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. 

Capote review

 Number 891 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2005 biographical-drama Capote.

Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) was an American novelist who gained fame after the release of his 1961 book 'Breakfast at Tiffany's.' After the Clutter family are murdered in their Kansas home, Capote becomes fascinated with the case, so much so, he decides to make it the subject of his next book. Together, with his friend and confidante Harper Lee (Catherine Keener,) he begins interviewing the killers Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr) and Dick Hicock (Mark Pellegrino.)

As many of you will know by now, I don't care for biopics. I find them overly-long, vague, lacking in tension and bloated e.g The Aviator or Catch me if you Can. But Capote succeeded because instead of telling his life from start to finish, it narrowed in on a very specific part, and, arguably, the most interesting part.

From the off, we are thrust into murky territory as we see our hero Capote coming to form strong relationships with Perry Smith and Dick Hicock, the longer he gets to know them. He begins empathising with them. Although he claims that he just wants to document the facts, the more he investigates, the more there is the chance that he will discover something that could exonerate the pair. Or worse, he may deliberately sabotage the case, so the pair will go free. This conflict kept things moving on nicely. It stopped things from becoming too slow.

Philip Seymour Hoffman won the 2005 Best Actor Oscar for his performance as Truman Capote. It was well-deserved, as unlike his other roles it was wonderfully balanced. We saw many different sides of Capote: the flamboyant party animal, the duplicitous liar keeping the truth from Smith and Hicock, and the quiet, vulnerable man looking for support from his friend Harper Lee.

I have yet to see Hoffman in a role that I haven't liked. Many of the characters he has played have been very sleazy. There is nothing wrong with this; he plays the sleaze well, but I was wondering if he was becoming a one-trick pony. Capote proved this was far from the case.

Catherine Keener was also good as Harper Lee, often acting as Capote's conscience, telling him what he needs to hear, rather than what he wants to hear. Clifton Collins Jr was also good, but I think Mark Pellegrino was thoroughly under-used.

Nonetheless, this film pleasantly surprised me. Who knows? I might become a die-hard biopic fan?

Blood Diamond Review

 Number 300 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2006 thriller, and one of many Leonardo Dicaprio's acting nominations, Blood Diamond.

Set in civil-war ravaged Sierra Leone, Blood Diamond brings together mercenary Danny Archer (Dicaprio,) fisherman Solomon Vandy (Dijumon Hounsou) and journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) as they all try to bring some good into the world.

I bought my a girlfriend a diamond necklace for our one year anniversary. Having seen this film I don't think I'm ever going to buy another diamond again. Sorry Sam. But this film is a damning indictment of the diamond industry and a damning indictment of colonialism in general. In 2022, the horrors of colonialism are nothing new but this film still lays them bare.

The RUF brutally chops off the hands of the Sierra Leoneans who may otherwise vote against them, but they only learned this violence from their colonial oppressors. Chopping off limbs, as is pointed out in the film, is something that started with the Belgians in the Congo. And anybody who knows their colonial history knows about the atrocities that the Belgians committed.

And right from the start, we see this savagery in the evil Captain Poison (David Harewood.) He leads a division of the RUF who massacres Solomon's village and sends him to a diamond mine. Here he find a huge diamond, but he has to quickly bury it when the army come and send him to jail. Enter Leonardo Dicaprio as Danny and also where the film misses its mark a little.

Danny Archer has debts to pay and so agrees to reunite Solomon with his family in exchange for the diamond. But with the help of Maddy Bowen, he realises that he cares about more than money. While Leo was great in his role, I would argue that the character itself was cliched. How many times we seen a reluctant hero/lovable rogue overcome their morally questionable qualities to become a bonified hero? And this is usually with the help of an attractive female lead such as Jennifer Connelly. 

And So, I think the film focussed too much on the wrong character. Because Archer is a mercenary, he is used to fighting in a warzone whereas Solomon was not. Solomon was only a fisherman desperate to get back to his family. And I think that would have made him a far more interesting character to focus upon. He would have been a true fish out of water.

And maybe that's why the film didn't quite land for me. I could see it trying to make me angry or break my heart, but while I was sad, I certainly didn't shed any tears. For what it was, this was a powerful film with great performances by Dicaprio, Connelly and especially Hounsou, there was something holding it back true greatness.