The Abyss review

 Number 709 on the top 1000 films of all time is James Cameron's science-fiction drama 'The Abyss.'

Virgil "Bud" Brigman (Ed Harris) is the foreman of the Deepcore oil rig. Joined by his estranged wife Dr. Lindsay Brigman (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio,) they and their crew are tasked with the task of salvaging a US navy submarine that inexplicably lost power and sank to the bottom of the ocean. There they find a group of alien creatures.

Intense, claustrophobic and unrelenting, the Abyss was as difficult to watch as it was to make. Shot on a gruelling schedule in awful conditions with an authoritarian dictator in James Cameron, it is no surprise that Ed Harris almost drowned and later had a nervous breakdown. On another occasion, having been pushed too far by Cameron, Mastrantonio) stormed off set. Both actors have since distanced themselves from the film. And few, if any, of the cast and crew have worked with Cameron again.

It is a shame that they were pushed so hard, because they both gave excellent performances. Their chemistry helped give this film some much-needed heart, as we watched the pair re-discover their love for each other. I just don't think they needed Cameron's tyranny to bring out the best in them.

I couldn't help but compare this film to Das Boot. It had that same claustrophobic feel from the tight camera-angles to the cramped set and dim lighting. I couldn't help but feel a little trapped myself. And, as for the scene where the divers are exploring the lost submarine, that is a hard no from me. Sure, it was intense and well-shot, but not something I would ever want to do.

The other comparison would be Cameron's Aliens. Again that is a science-fiction drama taking place in a suffocating setting. But the obvious difference is the actual aliens. In the Abyss, they are friendly, plus they looked visually gorgeous. The visuals were stunning throughout.

I have read so many horror stories about the making of the Abyss, least of all about Cameron's dictatorial direction, that I'm surprised it was made at all. He pushed his actors to their absolute limit, but was that a really necessary thing to do?

The Illusionist review

 Number 657 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2006 romantic mystery film 'The Illusionist.'

Set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, Eisenhelm (Edward Norton) is a well-renowned magician and illusionist who was separated from his love Sophie (Jessica Biel) when they were only teenagers. Now adults, he discovers she is betrothed to Crown-prince Leopold, (Rufus Sewell) heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. He starts plotting to win her back all while he is being pursued by Leopold's chief of police Walter Uhl (Paul Giamatti.)

For a romance film, I thought the romance element was surprisingly weak. Even as teenagers, I don't think Eisenhelm and Sophie had much chemistry. And this was only exemplified when the two grew up. There was a severe lack of chemistry between Norton and Biel. I didn't really believe either of them being together. And considering the film is a romance, that was a major problem. Their performances weren't convincing at all. It was boring to watch. Thankfully, the film didn't linger on the tepid romance.

Instead, it focussed on the cat-and-mouse game between Leopold and Eisenhelm. This was far more interesting. When Leopold hears of Eisenhelm's prowess, he invites him to perform at the royal palace. But when Eisenhelm discovers that the animalistic Leopold is betrothed to Sophie, the illusionist humiliates the crown prince in front of all his peers. This kicks us off a bitter rivalry between the two, as Eisenhelm and Sophie plot to leave the country.

Sewell was convincing as the spoiled, petulant prince who was always determined to have his way. He was a dangerous villain and the perfect foil to Eisenhelm's outspoken arrogance. But I think the best actor was Paul Giamatti in the supporting role of Chief Inspector Walter Uhl. Initially, starting out as an unwitting pawn of Leopold's plans, he finds himself questioning everything as Leopold becomes increasingly more unstable. Giamatti played this fine balancing act with finesse.

Also despite being about magic, I wasn't convinced about any of the magic tricks shown within the film. Compared to other films like the Prestige, the magic wasn't very impressive at all. It certainly wasn't what I would expect from a well-renowned illusionist like Eisenhelm.

Overall, while it had some good performances, the Illusionist was a largely uneven watch with an extremely weak romance. And considering the film IS a romance, that isn't the best.

Primal Fear review

 Number 615 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 legal thriller 'Primal Fear.'

Martin Vail (Richard Gere) is an arrogant Chicago lawyer who is well-known for taking high-profile cases, because of the publicity they generate. That's why he takes the case of Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) - a simple-minded 19-year-old former altar boy accused of murdering the beloved Archbishop Rushman - head of Chicago's diocese. However, Vail slowly starts to prove that Aaron is innocent. And he has to prove that in court against the prosecution led by former flame Janet Venable (Laura Linney.)

Based on the 1993 book of the same name, Primal Fear was good enough. That is to say that it is as good as legal dramas go. Legal dramas have a tendency to be overlong with too much talking and exposition. By their very nature, not a lot happens outside of a courtroom, so they're not always the most interesting to watch. And if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I don't think I would have found this film very entertaining. This was his feature-film debut and he received widespread praise for it. I may argue that he was better than Gere and Linney.

I don't think either actor was particularly bad in isolation, but I don't think they were great together. I especially didn't like the plotpoint of them having a past relationship. Vail still has feelings for Venable and tries rekindling the relationship, but is constantly rejected. It all seemed very contrived and forced to me. Gere and Linney didn't have the best on-screen chemistry. And it wasn't believable that the two of them used to be romantically involved. True, it was an obvious source of conflict, but I don't think it worked. Their shared past was left too unexplained and enigmatic. 

To Vail, their relationship was something serious, but Venable thought it was a one-night stand that happened to last for six months. Perhaps if their relationship had been left more professional, I would have enjoyed it more. Instead of romantic feelings, one of them could have done something to have professionally screwed over the other. And that would have been a better explanation for Venable's resentment for her former colleague.

And I didn't particularly like Linney's character. This is no fault of the actress, but I think that Janet Venable was overly-cold, harsh and condescending. She's not supposed to be the devil, but the devil's advocate. There were moments where she could have been portrayed sympathetically, but any of these emotional beats fell flat on their face. 

Like I said, if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I think this entire film could have fallen flat on its face. *spoiler alert* It is initially revealed that he is schizophrenic - he has an alternate personality called Roy who surfaces whenever Aaron is felt threatened. Instead of Aaron who always denied killing Archbishop Rushman, it was actually Roy. Roy and Aaron are polar opposites to each other. Aaron is shy, simple-minded and speaks with a stutter. Whereas, Roy is arrogant, violent and a sociopath. They are completely different, but Ed Norton played the double-role with aplomb. He was convincing as both characters.

Ed Norton was very much the saving grace of this film. It fell short of its massive potential. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't good. 

Enemy at the Gates review

 Number 734 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2001 war drama 'Enemy at the Gates.'

Set during the Battle of Stalingrad during WW2, 'Enemy at the Gates,' follows the sniper Vasily Zaitsev turned living legend. His colleague Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) uses Vasily as a piece of propaganda to embolden the Russian troops fighting against the Germans. One such German is Major Konig (Ed Harris) who is another sniper who embarks to kill Vasily at any costs. 

Based on a true story, although no doubt creative license was taken, Enemy at the gates received its fair share of criticism for its historical inaccuracy. I am not a historian so I cannot comment on this. However, 'Enemy at the Gates,' took a massive historical event and told it on the micro-level, delivering an entertaining and gripping narrative. Granted, it was probably overly-simplistic at times, but it was thrilling nonetheless.

Law and Harris embark on a cat-and-mouse game that always keeps the tension at a high. Both of them are such living legends that the death of either would surely tip the scales in the balance of power. there is excitement abound in the many battle sequences - this was 2001 so we can forgive the ropey CGI, but the special effects were great.

What was less great was the love triangle between Vassily, Danilov and interpreter Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz.) I understand that love stories add heart and offset the darker themes, which is all well and good, if they actually work. But this one didn't and it distracted from an otherwise good film. Danilove grows so obsessed with Tania that he has her transferred to headquarters so he can work more closely with her. And Joseph Fiennes' portrayal of him was creepy and predatory. And as for Law and Weisz, I don't think there were any sparks in between them, let alone fireworks.

Also, can we talk about the accents? Ron Perlman stars in a supporting role, playing a former protege of Konig, but he does the weirdest accent. It isn't German or Russian, but a peculiar hybrid of English and Australian. Considering, Fiennes, Law and Weisz speak in their natural accents why doesn't Perlman? Also Ed Harris does a strange accent. I don't know what it was, but it certainly wasn't German.

This film might have faltered with its oversimplified plot and faltering love triangle, but it was an entertaining film.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre review

 Number 813 on the top 1000 films of all time is the horror classic 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'

Five  beatnik, hippie friends Sally (Marilyn Burns,) Jerry (Allen Danziger) Franklin (Paul A. Partain) Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn) are on a road trip through the rural US. But their dream trip turns into a nightmare where they run into a family of cannibals led by the formidable Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen.)

I'm certainly no horror aficionado, but I have noticed that modern horror films do not hold a candle to their predecessors of the seventies and eighties. Modern horror leans far too heavily into excess. There is too much of everything. Too much gore, too much tacky CGI, too many jump cuts. It's just all blood and guts. The aim is to gross-out the viewer instead of scaring them through a slow build-up and a strong atmosphere. This is where the Texas Chainsaw Massacre excelled. It was a terrifying film because of its subtlety and understated nature.

Being made on a tiny budget, there was no money for tacky special effects or an excess of gore. In fact, the most graphic image comes right at the start. We see a grave-robber tie rotting corpses onto wooden stakes for the whole town to see. But rather than leaning into grossing-out the viewer, director Tobe Hooper patiently built up the creepiest of atmospheres. He was brilliantly selective in what he chose to show the viewer and what he with-held. We're immediately introduced to his disconcerting world when the five friends pick up a deranged hitchhiker played delightfully Edwin Neal. He had this chaotic energy that made him terrifying but compelling to watch.

Later on when the five friends unknowingly arrive at Leatherface's house, we get little snippets of what is to come. Kirk finds a human tooth that he uses to scare Pam with before he is jumped by Leatherface who appears out of nowhere. When Pam goes to investigate his disappearance, she stumbles into a room littered with animal and human remains. Leatherface then discovers her, impales her on a meathook and dismembers Kirk in front of her eyes. Yet we see precious little of the dismemberment and we don't need to. The imagery of the hidden teeth and human remains is all we need to see.

And because Hooper was so selective in what he showed us, this made his use of jump-scares all that more effective. Come evening time with all their friends go missing, Sally and Franklin, against their better judgement, start looking for them in the dark forests. Leatherface appears out of nowhere and kills Franklin with the chainsaw. This was enough to make me jump out of my seat. And this also left Sally as the final girl.  I always thought Halloween was the first horror movie to employ the final girl trope, but it looks that honour actually goes to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 

However, unlike Halloween, I genuinely did not see any way for Sally to survive. I certainly didn't think there would be any deux ex machina. Instead, she is able to run away when the cannibals start squabbling amongst each other. But this tension, as to how or even if she could survive helped keep me on the edge of my seat.

Sure, you could argue that this narrative was propelled by stupid characters making stupid decisions. We all know now that you should never pick up hitchhikers. And our heroes are literally warned away from visiting Leatherface's house. And surely if you find a human tooth on the front porch of a house then that's a good reason not to go any further. But this was the seventies after all. Just emerging out of the era of free peace and love, stranger danger wasn't a thing yet and everybody was overall more trusting of each other.

While I am not a big horror movie fan, I can certainly appreciate why this is considered a goliath of a genre. It was subtle, understated, but with powerful and terrifying performances. And it is probably the best PSA for why you should never pick up a hitch-hiker. 

A Beautiful Mind review

 Number 191 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ron Howard's 2001 Life is Beautiful. I'm going slightly out of order, as I had the chance to watch this on Netflix.

Based on the true story, John Nash is a brilliant mathematician and student at Princeton. However, his life begins to unravel when he starts suffering from schizophrenic episodes and hallucinations. Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany, Anthony Rapp, Adam Goldberg and Christopher Plummer all co-start.

I have to admit that I'm very conflicted about this film. I can see why it was so popular, with John Nash very much fulfilling the 'Overcoming the Monster' storyline. He is the likable if awkward nerd who beats his own demons to become a success, but the film wasn't for me. And maybe that's because John Nash isn't as likable as you might think. Not at first anyway. And that's down to Akiva Goldman's writing and Ron Howard's direction.

In the first act, we're introduced to John Nash and his intellectual chums as they engage in petty games to prove who's the cleverest. However, all this did was portray them as the prototypical, arrogant nerds. While there is some truth behind the stereotype, it doesn't serve to make the characters anymore likable.

This set-up consumes a good portion of the film and, by the time, we've reached the meat and bones of the film, I had almost lost interest. And if I had I would have missed a very intense second act. Nash is recruited into MIT where he is made to do trivial work that is beneath his huge intelligence. This is when William Parcher (Ed Harris) recruits him to do top-secret research for the Ministry of Defence. But, plot twist, Parcher as well as Nash's best friend and ex-roommate Charles Herman (Paul Bettany) are only hallucinations. Here we see Nash undergo severe psychiatric treatment such as ECT (how this was ever a thing, I'll never understand) until he finally accepts the reality of his situation.

This is where we see Nash at his most human rather than as the archetypal, arrogant nerd. Jennifer Connelly was great as Nash's wife, Alicia. She suffered mentally and physically all due to Nash's hallucinations. I wish the film spent more on the middle section, but as it spent too long on the set-up, it had to rush through the rest of the film.

Also, is it me or as Russell Crowe bad at doing accent? Whether it's as Robin Hood or John Nash, his accents are less than convincing.

This could have been a very powerful film, but it was let down by poor pacing and a bad structure. But what do I know? Perhaps I'm just another of these self-confessed geniuses criticising something that I don't fully understand.