’t disgusting like Happiness.

Unfortunately, Short Cuts did just lack the same interesting and memorable characters that films like Magnolia had. Tom Cruise was rightly nominated for an Oscar for his work in Magnolia. He was terrific, but I can’t really think of any equivalent performances in Short Cuts. Robert Altman landed a Best Director nod, but that was it for the Oscars. Although evidently the critics don’t agree with me as Short Cuts won Best Ensemble at the Golden Globes, Julianne Moore and Andi McDowell were nominated and Madeline Stowe received a Best Supporting Actress Oscar from the National Society of Film Critics.

That’s their prerogative. I still can’t think back to a certain character and definitively say this film was all the better with them in it.  Many of the characters blended into one with few exceptions. I don’t think Tim Robbins was particularly convincing as the alcoholic, antagonistic, adultering cop Gene…but maybe it’s because he was so damn good in films like the Shawshank Redemption or Mystic River where he played tragic heroes.

Alas I think Short Cuts was a film undone by its very premise. If you have a slice-of-life drama where the audience has no interest in the lives being portrayed, then you won’t have a very interesting film. That was the case here.

Flipped review

 Number 577 on the top 1000 films of all time is Rob Reiner's 2010 coming of age romantic drama Flipped.

Flipped tells the story of Bryce Loski (Callan Mcauliffe) and Juli Baker (Madeline Carroll) Upon meeting as kids, she falls in love with him. We see their love to and froe as they grow until adulthood where Juli is just about to give up when...

Rob Reiner's murder at the hands of his son is a tragedy. He will be best remembered for directing great films like The Princess Bride and Misery. Will he be remembered for directing Flipped? Nope. It was a very meh film and not particularly memorable. In terms of coming of age dramas, it was definitely no Stand By Me.

Much of this was down to the two lead characters and their rather insipid romance. Bryce is a major bonehead so much so that you do wonder why Juli was attracted to him in the first place. I guess love is both blind and deaf and dumb.

Callan Mcauliffe played Bryce At 15. He hasn't gone onto the most illustrious of careers other than a supporting role in the latter seasons of the Walking dead. He wasn't anything special as the bland protagonist. And wasn't particulary endearing either. The same can be said for Juli who was equally bland as Juli. I wasn't particularly interested in learning if the two get together or not.

Sure you could argue their messy love story is reflective of love stories everywhere but that didn't make it anymore interesting. It didn't help there wasn't much conflict keeping them apart except for their own pride and hubris. It was very much a case of stupid characters making stupid choices for no reason but to push the plot forward. Sure Bryce's father thinks Juli's family is beneath them but this felt more like an after thought.

Rob Reiner was a fine director who will be remembered for a great many films. However, Flipped is a film best forgotten.

The City of Lost Children review

 Number 566 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fantasy film 'The City of Lost Children.'

The City of Lost Children is set in a dystopic city where the monstrous being Krank (Daniel Emilfork) is kidnapping children to steal their dreams. One such child is Deree, the adopted little brother of carnival strongman, One (Ron Perlman.) He joins a group of orphans to stop Krank's terrible plans.

It's easy to compare The City of Lost Children to the earlier 1991 post-apocalyptic film Delicatessen. Both were French, both have a colourful set of characters and both are seriously weird.

You can make similar comparisons to Terry Gillam's films: Brazil, Twelve Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. All of these films take surrealism to a whole other level. They also take incomprehensible plots to a whole new level. I'm tempted to echo famed film critic Roger Ebert who said that while the visual design was great, the plot line was extremely confusing. I wouldn't be honest if I said I knew what happened during the film. While you can't fault the cinematography and production design, the plot is absolutely baffling. I'm not sure if I can really explain it or talk about it now.

And Ebert was right to praise the film's stylistic design. There is a host of memorable characters from the conjoined twins leading the group of orphans to the cyclops that act as Krank's enforcers to the other oddities that Krank's mad scientist creator also made. There is also a decaying steampunk aesthetic like something you would see in the Matrix. I just wish I understood the story that went along with it. I'm still not sure what Ron Perlman was doing in the film.

I wasn't sure about anything in this film. It was like a mad fever dream. And dreams never make the most sense.

Boy A film

 Number 569 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 British drama 'Boy A.'

Jack Burridge (Andrew Garfield) is a young man with a troubled past. Released from prison after a long sentence, he desperately tries to go straight with the help of his social worker Terry (Peter Mullan.)

Boy A was a gritty social drama based on the book of the same name by Jonathan Trigell. It has been compared to the horrific James Bulger murder and, indeed, Trigell was inspired by the resulting media frenzy. The comparisons were clear to see: there are two troubled pre-teens Jack Burridge and his deeply problematic friend Philip Craig (Taylor Doherty.) The two commit and awful crime (more on this in a  bit.) Ten years later, Jack is released into society.

Andrew Garfield played Jack in his debut film role and while he was rough around the edges, you could see the glimmers of the film star he would go onto become. Jack spent his adolescence in prison. Upon release, he is naturally shy and socially awkward. Garfield played the role with grace making Jack endearing despite his secret, dark past. Despite everything that happened, he wants to do better and atone for his crimes.

Equally good was Peter Mullen as social worker Terry. Everybody knows that social work is a thankless job and it's common for social workers to burn out and give up. Yet Terry never gives up on Jack. No matter how hard it gets. Peter Mullen stopped Terry from being just another beaten-down social worker.

Yet a lot of this was undone in the film's final act. Spoilers to follow. Flashbacks throughout the film hint to why Jack spent his adolescence in prison. The true reason is revealed to be he and Philip murdering and possibly assaulting a fellow school-girl  - although it isn't revealed who did what. I had grown to like Jack, but then it's released that he possibly killed a little girl. It feels a bit gross to have rooted for a character like that now.

We don't see Philip in Jack's adult life as it's revealed he died in jail - whether by his own hand or another is up for debate. However, what we know for certain is that Jack and Philip were best friends. I was expecting the troublemaker Philip to be attacked or killed and Jack to take revenge in a crime of passion. This would have been a somewhat justifiable motive. Not the murder of a little girl.

The weak ending aside, Boy A was a good film with a strong debut from Andrew Garfield.

Remember the Titans review

 Number 573 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biopic sports-drama 'Remember the Titans.'

Remember the Titans is based on a true story. It is set in 1970's Virginia. In an effort to successfully integrate the T.C Williams High School, the school board initially hires Herman Boone (Denzel Washington) to coach the black football team, before deciding he should integrate the black and white teams. He is aided by the school's former coach Bill Yoast (Will Patton.) Ryan Hurst and Ryan Gosling co-star.

Remember the Titans should have been like a shot of adrenaline, yet another painful reminder of the US's racial history where the audience are brought face to face with the country's terrible past. It should have been like a slap to the cheek. Instead it was like being tickled with a feather duster. There was no grit. No bite. Nothing beyond the lofty ideals. It reminded me of Crash and its over-simplified take on race relations.

I think much of this can be put down to how Remember the Titans was a Disney film. It suffered terribly because of the studio. As it was Disney, it needed to be a family-friendly story that stripped away all the nuance and hard-hitting social commentary especially on the topic of racism. Other than the odd racial slur, it felt like a coming-of-age drama with the odd song or too.

You can't really fault Denzel Washington for this. He did his best with a cheesy script, but he's been in much better similar films like Glory. Less good were some of his co-stars. I get that Ryan Hurst was young and this was long before his winning roles in Sons of Anarchy and The Walking Dead, but he was pretty wooden as the football captain Gerry Bertier. His romance with his girlfriend was pretty boring too even as we see her rejecting him because of how he embraces integration.

While Ryan Gosling was only a supporting character, I was expecting him to do more than just dance. It was difficult to believe that he would go on to become one of Hollywood's greatest leading men. But at least the Ryans looked like high-schoolers. Ethan Suplee who played Louie Lastik was the oldest sixteen year old I had ever seen. His receding hairline did little to help things.

As for the black footballers like Ronnie "Sunshine" Bass (Kip Pardue) and Jerry "Rev" Harris (Craig Kirkwood,) they were similarly under-developed and one-note. I think the script did a lot of their characters a big disservice especially when they should have been the main stars.

But we cannot blame the cheesy, over-simplified script for everything. Ultimately, this was a Walt Disney misfire - a misguided attempt to deliver what should have been a hard-hitting piece of social commentary in the cheesiest most sanitised way possible.

The Producers review

 Number 574 on the top 1000 films of all time is Mel Brook's black-comedy 'The Producers.'

Max Bilaystock (Zero Mostel) is a has-been Broadway producer desperately searching for his next hit. Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder) is a naive and neurotic accountant hired to audit Max's books. Together the two cook up a scam to make them rich. To this end, they produce a play called "Spring Time for Hitler," which celebrates the life of the notorious dictator.

The Producers was Mel Brooks' directorial debut. He won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. He later went onto win the EGOT, as well as directing very funny films like Blazing Saddles and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I was expecting a lot, but I was disappointed.

Sure I could see the blackness - Mel Brooks has said the only way to get back at genocidal maniacs like Hitler is to laugh at them. Except I didn't laugh at all. Not because I was offended by the risque subject matter, but because it just wasn't funny. The jokes either didn't land or were drawn out longer than was funny.

I also didn't rate the lead actors either. Gene Wilder was a frequent collaborator of Mel Brooks, going onto star in Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. He was a funny man, but here he was painfully over-the-top. I understand that Leo Bloom was a deeply neurotic character, but Wilder took the neuroticism to an obnoxious level.

I didn't think Zero Mostel was much better as the hapless Broadway producer. He was similarly over-the-top and annoying. After a while, I became annoyed whenever I saw him on screen. The same went with Wilder. Considering both of them were the main characters, this was not a good thing.

I really wanted to like the Producers; I love Robin Hood, Men in Tights, but the Producers was a complete directorial debut dud.

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.