Top Ten unfunniest comedies on the top 1000 films of all time

 Since 2015, I have been VERY SLOWLY working through IMDB's 2015 edition of top 1000 films of all time. In that time, I have watched some absolutely hilarious films and some not-so-hilarious films. This list is about the latter. These are ten of the unfunniest comedies on this list. This is in no order but chronology. 

Mash (1970)

If you don't know the film Mash then surely you know the TV show. It is famed for having the most-viewed television finales in history. That means it was a critical and commercial success with everybody who watched it, right? Wrong. Christ, this was a tedious film. It featured Donald Sutherland in one of his most unappealing roles, as he Eliot Gould and Tom Skerrit played some of the jerkiest, most moronic characters in film history.

National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)

This is the film that inspired this list so you know how much I despise it. This film showed the USA's strange fascination with fraternities at its absolute worst. Thus far my perception of them has been annoying, alpha-male jerks drinking and getting into trouble. This film did little to convince me otherwise. It didn't help the characters were so stupid and unlikeable - too stupid to even be funny. Never mind laughing...I don't think I smiled once.

Manhattan (1979)

You just know Woody Allen had to feature on this list. God knows how he is considered a comedy legend...his films are painfully unfunny. Manhattan was no exception least of all due to its morally dubious premise. Woody Allen plays a neurotic, middle-aged comedy writer (basically the role he plays in EVERY FILM EVER) is dating a woman twenty-five years his junior and has to constantly justify his relationship to everybody. It's creepy beyond belief. But the film's one saving grace? The black-and-white cinematography was gorgeous.

The Goonies (1985)

The Goonies has featured before in my top ten worse film list, so you already know how much I hate it. I know that it's a favourite of Gen X and early millennials, but I absolutely hated it. It failed as a comedy. What's funny about having a group of annoying, pre-teen boys screeching their way through a film? Like nails down a chalkboard. Plus the film completely wasted Joe Pantoliano.

The Sandlot (April 1993)

I hated the Sandlot for the same reasons I hated the Goonies. Except the Sandlot was worse. There weren't five annoying kids, but ten of them. They all looked the same and very quickly got on my nerves. I couldn't tell one from another and I didn't really care. There was nothing funny at all about the film except for the numerous plot holes.

Dazed and Confused (September 1993)

If a comedy film doesn't make you laugh then it's failed as a comedy, right? That was strike 1 for Dazed and Confused. Strike 2? An unlikeable cast of characters including obnoxious bullies and equally obnoxious victims. Strike 3? Nothing interesting or funny remotely happens. But this film did launch Matthew McConaughey's career so that's something I guess...

Clerks (1994)

If a film only makes you laugh twice in ninety minutes then you know it's gone wrong somewhere. In fact, I think Clerks put me to sleep more often than it made me laugh. That's a big no-no for any comedy. Why did I fall asleep? The characters were annoying, but, more importantly, the film was just plain boring.

Happiness (1998)

Happiness is marketed as a dark comedy. While it was dark, it was certainly not funny. Or maybe I'm just a snowflake. Or maybe I don't like comedies which humanise nonces or voyeurs. It was all in bad taste. And there was nothing funny seeing PSH spunk himself and using that spunk to glue pictures to the walls. It was pure repulsion.

South Park: Bigger, Better and Uncut (1999)

I've never liked the South Park TV series, so it was no surprise I also hated the film. Call me a liberal snowflake all you want, but the humour was just so juvenile and immature. Maybe if I was a ten-year-old American, I would find it funny. But I'm a thirty-year-old Brit. And it was so repetitive. How many times are we supposed to laugh at the same joke happening over and over again? 

Despicable Me (2010)

Despicable Me also featured on one of my top ten worse films list, so that probably gives you an idea of how unfunny of a film it is. It features Steve Carell giving one of his worse comedy performances ever, but, beyond that, the humour is just plain juvenile. Come on Hollywood writers. How many times are you going to do a fart joke before it stops being funny?

What comedies did I forget to include? Let me know in those comments below. If you've become really pissed off at reading this list, you aint seen nothing yet. There will be another list coming soon enough.

Following review

 Number 665 on the top 1000 films of all time is Christopher Nolan's debut film - the neo-noir film Following.

The Young Man (Jeremy Theobald) is a struggling writer who takes to following people about London in search of inspiration. Instead he finds career burglar Cobb (Alex Haw.) A strange relationship forms between the two as "The Young Man" is drawn into a dark and shady criminal underworld.

Following took me by surprise. It was Christopher Nolan's debut film and I wasn't sure what to expect. And I certainly wasn't expecting a gripping, intriguing and tight neo-noir film. At a paltry 70 minutes not a single second is wasted. Despite being low on special effects and production value (more on that in a moment) it is still endlessly interesting.

Nolan directed, produced and wrote the film. It was easy to see the birth of his cinematic style that would come to dominate cinema in the decades to come. While not being as complicated as some of his other films, there were still plenty of twists which kept things so interesting. I guess it helped that Nolan practically had no budget whatsoever.

I'm not exaggerating. He made this film on £6,000 doing everything possible to keep costs down from having the actors wear their own clothes to using only natural light to rendering the film in black and white or filming in his friend's houses. Yet he didn't let any of this impact on the writing. And like any good director, he used this all to his advantage. Nolan created an endlessly fascinating setting - effectively everyday life but with a criminal twist. The black-and-white enhanced the noir aesthetic and the natural light gave everything a startling authenticity. 

I also loved the character of the Young Man and the mysterious Cobb as well as as the shady world they inhabited. It was difficult not to get drawn into this criminal underworld. Just like The Young Man, I found myself quickly manipulated by Cobb.

Speaking of Cobb, he was played by Alex Haw. The Young Man was played by Jeremy Theobald. Lucy Russell also co-starred. If you haven't heard of any of those names, I wouldn't blame you. They were all complete unknowns and haven't gone onto big careers - Following remains Alex Haw's only film role. Theobald had a couple of minor roles in future Nolan films, as well as some producing credits. Lucy Russell has had a handful of more roles but nothing spectacular. This is a shame, as the whole cast were brilliant.

As of 2026, Nolan has directed thirteen films and I've seen ten of them. I would probably say that Following is his most under-rated. I might even go so far to say that it was one of his best. It took me by complete surprise. And it was the last thing I would have expected from him.

When Harry Met Sally review

 Number 664 on the top 1000 films of all time is Rob Reiner's 1989 romantic-comedy When Harry Met Sally.

When Harry Met Sally follows the chance encounters of the two titular characters Harry Burns (Billy Crystal) and Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) as they meet and become friends, and potentially even something more, over a period of twelve years.

When Harry Met Sally aimed to answer the question "can men and women ever just be friends?" Harry is adamant they can't as the sex part always gets in the way. However, Sally is equally adamant that the opposite is true. Not every man wants to sleep with his female friends. Reiner explores this question in such an entertaining way. This was a very amusing film, which also had plenty of emotional payoff. However, it never falls into sentimentality or farce. Everything stays real.

Other than the question above, the key conflict is the will they/won't they of Harry and Sally's relationship. And this relationship worked so well because of the chemistry between Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan. Both of them were great separately and together. Although Crystal is primarily known as a comedy actor, he also made a good romantic leading man. The same can be said for Meg Ryan who lent the script lots of comedy, emotional depth, as well as the film's most iconic scene. You know which one I mean.

One critic described it as being a sitcom version of a Woody Allen film. I can definitely see the comparisons. You have the neurotic male lead, the faux-intellectual characters, a New York setting and plenty of jokes. The difference? When Harry Met Sally actually made me laugh a lot. It also had a very good supporting cast including Carrie Fisher and Bruno Kirby.

I thoroughly enjoyed When Harry Met Sally. It was a funny yet touching film. Can men and women ever be just friends? What do you think? Let me know in the comments below. 

Dunkirk review

 Number 617 on the 2024 list of the top 1000 films of all time is Christopher Nolan's war film.

Dunkirk tells the true-life story of the real evacuation of Dunkirk during World War II. The story is told from the three perspectives of land, sea and air. It features a large ensemble cast including Fionn Whitehead, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hardy and Harry Styles.

Christopher Nolan is well-known for his complicated sic convoluted films. From Memento to Interstellar, he loves a good plot twist. Yet what struck me so about Dunkirk was its apparent simplicity. I say "apparent" because Nolan doesn't do simple. However, Dunkirk showed a restraint and calculated hesitation that you don't often see in Nolan films. It helped that Dunkirk was only 100 minutes meaning Nolan had to direct everything as tightly as possible. He certainly did that.

In making Dunkirk, Nolan wanted to tell a WW2 story that focussed on survival and NOT heroism. This wasn't your Saving Private Ryan with grandiose tales about larger than life men. It was a stripped-back tale of men struggling to survive one of the biggest blunders of World War Two. This gave the film a startling amount of realism and authenticity. While there were plenty of emotionally heavy moments, they never once ventured into sentimentality. Cheesy speeches gave way to minimal dialogue.

And when I say stripped-back, I'm of course just talking narratively. Dunkirk had the usual terrific production value we would expect from a Nolan film. Everything from the special effects to the costumes and the props only added to the genuine feel of the film. Even the music was at a reasonable volume. Nolan's sound mixing is often off with Hans Zimmer score blasting over the dialogue. This wasn't the case here. The sound track pulsed along subtly in the background adding to the film without drawing attention to itself. It's no surprise this film won Best Sound Mixing and Editing Oscars.

Alas there were no acting Oscars, but it was an ensemble cast so this shouldn't be a surprise. All the cast were great in their different ways with all of them portraying everyday men pushed to the extreme. There was Mark Rylance and Barry Keoghan playing civillians helping the war effort any way they could, the always great Cillian Murphy as a shell-shocked soldier and Tom Hardy as a heroic RAF pilot. 

But Fionn Whitehead and Harry Styles were the surprise packages. Whitehead was a complete unknown actor while Harry Styles is, of course, best known as a singer - Dunkirk was both their debut film roles. Yet both of them were very good. We saw how the desperation of their situation pushed both characters to the absolute limits.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dunkirk. Nolan is a great director, but not when he is making complicated film with endless plot twists. His strength is taking real human moments and making them shine. That's where he succeeded with Dunkirk.

Rambo: First Blood review

 Number 660 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action film 'Rambo: First Blood.'

John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is a Vietnam war veteran with severe PTSD. He tries to pick up the broken pieces of his former life but soon, undeservedly, runs afoul of the local police department led by the overzealous Sheriff Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy.) After the cops chase him into the local mountains, Rambo must use all the skills he learned in Vietnam to survive.

I try to come into watching every film with an open mind. However, I was not expecting to like Rambo at all. I thought it would be just another of the generic, high-octane, maximum explosions, minimal characterisation popcorn flicks of the eighties. I was happy to say that I was proven wrong. Don't get me wrong...First Blood was everything I just described but it was also very entertaining. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. 

The initial part of the film was high on suspense. Unlike other action films, it wasn't bogged down in cheesy dialogue and endless explosions (I think Stallone only had 400 words of dialogue.) After he escapes from police custody and chased into the mountains, armed only with a knife, Stallone has to use his wits to survive. He fashions all manner of booby-traps to take out the cruel and prejudiced police officers. It was enjoyable watching an action character use his brains rather than brute strength to survive. Just like Rocky, John Rambo was a true underdog that you really want to root for.

I would argue Rambo isn't the deepest of characters - he is suffering from PTSD due to the torture he received in Vietnam - but he didn't need to be either. Rambo has minimal dialogue throughout the film, as his action speak very much for him. This is probably for the best as Stallone isn't really known for his acting ability. He is more known for just being a big meathead.

The film's short runtime of ninety minutes was definitely a huge benefit too. The shorter run-time really allowed director Ted Kotcheff to focus in on the core storyline of the film - Rambo's private war with a whole police department. There was no space for cheesy dialogue, endless explosions and gunfire or gratuitous slow-motion. Perhaps it helped that the film's script was rewritten and edited almost endlessly. This helped to cut out most of the narrative fluff.

First Blood was released to mix-reviews only to be critically reassessed as a pioneering action film of the eighties. I 100% agree with this assessment. It might not be a cinematic classic in the same vein studied endlessly in film schools like Citizen Kane or Stalker, but neither did it needed to be. It was just an entertaining popcorn flick. 

The Last Temptation of Christ review

 Number 659 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's epic religious-drama 'The Last Temptation of Christ.'

'The Last Temptation of Christ' is a semi-fictionalised retelling of the last days of Jesus Christ (Wilhelm Defoe) after he is betrayed by Judas (Harvey Keitel.) It portrays Jesus as battling against different temptations like love, sex and the devil himself.

Last Temptation felt like the wet fever dream of an American White Christian Nationalist. And Defoe's portrayal of Jesus Christ was like a crazed televangelist. Everything was just too surreal and bizarre to really take seriously. Although I enjoyed the original score which brought together traditional instrumentation and musicians from Pakistan, Egypt, Turkiye and Armenia, they sounded like something I would hear in the throes of a fever.

This was only exacerbated with Defoe's very peculiar portrayal of Christ, not as some benevolent saviour of humanity, but as a revolutionary who would bring about the revelation whether humanity was prepared for it or not. It was all very much this is my army and this is my revolution. I'm almost surprised that he didn't go all Pete Hegseth and start talking about holy wars, warriors and crusades. However, perhaps some of this might be down to the writing.

Last Temptation was based on Nikos Kazantzaki' book of the same name. It was adapted by screenwriter Paul Schrader. Despite how he received the credit, most of his script, including all the dialogue was rewritten by Scorsesee himself as well as fellow writer Jay Cocks. Perhaps that's why all of the dialogue seemed over-the-top.

The film was also over-long at almost three hours with the last part of the film acting as a superfluously long denoument/epilogue. Of course, Scorsesee is the same director who went onto to direct the marathon-long 'The Irishman,' so long films shouldn't be a surprise to me. Yet the length of Last Temptatin wasn't justified. And the ending just stretched on forever. 

It was a bit like LOTR with its ten endings. Don't get me wrong, LOTR will always be a GOAT of cinema, but did we need ten endings? Similarly here, did we need a fever dream ending on top of a fever-dream film? Too many dreams. Too much dreaming. It was like I was watching Inception again.

This isn't even getting into all of the controversy about the film. Last Temptation severely angered the Catholic church for portraying Jesus getting it on with Mary Magadelene, but just like the film itself, this review is becoming long and surreal. I'll finish it by saying I didn't care for this film at all.

One Battle After Another review

 One Battle After Another (OBAA) is too young to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time, but it won a whole slieu of Oscars at the 2025 ceremony including Best Picture, Director, Writing - all for Paul Thomas Anderson - and Best Supporting Actor - so I just had to watch this film.

Pat Calhoun (Leonardo Dicaprio) is a washed-up, former revolutionary who used to be the scourge of right-wing governments ever by leading the activity/terrorist group 'the French 75.' Sixteen years after a devastating defeat, Calhoun is a paranoid stoner living off-grid with his step-daughter Charlene (Chase Infiniti. Charlene's mother? Another member of the French 75- Perfidia (Teyana Taylor.) Captured by the tyrannical Colonel Steven Lockjaw - she was given the choice of imprisonent or freedom and sleeping with him. She chose the latter before disappearing into witness protection. However, when Lockjaw returns to threaten Charlene, Calhoun is forced to come out of retirement along with the help of Charlene's karate teacher Sergio St. Carlos (Benicio Del Toro.)

If you're going to watch this film, then I would recommend to be patient. Paul Thomas Anderson is not known for his long films - just like Magnolia and There Will be Blood - OBAA is over two and a half hours. It also takes a while to get going. The first thirty minutes shows the vicious actions of the French 75 as they cause chaos attacking government facilities and robbing city banks. It was all accompanied with pretty cheesy and cringy dialogue.

But if you get past the thirty minutes, you will be rewarded with a thrilling film. It starred Leonardo Dicaprio in one of his most unlikely roles ever. You see Leo Dicaprio as the star and you would expect him to be the one shooting at all the bad guys and taking the glory, but, if anything, it's every other character that shows heroism. Calhoun is merely a paranoid shell of his former revolutionary self. Don't get me wrong, Dicaprio did the paranoia well, but I kept expecting him to snap out of it and for him to become a hero. 

Yet that never really happened. Dicaprio did get a Best Actor nod, although I'm not sure if his role was worthy of such an honour. Although I would say that he was very funny in this film - this was probably one of his funniest film roles especially when he is trying and failing to remember all of the secret codes the French 75 used to communicate with each other. 

I cannot deny anything from the always terrific Sean Penn who won Best Supporting Actor for playing Steven Lockjaw - this was his third Oscar too. He beat out fellow co-star Benicio Del Toro - more on him later. Lockjaw was a great character and Penn played him well. He played him with enough ferocity to make him scary, but with enough restraint not to turn him into a cartoon. A deserving win indeed.

Del Toro would have also been well-deserving of a second Best Supporting Oscar win. His character of Sergio soon becomes one of Calhoun's biggest allies and I enjoyed seeing the two characters play off each other. It was a fun role played with lots of levity. But enough with the men, the women were great too. 

This was Chase Infiniti's debut role and she had great chemistry with Dicaprio, as she played his adoptive daughter. It was also great seeing her and all the other women characters like Perfidia getting stuck in the action. I feel like in modern films there's always a disingenuous need to showing "strong female characters who don't need no man," yet in OBAA, Charlene and Perfidia came across as nothing but genuine and authentic.

Prior to OBAA, Paul Thomas Anderson was probably one of the best directors not to have won any Oscars -  before OBAA, he currently had zero Oscars out of eleven nominations. However, this was remedied as OBAA netted him three Oscars. He really proved he was a master of his craft with some terrific cinematography especially in the film's climatic chase sequence.

Like I say, OBAA is too young to feature on any top 1000 films of all time list. Surely, it will feature on future editions. But that isn't the question. Was it truly worthy of the Best Film Oscar? I'm not so sure. It was a good film ... maybe even great. But best? I don't know... 

L'emmerdeur review

 L'emmerdeur is a 1973 French black-comedy which does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

Ralph Milan (Lino Ventura) is a contract killer preparing to assassinate his target in a hotel room. The only catch? The neighbour in the adjourning room - shirt salesman Francois Pignon (Jacques Brel) - is making preparations to kill himself. Milan has to stop his neighbour from suiciding otherwise the police will catch him in the act.

This film was a complete farce. It was a ridiculous scenario with ridiculous characters yet everything worked so well. It was a very funny film with oodles of black humour that are so popular in France or the UK. I can't see a film like this really having any success in the US. In fact Billy Wilder did do an American remake with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau which came and went without much fanfare.

Milan and Brel made the ultimate odd couple trope with Milan being forced to become a reluctant hero of sorts - he has to stop Brel killing himself, not out of any sense of altruism, but for his own devious means. Most of the humour stems from this comical situation. Pignon irritates the life out of Milan who has no choice but to tolerate it or be exposed by the police.

Just like the characters, the actors also were great together. Ventura served as a brilliant straight man to the comically and tragically pathetic Brel who is heartbroken after his wife leaves him. There is no assortment of both physical humour and witty tongue-in-cheek jokes yet there is also plenty of space for emotional pathos. Despite how Milan initially has nothing but contempt for Brel, we see a begrudging relationship form between the two men. 

L'emmerdeur was a thoroughly entertaining film. Silly and farcical yes, but very funny all the same.

Kelly's Heroes review

 Number 654 on the top 1000 films of all time is the war-comedy drama 'Kelly's Heroes.'

Private Kelly (Clint Eastwood) is a disgraced soldier in a WW2 infantry unit. However, he soon discovers that the Nazis are hiding a huge cache of gold. He rallies together a posse of fellow disillusioned soldiers such as Sergeant Big Joe (Telly Savalas) supply Sergeant 'Crapgame' (Don Rickles) and eclectic hippie 'Oddball' (Donald Sutherland) to steal the gold for themselves.

As far as war-comedy dramas go, Kelly's Heroes very much came and went without much impact. Obviously for me and not for the all people who voted it as the 654th best film of all time. Let's just start with the Clint Eastwood-shaped elephant in the room. As you've heard me say ad nauseum, I don't rate Clint Eastwood as an actor at all. As an old man - he always plays the same old role - a grumpy old man. The same very much applies when he was a young man too. In Kelly's Heroes, he played the usual dry, laconic and sarcastic wiseass. It wore thin twenty films ago.

I didn't much care for the sprawling ensemble cast either. There wasn't really one memorable character or somebody I really wanted to root for. If you really pushed me, maybe I would say I liked Oddball the best - Donald Sutherland was quite enjoyable in the role - although I'm not sure how much an eclectic hippie like Oddball would survive in the army. As for everybody else? Telly Savales...Don Rickles weren't particularly memorable. 

The film is also labelled as a comedy too. I didn't find it particularly memorable - I guess most of the humour was supposed to come from the strange mix of characters, but I didn't laugh all that much. It functioned much more effectively as a war drama.

All in all, Kelly's Heroes was really nothing special.

High Plains Drifter review

 Number 652 on the top 1000 films of all time is Clint Eastwood's Western film 'High Plains Drifter.'

Clint Eastwood plays an unnamed lone gunslinger who becomes the unlikely saviour of a frontier mining town who are under threat from a trio of dangerous outlaws.

High Plains Drifter was definitely one of Eastwood's weaker Westerns and weaker films overall. It was a formulative, repetitive affair that followed the all-too familiar pattern of cowboy films: a mysterious stranger is drifting through a quiet sleepy town, when suddenly he turns into an unlikely hero. Throw in some equally unlikely love interests and lots of gun-shooting for good measure.

Clint Eastwood's unnamed character was little different to any other character he's played in any Western film or at all to be honest. He played similar characters in the Dollars Trilogy or The Outlaw Josey Wales, But in every film he basically plays a grumpy old man. This was the case here.

Yet he wasn't the only strange casting choice. None of the cast were particularly memorable especially Geoffrey Lewis, Dan Vadis and Anthony James who played the outlaws without any nuance or charisma. They were your daily villains. The female characters were pretty vapid too.

I could see Eastwood attempting to distinguish this film from its predecessors by leaning into a supernatural element. Was the mysterious gunslinger actually a ghost wreaking rightful vengeance? This was largely left up to the reader so who knows the truth?

But what is true is that this was definitely one of Eastwood's worse films.

National Lampoon's Animal House review

 Number 651 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Landis' comedy Animal House.

National Lampoon's Animal House follows the antics of the Delta Tau Chi fraternity as they cause chaos at Faber university. Their members include freshmen Lawrence "Larry" Kroger (Thomas Hulce) Kent Dorfman (Stephen Furst) lothario Eric Stratton (Tim Matheson) president Robert Hoover (James Widdoes) and drunken idiot John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi.)

This was quite possibly one of the worse comedies I've seen in a while. During the 109 minute runtime, I think I only smiled once or twice. There was no laughing in the aisles for me. Rather I was rolling my eyes so far back into my skull that you would think I was possessed. Christ, it was tedious rubbish.

It didn't help that the characters were all insufferable and indistinguishable from one another. I couldn't tell them apart. Not that I really cared. They were all so annoying from the new pledges to the experienced members and even the teachers were annoying. It reminded me of The Breakfast Club where I didn't have one memorable character to root for.

Maybe it's because I'm a damn limey, but I've never understood the American obsession with fraternities. They just seem like an excuse to get drunk and act like little dickheads all while being hidden under the bullshit facade of brotherhood. At least that was the case here.

Yet it wasn't even funny. So much of the humour seemed to be that typical, crude American rubbish. This was especially true of John Belushi whose performance here was a thousand miles away from his winning performance in the The Blues Brothers.

I just hated this film so much and it's best that we leave it there.

The Legend of Drunken Master review

 Number 650 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hong Kong comedy-Wuxia film 'The Legend of Drunken Master.'

Jackie Chan plays the real-life Wong Fei-Hung - a skilled practioner of the Hung Ga style of martial arts. While he and his father are travelling home to Canton, they accidentally switch boxes with a top diplomat, leading to Fei-Hung inadvertently stealing the imperial seal destined for the British consul. And the consul will stop at nothing to get it back.

As I'm sure you're aware of by now, I am not a fan of Wuxia films. Too often, I find they are style-over-substance. These are films are an excuse to show albeit well-choregraphed, but ultimately repetitive kung fu sequences.

The Legend of Drunken Master did little to move the needle. The real-life Fei-Hung was a pioneer of the Hung Ga branch of martial arts - a martial art designed to replicate the chaotic actions of a drunk person - I am not a Kung Fu connoisseur so correct me if I'm wrong. And the fictional Fei-Hung was a big drunk, which I guess was supposed to be some type of comedic irony.

Except there was nothing funny seeing Jackie Chan make a buffoon out of himself. Obviously, he can be very good at doing slapstick humour especially in Kung Fu sequences. However, it wasn't funny to see such a legendary action and comedy figure reduced to an imbecile. It also cheapened the terrific martial art sequences.

Like I say, I'm not a fan of kung fu/wuxia films. Judging by my reaction to the Legend of Drunken Master, that's not going to change anytime soon.

Munich review

 Number 649 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's historical thriller 'Munich.'

Munich dramatises the aftermath of the Munich Massacre where at the 1972 Munich Olympics Palestineans terrorists stormed the Israeli camp and took the team hostage, ultimately resulting in 11 Israeli athletes dying. In response, Israel launched a covert operation to hunt down the Palestineans. The film stars Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Ciaran Hinds and Daniel Craig.

Spoilers

We're starting with the film's most polarising scene which takes place at the conclusion. In my Garden State review, I said that if a director has his characters have a sex scene to show they're in there, they're not in love. Unfortunately, the great Spielberg fell into this trap.

Avner Kaufman (Eric Bana) is the head of the mission to kill the Palestineans. This is an operation which leads to him being apart from his wife for years. At the film's conclusion, he finally reunites with her in the form of a cringy sex scene that is juxtaposed with footage of the Israeli athletes being massacred. Some critics loved it. Others hated it.

I am in the latter camp. It was weird, unnecessary and cheap. It also detracted from the tragedy of the Israelis being killed. I can't even say it was titillation, as there was nothing titillating about it. A strange directorial choice from Spielberg.

He also made strange casting choices. I found Eric Bana less than convincing as the morally conflicted Avner Kaufman - one moment he was steadfast in his commitment to the Zionist state - the next he was questioning everything. Meanwhile, the usually charismatic Daniel Craig was reduced to the odd snappy one-liner.

The pacing was also off - we already talked about the weird sex scene, but clips of the massacre were interspersed through the film. One solid flashback either at the beginning or the end would have been less disruptive to the film's structure. It might also have reduced Munich's overly-long 160 minute run-time.

Odd scene choices, miscasting and bad pacing all contributed to a rare misfire from Spielberg.

Garden State review

 Number 646 on the top 1000 films of all time is the romantic-comedy drama 'Garden State.'

Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) is a failed actor who returns time after his mother dies. There he tries to mend his damaged relationship with his father Gideon (Ian Holm.) Natalie Portman co-stars as Andrew's compulsive-lying love interest Sam.

Garden State marked the directorial debut of Zach Braff. It was a very good debut. I was impressed particularly with the delicate and understated nature of the film. Perhaps this was down to the film's small budget, but it also showed Braff's confidence in his directorial skills.

This was most prominent in Andrew's relationship with Sam. It seems like in every film there's a gratuitous and out-of-place sex scene to prove that the characters are in love. Of course, if you need to do this, to show your characters are in love, they're not in love. However, Zach Braff deliberately chose not to include a sex scene between him and Natalie Portman's character of Sam believing it would detract from their relationship. I completely agree.

Instead their relationship grew organically and naturally. Sure you can argue that Sam was your average manic pixie dreamgirl cliche, but Natalie Portman was still good. She brought a charming charisma to the role.

Zach Braff was also very good in the lead role. He is best known for his starring role in the sitcom Scrubs, but he was adept at drama too. As a director, he balanced the drama and comedy well. It was emotional without being sentimental and comedic without being ridiculous.

Overall, I really enjoyed Garden State. It was a quiet, understated but strong film.

Dracula review

 Number 645 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 adaptation of the classic horror story 'Dracula.'

Dracula (Bela Lugosi) - a vampire from Transylvannia decides to emigrate to England in the hunt of fresh meat. Or, should I say, blood?

There is no denying Dracula's place in the pantheon of horror. Bram Stoker's original book was a pioneer of gothic literary horror for a reason. The same goes for the film. It is a titan of early horror and the horror genre in general. The hammer horror films of the sixties wouldn't have existed without this pioneering film.

As much as Legosi tried, he could never escape the shadow of his most famous character. A bit like a vampire, he was doomed to repeat himself for eternity. No doubt this type-casting led to his deteriorating mental health and drug addiction.

Dracula was also a film of its time with it slow pacing, shorter run-time and tiny budget being indicative of the early decades of cinema. The lack of musical score hurt the film's pacing. Its lack could be attributed to the high cost of adding music, as well as it still being too novel for audiences. Either way, it made the film quite dull.

Perhaps I'm being unfair in comparing Dracula to modern-horror films. Obviously, it has earned its place in the horror-movie canon, but it wasn't for me.

Nil By Mouth review

 Nil By Mouth does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

Nil by Mouth marked Gary Oldman's directorial and screen-writing debut. The film follows a highly dysfunctional family living on a South-East London estate. Ray (Ray Winstone) is the family's violent, bad-tempered patriarch, as well as petty crook. Val (Kathy Burke) is his long-suffering wife. Her brother Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) is a junkie. Rounding out the family is Ray's equally violent and aggressive best friend Mark (Jamie Foreman.)

Although Nil by Mouth does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time, it will surely be number one on the bleakest, most depressing, relentlessly dark films of all time. I might add it to my future lists of the films too traumatic to watch again. 

Why was it so depressing and bleak? I think the main reason was its unflinching authenticity. It had an unmatched gritty realism. It was like one of the kitchen-sink dramas of the sixties which would star Albert Finney and be written by John Usborne. 

Rumours abounded that Nil by Mouth was based on Gary Oldman's own life and family. This is only partly true. It wasn't based on Gary Oldman's own family but of people he knew and grew up with. Either way, the violence and aggression were difficult to stomach. 

This was only emphasised by the film-making itself. A lot of the camerawork seemed hand-held lit only by natural or dull lighting. This was a mile away from the bright glitz and glamour of Hollywood. There were also plenty of shots of Ray and Mark walking through Central London which looked like they were shot with ultra-long lenses. Far from extras, it seemed like they were filming unwitting locals out on a Friday or a Saturday night. Even if that wasn't the case, it still looked very authentic.

At the heart of this, we had the proto-typical hard man Ray Winston giving a brilliant performance as the psychotic Ray. Every bit his equal was Kathy Burke. I know she is primarily known as a comedienne, but she is just as good in dramatic performances. As Val, she cut the most pathetic and tragic of characters. Again maybe that's because of how pitifully real she was. There are far too many beaten wives screwed over by their hot-tempered husbands in the world.

I know I've been harping on about the realism, but Oldman definitely dropped the ball a couple of times with the script. On these occasions, the film's authenticity was undercut. One scene sees Billy and his mate running away from a guy they just robbed. They run and hide in a launderette. The guy looks ready to stab them. The next scene? Billy and his mate are locked safely away in jail. The audience is obviously supposed to infer what happened in the in-between but it was still a sudden cut.

But this was nothing compared to the film's ending which almost undercut the entire film. Spoilers

After Ray almost beats Val to death and she leaves him, the final scene sees them back together again all playing happy families. We're supposed to infer that Ray has turned over a new leaf and has left his beating days behind him. I hadn't seen enough evidence of that to be convinced. 

On a final note, I loved the film's score though. It shouldn't be a surprise it was so good as it was composed by Eric Clapton.

Those minor gripes aside, this was an impressive directorial debut from Gary Oldman. It was also a damn depressing one.

Where Eagles Dare review

 Number 604 on the top 1000 films of all time is the WW2 epic 'Where Eagles Dare.'

Major John Smith (Richard Burton) and Lieutenant Morris Schaffer (Clint Eastwood) are leading a crack-team of commandoes to rescue the captured American General George Carnaby (Robert Beatty) who is being held hostage in a remote Nazi castle. However, not all is what it seems.

Where Eagles Dare was based on the book of the same name written by Alistair Maclean who also wrote the film's screenplay. Maclean had his share of critics with some deriding his plot as melodrama and his characters as cardboard. Considering Maclean also wrote the screenplay, those same criticisms also existed in this film.

Yet they didn't really matter, as the film was thoroughly entertaining. It had more twisters and turns than your average high-octane rollercoaster, as well as an endless supply of pyrotechnics, explosions and poor stunt-men being thrown around like sacks of potatoes. You definitely can't fault the film on its production level. It looked great on-screen.

Not sure if I can say the same for John Smith or Morris Schaffer. I've always said that Eastwood is a one-note actor doing little less than providing a sarcastic dry wit. Burton was similarly unimaginative in his portrayal of John Smith. But perhaps that's more a criticism of the characters themselves rather than the characterisations. Neither of them were particularly complicated.

Maclean also received criticism for his vapid female characters. This definitely did not come through on the film though with characters like Mary Ellison (Mary Ure) and Heidi Schmidt (Ingrid Pitt) - follow British undercover agents - more than providing a match for their male counterparts. They were not sex objects nor sacrificial lambs but tough soldiers not afraid to get into the action.

Where Eagles Dare is certainly not without its critics - some are fair in their criticism, yet the film is so entertaining, the criticisms aren't that important.

Dangerous Liaisons review

 Number 601 on the top 1000 films of all time is the period drama 'Dangerous Liaisons.'

Based on the book and later stage play of the same name, Dangerous Liaisons is set in pre-revolution France. It follows two scorned socialites: the Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) and the Marquise de Mertuil (Glenn Close) as they plot revenge on their ex-lovers. Michelle Pfieffer, Keanu Reeves and Uma Thurman co-star.

If there is one thing you should know by now is that I don't care for a period drama. Never have done. They've never appealed to me, often focussing on parts of history I don't care about, as well as containing characters I don't care about.

This was certainly the case with Dangerous Liaisons where the characters were painfully tedious and pretentious. They were rich people with such shallow problems that they have to invent their own conflicts to be seen as remotely interesting to outsiders. But instead of interesting, they were quite boring really.

This wasn't the fault of the actors, or at least, the older generation of John Malkovich and Glenn Close. Both of the lead actors were terrific and deserve any flowers they were given. They were much better than their younger counterparts: Keanu Reeves and Uma Thurman. Both of which were such wet blankets that it was difficult to believe they would go onto dominate Hollywood in their own respective ways.

Dangerous Liaisons was also an Oscar-darling. It was nominated for no less than seven Oscars, with Glenn Close getting a nod for Best Actress, but also going onto win Best Costume AND Best production design. I cannot deny that the production itself looked exquisite from the ways to the dresses and suits - not one hair was out of place.

I never like to judge films especially period dramas, before I've watched them. That's what I did here though and my initial judgements were completely correct. 

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.