The Reader review

 Number 708 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2008 romantic drama 'The Reader.'

The film opens on an adult Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes) is waking up with a younger woman. The film then flashes back to 1958 Berlin where we see the 15-year-old Michael (David Kross) embark on a steamy affair with the mysterious, far older Hanna Schmidt (Kate Winslet.) After a summer of romance, she vanishes only to resurface years later on trial for being an SS officer during WW2.

Many stories often fall victim of 'sagging middle-part syndrome - the beginning and the ending are exciting, but things fall apart in the middle. However, I would argue that the ending is where the Reader fell flat. Things were gripping and intriguing right until the final act. We are immediately introduced to the enigmatic Hanna Schmidt. We know that there is more to her than meets the eye, but her character is kept in the shadows. 

But this mystery is what kept me watching until the second act where we finally learn Hanna's mysterious past. Hanna was an SS guard standing trial for letting three hundred jews die in a burning church. Michael, now an aspiring law student, and present at the trial for his learning, is heartbroken by this. However, the tension remains high as Schmidt desperately tries to explain her actions, before eventually admitting her complicity in the crimes. She is sentenced to life.

This would be all well and good if the film ended there, but there's still whole other act and there is little reason to watch it. by this final act all of the narrative tension had dissolved and the stakes had fallen through the floor. We see Hanna in prison, but she seems to have a relatively easy time of it - she doesn't get into any fights with the other prisoners nor does she seem guilt-stricken about what she's done. We're also given to understand that Michael has become estranged from hisw ife and daughter, but we're not given much about this estrangement - except for some vague notion he is still hung-up on Hanna.

David Kross gave a great performance as the young Michael taking us through a wide range of emotions. Apparently he learned English especially for this role which is very commendable. Kate Winslet won the best Actress Oscar for her role. She was good, but I'm not sure her role was quite Oscar-worthy.

Although this film starts well and continues strongly, it was sorely let down by its disappointing and anti-climatic ending. Unfortunately it was sunk by its denouement. 

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 Hurt Locker review

 Number 667 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kathryn Bigelow's war drama 'the Hurt Locker.'

Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner) is the new team leader of a U.S Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit during the Iraq War. However, he is also a maverick and renegade, often playing by his own rules. This soon puts him into conflict with the rest of his team, most notably, his second-in-command Sgt. J.T Sanborn (Anthony Mackie.) Chris Carmago, Ralph Fiennes and Guy Pearce all co-star.

When Kathryn Bigelow won the 2008 Best Director Oscar, she made history by becoming the first woman to have done so. I would argue it was a worthy win. Within 'the Hurt Locker,' she portrayed a harrowing, nuanced and gritty portrayal of war. This wasn't an overly-simplistic "Americans are good and rest of the world is bad," it was far more complicated and realistic than that. Part of that realism comes from how 'the Hurt Locker' was shot in Jordan - close to the Iraqi border. Reportedly, she had wanted to film in Iraq, but it would have been too dangerous. Although, the cast and crew were shot at on multiple occasions, so ... but by filming on location, Bigelow brought a brilliant authenticity to the film. This wasn't just some Hollywood sound stage, but a reality for the many poor people who live and suffer here. 

As is inevitably the case in war films where all the characters are dressed alike and there are lots of explosions and gunfire, things do become chaotic and confusing. But, as such, is the nature of war. It's a frenetic and hectic environment where danger lies around every corner. This type of high-octane risk was enough to keep me glued to the screen.

Although, I would question the nature of James' character. Renegade, mavericks who don't play by the rules maybe great characters with lots of agency who push stories along, but I wonder how realistic they are in real life. Surely, in high-discipline environments like the military where obedience is key, a character who constantly breaks the rule would never be allowed to thrive like James does. Every decision you make not only impacts whether not only you, but also your teammate, come home alive or in a body bag. Okay, so James is good at his job and always gets results, but he is repeatedly putting his comrades in danger. James repeatedly clashes with Sanborn. And later, James' reckless actions lead to one of his men becoming badly hurt and having to be airlifted home. These rogueish actions might make great watching and great conflict, but I don't think it's realistic at all.

The film ends with the conclusion of James' rotation where he returns to the US and struggles to adapt to civillian life. There is a gulf between his wife and daughter, and he quickly decides to return to Iraq. This was such an important theme to explore, but I feel it was a little short-changed. So many veterans struggle to reassimilate to everyday life as they don't receive the support they need. It's horrible to see. However, I don't think this was explored in enough depth. We didn't see enough of James' family to feel any type of emotional connection. I cared about him as a soldier, but not as a family man. Bigelow didn't give me enough to care about. Perhaps if the film was book-ended with scenes of his wife and daughter, things might have been better.

Nevertheless, this was a taut and gripping war drama that earned Kathryn Bigelow a well-deserving Best Director Oscar. And congratulations for being the first woman to receive that illustrious prize.

In Bruges Review

 Number 352 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Mcdonagh's black comedy thriller 'In Bruges.'

When a hit goes awry, Irish hitmen, Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell) are ordered to lay low and await further orders from their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes.)

Do you think that sounds like a strange premise for a film? You would be right. In Bruges was strange and surreal, but it worked. Everything came together to create a film with off-beat humour and real heart.

And this heart is manifested in Ray portrayed brilliantly by Colin Farrell. On Ray's very first hit, he is sent to kill a priest but accidentally shoots a little boy. Having broken a cardinal rule, he is sent to Bruges where is harrowed by his demons. He constantly hallucinates the little boy and is consumed by his guilt. Farrell brought a real vulnerability to the role and left me feeling very sorry for a hit man - a person who by definition isn't very nice.

Ray is little more than a big kid, completely disinterested in the culture that Bruges has to offer - he is much more interested in drinking and snorting cocaine with a dwarf who advocates a race war. And yes you did read that correctly. But questionable racial politics aside, Ray's youth and immaturity is what makes him so endearing. Yes, he made a fatal mistake, but does he not deserve a second chance?

Enter Brendan Gleeson who as Ken serves as the moral compass of the film. It is revealed that Harry has sent them both to Bruges so that Ken can kill Ray for breaking the rules. After much deliberation, Ken decides to do so, only to change his mind at the last minute when he sees Ray is suicidal. Instead he helps his friend escape. In the inevitable final showdown with Harry, Ken sacrifices himself to save Ray.

Gleeson and Farrell played off each other well with their characters being polar opposites. Ken is patient and wise, but Ray is the young upstart. Ken loves the history of Bruges. Ray does not, but despite their differences the two men share a camaraderie that drives the film forward.

Finally, we come to Ralph Fiennes who plays the comically villainous Harry. Regardless of whether Fiennes is playing a Nazi, an evil wizard or a delusional serial killer, he always blends into his roles. This was role was no exception. Harry is a ruthless crime boss who would sooner blow his own brains out rather than betray his principles. Yet Fiennes also brought a lot of humour to the role. In one of the film's funnier moments, he rants to Ken about his disbelief at Ray not appreciating the culture that Bruges has to offer.

All in all, this was a highly enjoyable film. Darkly funny, but with a lot of heart. If you're looking for something unique, In Bruges is the film for you.