Elizabeth review

 Number 763 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shekhar Kapur's 1998 biographical period-drama 'Elizabeth.'

The year is 1558, and following the death of Mary I (Kathy Burke) Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) becomes the queen of England. However, her early days are met with many obstacles, least of all, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston) plotting to overthrow her, as well as pressure from her advisors Francis Wolsingham (Geoffrey Rush) and William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) to marry.

For this film, Cate Blanchett was nominated for her first of eight acting Oscars. She ultimately lost out to Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love. Many people thought Blanchett should have won instead. I haven't seen the latter film, so I can't comment, but Blanchett was impressive in this film.

It was a nuanced performance showing the slow transformation from a weak-willed queen into a powerful force of nature. When Mary of Guise stations four thousand French troops in Scotland, Elizabeth allows Norfolk to bully her into sending a conscript army of peasants to stop the French. Of course, they are all massacred.

But by the film's conclusion, she is strong enough to execute all those plotting her downfall. That isn't a spoiler by the way. Like many historical dramas, Elizabeth plays fast and loose with history, but it sticks to the fact that Elizabeth was not overthrown.

Shekhar Kapur intended the final scene of Elizabeth's would-be assassins being put to death to mirror the end of the Godfather where Michael Corleone orders for his enemies to be killed. I would also argue that in some ways Elizabeth's transformation mirrors Michael Corleone's.

Furthermore, I think that Blanchett gave a great performance in an otherwise average film. I have never been a fan of period dramas, and Elizabeth did little to move the needle. I certainly didn't find it that engaging or easy to follow. It wasn't very interesting either.

While the supporting cast were good - it was fun seeing Vincent Cassel in a more comedic role - the narrative didn't match up.

But, as is often the case, with period dramas, Elizabeth just wasn't for me.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof review

 Number 235 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Brook's drama 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.'

Based on Tennessee Williams' play of the same name, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof focusses on the dynamics of the self-destructive Pollitt family in Eastern Mississippi. Brick (Paul Newman) is a drunk, former high-school athlete who hurts himself trying to recapture his glory days. His long-suffering wife is Maggie (Elizabeth Taylor) who is still deeply in love with him, but there is still plenty of tension between the pair. There is also Harvey "Big Daddy" who is the ageing patriarch of the family. In ill-health, his other son Cooper "Gooper" (Jack Carson) and his wife Mae "Sister Woman" (Madelaine Sherwood) are desperate to be written into his will.

I am not particularly familiar with Tennessee Williams' source material. but I am given to understand that Brooks did not make a faithful adaptation. Within the original play, there was a strong homosexual subtext including an implied romantic attraction between Brick and his unseen friend Skipper who committed suicide a few years before. Due to production codes, this was largely admitted. And by production codes, I, of course, mean institutionalised homophobia. And that's ironic as that subtext was supposed to be a critique of homophobia.

But I do think that the film suffered from the omission of this subtext. Without it, everything felt very superficial and bland. And it wasn't just this subtext, but it felt like there was little behind the curtain. Being based on a stage-play, it is a small and intimate film. There is a tiny cast, although with two massive names - Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman - and the film is largely limited to the one set of the Pollitt family mansion. Obviously, I wasn't expecting a major spectacle or massive explosions, but everything still felt very lacking.

Much of the play was everybody shouting at each other, which all became rather tedious after a while. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which also starred Elizabeth Taylor, was similar, yet it still had an apparent but subtle subtext. And so there was a point to all the yelling. But there was no discernible point here. It's a shame, because it sounds like Tennessee Williams was making a great point about the homophobia of the time, yet Richard Brooks wasn't able to convey the same ideas in his adaptation, whatever the reason might be. And this ultimately diluted the potency of the film.

I can only speculate that the fault of this film lies with the actual studio or film industry itself rather than with the film makers and actors - Paul Newman was brilliant as was Taylor - perhaps if they were given a chance, they could have made a very faithful adaptation of the American classic that is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

The Next Three Days review

 Number 936 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Haggis' action thriller 'The Next Three Days.'

John Brennan (Russell Crowe) is a teacher whose wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is sentenced to life in prison for murder. He is only one who believes she is innocent and begins plotting to break her free from prison.

Paul Haggis also directed Crash. I didn't like Crash. I thought it was half-arsed and contrived. I would say the same for the Next Three Days. It doesn't just stretch my suspension of disbelief, it snaps it in half. The whole film is completely implausible.

Let's start with John Brennan who is the unlikeliest hero ever. He's a teacher. You would never believe he could stage a successful prison break. To aid him, he tracks down and consults Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson) a former convict who successfully escaped from prison. Damon Pennington helps him, because of ... reasons, before disappearing and not featuring again. John goes onto learn criminal skills like making bumper keys by watching Youtube skills. Although he has a few initial mishaps, he goes onto master these skills. This is ridiculous. You can't just master something by watching Youtube videos. It takes a lot of practice. I realise they don't have the time to show this, but they could have tried at least.

And it's unbelievable that John Brennan, a teacher who is naive enough to ask a street dealer about forging passports, and then goes onto be robbed by him, to be able to pull off a prison break. It might have been a bit more believable if Damon had physically helped him instead of offering information. I also think Russell Crowe was miscast. True his American accent was better than expected, but he wasn't believable in the role. He's an action-star who has played cops and robbers alike. He wasn't suitable as some naive teacher venturing into the world of crime.

I also thought that we were sorely missing Lara's perspective on things. One reason, I enjoyed prison drama Felon was that it focussed on the husband's life within prison and the wife's life outside of it. But this film was all John Brennan with only snippets of Lara's life. If we were going to care about her escaping, we should have seen more of her in prison. She tries to commit suicide, but we only hear about it, instead of seeing it. This scene was far more important than one of the silly, over-long musical sequences.

Also, after John breaks Lara free, he starts to be pursued by cops Lieutenant Nabulsi (Lennie James) and Sergeant Harris (Allan Steele.) Yet they only appear nearing the end of the film, as if they were an afterthought thrown in by Paul Haggis. It's very strange, as John was initially investigated by the cops who quickly dismiss him as a nutcase.

Why does Paul Haggis or his films feature on this list? Neither Crash or the Next Three Days deserves to be included in the top 1000 films of all time.

The Queen review

 Number 890 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biographical drama 'the Queen.'

Based on the true life story, 'The Queen' dramatises the events that occurred after the death of Princess Diana. Helen Mirren plays Queen Elizabeth II and James Cromwell plays Prince Philip. Together with Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) they must figure out how to deal with the Diana's death. Elizabeth and Philip want nothing to do with it, but the press, general public and prime minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) desperately want to convince them otherwise.

I have never understood this whole celebrity worship/hatred. As is evidenced from the copious amount of stock footage, the general public were devastated by Princess Diana's death. They descended upon Buckingham Palace in their thousands, left countless bouquets of flowers and queued for hours to sign a book of condolences. Thousands of people were upset over the death of somebody they never knew. Conversely, there were plenty of people who never liked Diana and were happy to see her dead. I was only two at the time, but if I was older enough to have know what was going on, I wouldn't have cared. Diana is a celebrity who wouldn't have even known that I existed. Why would I love or hate her?

Seeing as the Queen is indirectly about Diana and the love that seemingly everybody, except for the monarchy, had for her, it was difficult for me to truly resonate with this film. On a content level, I found everything quite meh, but on a technical level this film succeeded. Writer Peter Morgan could have easily fallen into a trap of painting a black-and-white picture. But he ensured that every character was nuanced and developed. 

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Helen Mirren's portrayal of the Queen. It was so good that not only did she win the Best Actress Oscar but Queen Elizabeth II herself invited her to dine at Buckingham Palace. Considering her obstinateness towards even publicly acknowledging Diana's death, she could have quite easily come across as a cliched baddie, but Mirren played the role with a great moral greyness. 

We can clearly see her moral conflict. She knows how badly Diana has torn apart her family and tarnished the royal image. She doesn't want to acknowledge her, even in death, but she also knows what her public expect of her. Eventually she bows to public opinion. I also particularly enjoyed Mark Bazeley as Tony Blair's odious director of communications: Alistair Campbell. Bazely was delightfully slimy and belligerent. But I can't fault the cast at all. From Michael Sheen to James Cromwell to Helen McCrory, they were all great.

I also liked the use of the aforementioned archival footage. It gave everything a brilliant sense of realism and it reminded us that these aren't just characters of the screen. At the film's conclusion, Michael Sheen makes an impassioned speech defending the queen against the constant barrage of criticism she has received for her reaction to Diana's death. Later on, the Queen reminds him that just as quickly as public opinion turned against her, it could just as easily do the same for him.

Although the film's content might not have resonated with me, I can recognise that it was a truly compelling narrative with strong performances across the board.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf review

 Number 194 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama, based on the play of the same name, 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?'

George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) are two squabbling, middle-aged academics stuck in a loveless, hateful marriage. After returning home from a late-night soiree, they are joined by two of their juniors Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis.) But as the alcohol begins to pour, lies become unravelled and secrets are revealed.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? I am, George. I am. No, I'm not just quoting the film's famous ending lines, but I'm referring to my own time spent in academia. At university, I studied both To The Lighthouse and Mrs Dalloway. And that's enough Virginia Woolf to last a lifetime. In some ways, this film is reminiscent of a Woolf book - low on spectacle and high on subtext.

As previously mentioned, this film is based on a play and it's easy to imagine it on the stage - there are two or three sets and only four principle parts. The action doesn't happen on-screen, but rather in the actor's dialogue. Rather than being a high-octane thriller, this is a toned-down character study. And with simple character studies, you need the best actors available. In this case, we have Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Can you believe that in all these years this is the first Dick and Liz film that I've seen?

But both these actors did the roles justice. They're both more than bitter, old academics. While there is a lot of yelling, they say far more in their silences. Both characters are hiding a big secret which becomes apparent in the film's final act. The tension is palpable throughout the film - with the junior academics as uncomfortable as any audience is sure to be. Burton gave a particularly captivating performance especially his monologue where he recounts a story of his childhood where a boy he knew accidentally killed his father in a car crash - heavily implied to be about George himself.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf isn't the easiest film to follow. It is deeply uncomfortable and demands all your attention, but its subtle script and lead performances truly earn it a place on this list.