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.

The Sandlot review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kramer Vs Kramer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love Me if you Dare review

 Number 535 on the top 1000 films of all time is the French romantic-comedy Jeux D'enfants or Love me if you Dare.

Eight year old Julien Janvier's (Thibault Verhaeghe) mother is dying of cancer. He finds solace in his neighbour Sophie Kawalsky (Josephine Lebas-Joly) a girl bullied because of her Polish heritage. The two of them fall in love over a series of dares they ask each other to do. These dares continue into adulthood and threaten to rip their lives apart. Guillame Canet plays the adult Julien and Marion Cotillard the adult Sophie.

This film had the artistic style of a Wes Anderson film a la Moonrise Kingdom but it had none of the heart. It had a unique colour palate and quirky cinematography but really annoying characters.

I didn'[t like either Julien or Sophie, either apart or together. As this is a rom-com, I'm expected to root for the two to get together, but I found no reason to do this. This was down to the central story of them playing childish pranks on each other. These start out as harmless, but turn into cruel especially when they affect innocent bystanders.

One prank sees them bully a classmate, another sees the destruction of Julien's wedding and humiliation of his would-be bride. It was reminiscent of Youtube pranksters causing trouble and then going "it's just a prank bro."

I also didn't understand what was keeping Julien and Sophie apart. Why couldn't they be together? They both liked each other - the actors had both on and off-screen chemistry evidenced by how they later went onto have a long-term relationship. Julien's dad never liked Sophie and thinks she is a bad influence on his son, yet he doesn't do much to stop them from being together.

Finally, can we talk about that ending? Spoilers

As the ultimate dare to prove their love to each other, Julien and Sophie voluntarily decide to be encased together in a block of concrete. Yes, you read that correctly. They chose to be buried alive in concrete. How was this romantic? This is something you would see in a horror movie. Not a romance.

I really didn't like Love me if you Dare. Tonally it was all wrong. And it was all style over substance.

Mysterious Skin review

 Number 534 on the top 1000 films of all time is the coming-of-age drama 'Mysterious Skin.'

Neil McCormick (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Brian Lackey (Brady Corbett) are two seemingly unconnected young men. However, they were both victims of CSA. The films sees them coming to terms with their childhood trauma.

Last year, I wrote two separate lists detailing the films that are too traumatic to watch again. If I were to write another list, Mysterious Skin would surely feature at the top. It was a deeply unsettling look at he lasting effects of CSA. This theme is explored within the two central characters of Neil and Brian.

Firstly, we have Neil whose experience with CSA has led him to become a hedonistic sex worker selling his body to the scummiest of men who rape and beat him senseless. Compared to his rom-com roles in Ten Things I hate about you and 500 Days of Summer, this was a sharp departure for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. However, it was also a deliberate departure as he was actively seeking more adult roles in independent films. Gordon-Levitt was great in the lead role as he brought humanity and vulnerability to an emotionally shut-down character.

On the other hand, Brian grows up believing that he has been abducted by aliens in a desperate attempt to repress the truth. Although Brady Corbet hasn't gone onto have the same momentous film career as his co-star, he was every bit as good as his Levitt especially when the truth started to become clear.

There is no doubt that Mysterious Skin is a powerful film. There is also little doubt that it is a deeply traumatic film addressing uncomfortable topics which should be discussed.

The Station Agent review

 Number 528 on the top 1000 films of all time is the comedy-drama 'The Station Agent.'

Finbar Mcbride (Peter Dinklage) is a reclusive locophile dwarf who works in a train model shop. His only friend is his manager Henry Styles (Paul Benjamin.) However, after henry dies, Finn is bequeathed a closed-down train depot he owns. Fin lives here with every idea of having a quiet life. Cue the arrival of chatty hot dog seller Joe Oramos (Bobby Canavale) and grieving mother Olivia Harris (Patricia Clarkson.) The three form an unlikely friendship.

The Station Agent was the directorial debut of Tom McCarthy who went onto direct the superb the Visitor. That was a brilliant film which told a real story about real characters. It was a funny and heartwarming tale. I would definitely recommend it.

I would recommend the Station Agent too. It contained the same style and story. You had the terrific Peter Dinklage who wanted nothing more to be left alone. Then you had Bobby Canavale and Patricia Clarkson who wanted nothing more than to be with other people. Despite all three having literally nothing in common, except for being incredibly lonely, they find a spiritual kinship with each other.

Yet the actors all had great chemistry. Canavale was likable as the chatty Joe who gradually wears down Finn with his eternal optimism while the latter starts a budding romance with Olivia. Sure Joe's optimism became a bit irritating, but he was still an enjoyable character to watch. It's amazing to think this was the same actor who later terrified audiences as the fearsome Gyp Rosetti in Boardwalk Empire. 

Patricia Clarkson, who has also had a long and varied career, was great as the emotionally troubled Olivia. She brought the damaged character to life without making her maudlin. The same can be said for McCarthy. He crafted an emotional, funny and relatable story without becoming overly-sentimental.

However, the film was far from perfect. It is short at a paltry ninety minutes. It could have used an extra thirty minutes to explore its themes and relationships in more depth. Without going into spoilers, a good example would be Joe and Fin. Despite a rocky start, the two become good friends. That is until they have a big argument and go their separate ways. That is until they have an off-screen reconciliation which didn't feel very earned.

A subplot saw Fin having a separate romance with the town librarian Emily (Michelle Williams) creating a weird love triangle between Fin, Emily and Olivia. I much preferred the Fin and Olivia storyline, as Dinklage and Clarkson had much better on-screen chemistry. It was also more consequential to the plot. I wonder if McCarthy was trying and failing to add a final spanner into the works especially when Emily's dickhead boyfriend enters the scene.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the Station Agent. It was a quiet, but powerful film about human connection and friendship with great performances from the three leads.

The White Ribbon review

 Number 508 on the top 1000 films of all time is Michael Haneke's 2009 German mystery-drama 'The White Ribbon.'

The White Ribbon is set in the fictional village of Eichwald, Northern Germany, in the eve of World War One. Here a number of strange events occur including a farmer's wife dying in mysterious circumstances, the son of the local wealthy landowner being kidnapped and tortured, as well as a barn burning down. The village's school teacher (Christian Friedel) begins to suspect the village's children are behind everything.

This might have just been me, but the White Ribbon struck me as an unintentional homage to the German Expressionist films of old. Granted it lacked the surreal landscapes that Fritz Lang popularised, but it did have that overwhelming sense of dread. Plus, there was a very bleak mystery to be solved.

Yet there was something deeply unsatisfactory about the film. Despite how the school teacher has his suspicions about the village children, nothing is ever confirmed or denied either way. Of course that's life and sometimes you never find out the answers to your questions. However, when you have a mystery as great as this, you would expect at least some attempt at an explanation.

Instead when the school leader raises his concerns to the local priest and village's moral leader (Burghurt Klausner) he is quickly ran out of town. Some suspect the town's doctor, but the film ends with no satisfactory answers. All these strange events become strange stories.

Chances are we'll never know the real reason behind the mystery. I imagine that Haneke is one of those directors who like to leave it up to their audiences to decide. I guess it makes sense that the children were the culprits, but why? That's the biggest mystery of all.

Night on Earth review

 Number 478 on the top 1000 films of all time is Jim Jarmusch's comedy-drama anthology 'Night on Earth.'

Night on Earth tells five vignettes of five taxi drivers and their relationships with their passengers all on the same night across five different cities: Los Angeles, New York City, Paris, Rome and Helsinki.

Night on Earth was a charming film that deftly navigated a number of themes including heartbreak, connection and comedy all while getting you to care about its characters in a limited space of time. Across five different short films with all different casts, we get to see what makes us different, but more importantly the same.

The first vignette focusses on LA taxi driver Corky (Wionna Ryder.) Corky is a tomboy and has no great aspirations in life beyond being a taxi driver and a mechanic. This is in contrast with her upper-class passenger, casting director Victoria Snelling (Gena Rowlands.) Despite their differences, they form a certain rapport and understanding by the end of their journey together. Victoria even wants to cast Corky in her latest film, but Corky is happy with her current direction in life. It was a nice little insight into how we work as people. Not everybody has lofty aspirations. Some people are happy with whatever they have and that's okay.

The second vignette is probably the funniest. It follows the relationship between East German immigrant Helmut's (Armin Mueller-Stahl's) first night as a taxi driver in New York. His passenger is the loud-mouthed and obnoxious Yo-Yo (Giancarlo Esposito) who startled at Helmut's seeming incompetence decides to drive the taxi instead. The two characters could not have been more different from each other yet they embodied a brilliant odd-couple relationship. Helmut was endearing and although Yo-Yo was a bit annoying at first, he ended up being likeable too.

Our third vignette takes us to Paris where after an unnamed Ivorian taxi driver (Isaach de Bankole) abruptly turfs out two rude passengers, he accepts a new fare of a blind woman (Beatrice Dalle.) It was a pleasant enough story but largely forgettable compared to the others. Although there were a few moments of humour.

The fourth story set in Rome was probably my least favourite. It focussed on eccentric taxi driver Gino (Roberto Benigni) who after picking up a priest (Paolo Bonecelli,) proceeds to make a toe-curling confession which is almost too much for the priest to bear. Although this story was played for laughs with Benigni largely improvising, I did find it far too zany and over-the-top for my tastes. Benigni was so over-the-top, he became rather annoying.

Thankfully, we had the final Helsinki storyline as a touching palate cleanser. It focusses on Finnish taxi driver Mika (Matti Pellonpaa) who relates his tragic personal history to his drunk passengers. It was bittersweet way of ending the film, but also helped to offset some of the Night on Earth's zanier storylines. It was one of my favourite stories of the five.

Being an anthology film, naturally some of the vignettes were better than others. However, I think the film worked both as a whole and individually. I definitely recommend it.

Good Will Hunting review

 Number 159 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama Good Will Hunting.

Will (Matt Damon) is an undiscovered genius with a troubled past. Instead of putting his genius to good use, he works as a janitor for MIT. That is until Professor Gerald Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgard) recognises his potential and arranges for Will to have counselling with therapist Dr Sean Maguire (Robin Williams.) Ben Affleck co stars as Will's best friend Chuckie and Minnie Driver plays Will's love interest Skylar.

In 1994, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck were struggling to break into the acting industry. They then decided to write and star in their own film. The rest as they say is history. Damon and Affleck went onto win Oscars for writing. Affleck has since gone onto win a Best Director Oscar for Argo. 

Yet the Oscars don't end there as you had the always terrific Robin Williams win Best Supporting Actor for his role as therapist Sean Maguire. Robin Williams is best known for his comedy roles but he is proven that he is equally adept at drama too. In this role, he played to both his comedic and dramatic strengths. One of the film's most famous scenes sees Maguire making Will dissolve into giggles by telling him a story about how his wife used to fart in her sleep. Matt Damon was laughing for real here as was the cameraman evidenced by how the camera shook. What made it so great was how it was unscripted.

Williams also had a great chemistry with Damon as we see Maguire become a mentor for the emotionally damaged Will. The two of them had many tender, heartfelt but also intense scenes together. Both of them were able to easily switch between comedy and drama.

Alas I cannot be so positive about Ben Affleck. I think it is very telling that he has won Oscars for writing and directing but NOT acting. I think this is because he is more wooden than your average tree. Chuckie was not an exception to this rule.

Although this is really just a minor blip in an otherwise very good film. It was funny yet dramatic with one of Robin Williams' finest performances 

The Truman Show review

 Number 303 on the top 1000 films is Peter Weir's psychological comedy-drama 'The Truman Show.'

Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) is your average, everyday American. Little does he realise that he is actually one of the most famous men in the world. He is unknowingly the star of his very own show, 'The Truman Show.' Secretly filmed since birth in a specially constructed set, Truman is loved worldwide. Yet everybody in his personal life from his wife Meryl (Laura Linney) and his best friend Marlon (Noah Emmerich) is trying to keep him from discovering the truth. Ed Harris co-stars as the show's creator Christof.

In 1998, director Peter Weir and screenwriter Andrew Niccol created one of the most relevant films about celebrity culture and reality TV ever. It's as pertinent today as it ever was in the 1990's. Just like most reality TV stars, Truman Burbank has no special talents or skills yet he is beloved by audiences worldwide. It is a great comment on the perverse nature of the parasocial relationships that audiences have with celebrities who don't even know they exist. Weir and Niccol brilliantly hit on the themes of celebrity worship in a way that saw them rightly nominated for a whole host of writing and directing awards including Baftas and Oscars.

However, a film like the Truman Show hinges on the success of its main star and Jim Carrey gave quite possibly one of his best performances. I'm always said that his comedy is over-the-top, but here he was reserved and understated. He was able to channel good physical comedy into the more dramatic role of Truman Burbank. Just like Truman endeared himself to fictional audiences, Jim Carrey endeared himself to real-life ones. But not the Academy though. He was snubbed by them when it came to the Oscars. This is made even more egregious by how Ed Harris was nominated for Christof, but Carrey would have been up against some stiff competition with Tom Hanks for Saving Private Ryan and Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful - but at least Carrey won the Golden Globe for the role.

The supporting cast were great too from Laura Linney as Truman's wife Meryl who eventually snaps after the pressure of keeping Truman from discovering the truth becomes too much to Noah Emmerich who played his best friend Marlon. Marlon was always on-hand to help defuse any situations and provide support to his best friend. Last, but not least, we have Ed Harris who excelled as the beret-wearing auteur Christof. Like too many creatives I know, he has a God complex, which Harris conveyed perfectly. After all he does have "Christ" in his name.

The Truman Show was a true triumph. It contained some brilliant social commentary and had a winning performance from Jim Carrey that perfectly blended drama and comedy.

Cabaret Review

 Number 410 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1972 musical period-drama 'Cabaret.'

Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli) is a free-spirited cabaret singer in 1931 Berlin. She forms an unlikely friendship with the upright and repressed English teacher Brian Roberts (Michael York.) Meanwhile, the shadow of Nazi Germany looms large overhead.

It's safe to say that Cabaret swept the 1973 Oscars. it was nominated for ten awards and won no less than eight including Best Score, Best Actress for Liza Minnelli and Best Supporting Actor for Joel Grey - who played the compere of Sally's club. It lost the Best Picture award to the second Godfather film.

Strangely, despite his co-stars winning, Michael York wasn't even nominated. To me, this smells like a snub as egregious as Audrey Hepburn and My Fair Lady. You'll nominate Cabaret for virtually every other Oscar going, but NOT Michael York for Best Actor? It doesn't make sense. I'm not sure he would have won - would anybody beat Marlon Brando in the Godfather, but to not even be nominated...

York was very good as the stoically repressed Brian Roberts who was slowly undone by the carefree Sally. I wouldn't describe Brian as a brutish, emotionally shutdown cinnamon swirl, but rather an uptight, stick in the mud. He is also a deeply conflicted man holding a dark secret.

Minnelli was also very good as Sally Bowles embodying the best of Audrey Hepburn's airheaded characters. However, there was more to Sally Bowles than meets the eye. All of this was played against the backdrop of the rise of Nazi Germany. We receive subtle clues, but the early brutalities of the regime were cleverly alluded to rather than being shown outright.

Musicals like Cabaret might not be for everyone - they're not for me, but the Academy certainly loved it. Just not enough to nominate Michael York for an acting Oscar...

Clerks review

 Number 421 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kevin Smith's slice-of-life comedy film 'Clerks.'

Clerks follows a day in the life of best friends supermarket cashier Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) and video shop employee Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson,) as they navigate the challenges, customers and struggles of their own personal lives.

I've been fortunate enough to have never worked a retail job. There is no shortage of stories entailing the horrors of working with the general public. It is for that reason that I failed to properly connect with this film. Not to mention, it just wasn't funny.

I had my first chuckle at minute seventeen, my second at minute twenty-nine and I don't think there was a third. If a comedy film only makes you laugh twice in its ninety-minute run time then it has failed. It didn't help a lot of the humour was immature and juvenile.

It also didn't help that the main characters weren't characters I wanted to laugh with or at. Dante is constantly bemoaning how he wasn't supposed to be working that day, but was called in to cover a colleague's shift. At the film's conclusion, Randal correctly admonishes him on his self-pitying behaviour. Yet by this time I had grown weary of both characters. Randal's immaturity was equally annoying.

If I were to say anything positive, it would be about Kevin Smith's vision. He directed, produced and wrote a critical and commercially successful film for a miniscule budget of $27,000. To cut costs, he filmed in black and white, cast his friends and set the film in the video store where he worked during the day. His efforts worked as the film went onto gross almost $4,000,000. All credit to Kevin Smith.

Clerks was not a film that landed for me. It was funny with annoying, unlikeable characters.

Hannah and her Sisters review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Head-on Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Days of Heaven review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Straight Story review

 Number 305 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's 1999 biographical road film 'The Straight Story.'

The Straight Story tells the true-life story of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) - an ailing, elderly man living in Iowa. When he finds out that his estranged brother Lyle (Harry Dean Stanton) has suffered a stroke, Alvin determines to make amends. The only problem is that Alvin can't legally drive and Lyle lives 240 miles away in Wisconsin. Alvin resolves to drive there on a John Deere tractor that travels at 5mph. Sissy Spacek co-stars as his simple-minded daughter.

It's difficult to believe that this film was directed by the same David Lynch who directed Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet. It is the least 'Lynchian' film he has ever directed, despite how he described it as his most experimental film. Although considering he is so well-known for his surrealism, anything else would be considered experimental.

The Straight Story was an intimate, quiet, but powerful film that focussed on family and community. It featured Richard Farnsworth who was absolutely endearing as Alvin Straight. Farnsworth brought a vulnerability, but also a relatability to the role. Who among us hasn't wished we could make amends with their estranged family members? Farnsworth earned his Oscar nomination. It's just so heart-breaking that a year later, a cancer-stricken Farnsworth took his own life.

Nevertheless, he left behind a lasting legacy with the Straight Story. Alvin's story was a heart-warming tale of tragedy and triumph. He is a character determined to achieve his goals, regardless of whatever comes his way.

Film critic Roger Ebert compared the dialogue to the realism that you would read in a Hemingway book. He hit the nail on the head. The whole film, particularly the dialogue, felt painfully real. And this was down to Mary Sweeney and John Roach's script. They excelled in crafting an authentic script where there was so much power in what the characters didn't say. In a particularly powerful poignant scene, Alvin swaps traumatic war stories with a fellow veteran. Much of the scene's deeper meanings are left up to the viewer to figure out for themselves. It was subtle and understated with a brilliant subtext - the same can be said for the rest of the film.

Yes, you can argue that the ending is anti-climatic, but this film epitomises the phrase: "it's not the destination, but the journey." And this film was a hell of a journey.

Duck Soup review

 Number 261 on the top 1000 films of all time is Leo McCarey's pre-code musical black comedy starring the Marx Brothers - Duck Soup.

Rufus T Firefly (Groucho Marx) has just been elected president of the country of Freedonia. However, his bumbling antics soon bring his country into conflict with the neighbouring Sylvania. It isn't helped by how its ambassador Trentino has sent his own spies Pinky (Harpo Marx) and Chicolini (Chico Marx) into Freedonia.

A common rebuttal of any criticism of older films revolves around how it was a different time and they haven't aged well. Yet Charlie Chaplin, arguably the Marx Brothers' biggest contemporary, released a number of comedies that hold up to this day. They are funny, unlike Duck Soup.

I barely laughed. If I'm being generous, I may have chuckled once or twice, but only because of how badly the film was trying and failing to be funny. Running jokes are all well and good along as they aren't done to death. Duck Soup hammered all its jokes into the ground. It was funny seeing the grand fanfare for President Firefly only to not have him appear - or it would have been if we had this joke once. Not three or four times. It became old very quickly.

And rather than a comedy film, it seemed like an eternal set-up for jokes that weren't funny and really predictable. Sure, comedies like Airplane are choc-a-block with cheesy jokes, but at least those were funny. There wasn't anything funny about Pinky squirting water at people only to have it squirted down his trousers or how he kept winding up the popcorn seller by taking his hat. Pinky's constant tooting of his horn was irritating too.

Also, what was with the weird songs? I know this was a musical, but the songs didn't seem to fit at all. They added nothing to the film except emphasising its cheesiness.

This film was only sixty-eight minutes long, but it felt so much longer due to its unnecessary musical numbers and running jokes. Was it just a different time? I'm not so sure. I think this film would have been just as unfunny in the 1930's as it is now.

Harold and Maude review

Number 255 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1971 black romantic-comedy 'Harold and Maude.'

Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is a young man who has a morbid fascination with death. He regularly enjoys staging his own suicide much to the dislike of his mother who is worried about her social status. But Harold then meets the carefree seventy-nine year old Maude (Ruth Gordon.) The two form an unlikely relationship.

I didn't care for this film at all. I did not like Harold's character. It would be fair to describe him as a nihilist. He is spiritually deadened and struggles to find any meaning in life. it can be difficult to write these characters so they're not annoying, spoiled or entitles, which is exactly how I would define Harold.

It didn't help that he had no discernible reason for his nihilism. You can argue that his relative affluence and wealth has left him spiritually deadened. The disconnected relationship with his shallow mother has probably done little to help matters. But I can't pinpoint a specific catalyst. Harold didn't have any defined reason for being so dead. Bud Cort also played the role with a smugness that made him irritating.

I also didn't like the film's depiction of suicide. It was gratuitous. Harold stages his suicide in multiple ways from immolation, to blowing his brains out to hanging and even slitting his wrists in a vivid display of red. It was all horribly romanticised. This is even more so considering how the only meaning he finds in his life is through death. His mother constantly dismisses his behaviours too; true she sends him to a shrink, but he is equally dismissive.

I would say that this film's redeeming feature is Ruth Gordon as Maude. She was enjoyable as a hedonistic, ageing hippy who gives no second though to breaking the rules. Despite how charming she was, it is difficult to deny that her relationship with Harold was weird. Director Hal Ashby always insisted that there was nothing untoward about it, but I don't agree. She's sixty years older than him. Flip the genders and see whether it's still the same.

I didn't care for Harold and Maude. Ruth Gordon was a delight, but Hal Ashby's treatment of suicide was off-putting.

Before Midnight review

 Number 245 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Lintlaker's 2013 conclusion to his 'Before Trilogy' - 'Before Midnight.'

Nine years on from when we saw them last in Paris, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delphy) are married with twin girls holidaying in Greece. However, Jesse also has a fractious relationship with his son Hank from a previous marriage. It doesn't help that his ex-wife hates both him and Celine.

What do you think of when you hear perfect film trilogies? Lord of the Rings? Back to the Future? The Dollars trilogy? The Dark Knight? I would add the Before Trilogy to that illustrious list. While it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it is a highly satisfactory end to Lintlaker's Before trilogy.

In many ways, Before Midnight is the biggest film of the three. The cast is thoroughly expanded as Celine and Jesse are holidaying with some friends. The film loses some of its intimate feel as we see the cast having extended conversations with each other, and the character dynamics and relationships take precedence over a stripped-back plot. But when you have characters and dialogue as real as you have here, this is no criticism at all.

With this installment, we see that Jesse and Celine have the most to lose. They have long left behind the honeymoon phase and are now married trying to navigate the complexities of life - least of all Jesse's estranged relationship with his ex-wife and son. Having lived in Paris for the last nine years, Celine is unwilling to give up her life to move to New York especially since Jesse's ex-wife hates her so much.

Yet such an important plot-point like this is very much left up to the viewer's imagination. The less-is-more approach has always been this trilogy's strength - it has always been light on plot, spectacle and budget, but this was too crucial of a detail to be relegated to mere exposition. The same can be said for Jesse's son Hank who, despite appearing at the beginning, never felt like anything more than a plot device.

I was also unsure about the ending. Just when it seems that Jesse and Celine's relationship might be torn apart after a terrible fight, they reconcile with Jesse making an impassioned plea that he isn't perfect and neither is their relationship, but that's just the way life works out sometimes. Considering how the trilogy has always been so big on authenticity, I was expecting something more bittersweet, but having couples make up after bad fights is just as realistic as having couples who don't.

These criticisms don't take away from what was a great conclusion to one of my new favourite film trilogies. Before Midnight was a great exploration of how the way we love can change with age. The script was as natural as ever with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy having as much chemistry as always. I was surprised to find out that there was no improvisation on set - the script was followed verbatim. Everything felt so real that I sometimes thought I was watching a documentary rather than a film.

Bugsy Malone (1976) review

 This film does not feature on the top 1000 films. It is a musical pastiche of the gangster genre with teenagers playing the role of adults. It tells the story of the titular 'Bugsy Malone' (Scott Baio) who is caught in a war between rival mobsters Fat Sam (John Cassisi) and Dandy Dan (Martin Lev). Jodie Foster co-stars in one of her earliest roles.

I would count the Godfather as one of my favourite films and the Sopranos as one of my favourite TV series. You could say I am a big fan of the mobster genre. And I am an even bigger fan of this pastiche. it lovingly poked fun at a genre that as a whole takes itself too seriously.

Instead of tommy guns, we have cream-shooting splurge guns. If you're splurged then your street cred is dead and you are no longer a gangster. It's a clever way sanitising the often gratuitous violence you often find in gangster films. Who can forget the famous scene where Sunny Corleone is massacred in a volley of machine-gun fire?

Musicals aren't for everyone - I don't always like them - but the songs in Bugsy Malone are memorable whether it is of the janitor Fizzy singing about an audition that he will probably never have or Fat Sam's henchmen celebrating being bad guys, there are plenty of great musical numbers. Considering the film is set in the prohibition/jazz era, it is only appropriate.

The teenager actors all did a good job creating strong, likeable characters. We've already talked about the two-time Oscar winner Jodie Foster, but Scott Baio, John Cassisi, Martin Lev and all the rest were great as well. Despite being primarily a comedy, there was a lot of heart and a lot of drama.

Sure, you can argue the ending becomes a bit soppy, but this is a pastiche after all. It's unlikely that we'll have a scene where all of Michael Corleone's enemies are gunned down while his son is being christened.

Overall, Bugsy Malone was a self-aware heart-warming pastiche of one of my favourite genres. It is a great family film for children and parents alike.