Dead Man review

 Number 531 on the top 1000 films of all time is the acid Western 'Dead Man.'

William Blake (Johnny Depp) is a 19th century timid accountant who accidentally kills a man. He is forced to go on the run. While a fugitive, he befriends Nobody (Gary Farmer) an enigmatic Native American who believes that Blake is the reincarnation of the famous poet of the same name.

After Down By Law and Night on Earth, this is the third Jim Jarmusch film that I've seen. Although Jarmusch rejects the idea of being an auteur, I can't think of a better description of his films. They are always on the weird side with a healthy slice of surrealism. Dead Man was no exception.

Just like his third film Down by Law, Dead Man was in monochrome. This feeds into Jarmusch's minimalist style, but also removes any distraction for the audience. Instead their focus is purely on the characters led by the accountant William Blake played by Johnny Depp.

In many of his films, Depp plays an oddball character in a normal world. Here the inverse is true. Depp plays the relatively normal William Blake in a strange world full of strange characters such as the very surreal Nobody. It was enjoyable seeing Depp in a fish out of water role even if it wasn't one of his most memorable performances. Farmer was also enjoyable as Nobody.

Jim Jarmusch, perhaps because he is a musician himself, is well-known for casting musicians in his films. Johnny Depp also has an accomplished music career while Tom Waits has appeared in a couple of Jarmusch films. But as well as having music royalty appear in his films, he also has them provide scores. The brilliant Neil Young composed a largely guitar soundtrack that fitted the film perfectly.

Dead Man was an enjoyable film. It was surreal and strange with an interesting lead performance from Johnny Depp.

The Full Monty review

 Surprisingly, this British comedy isn't on the top 1000 films of all time, but it is one of my favourites, so here's my review.

Gary Schofield (Robert Carlyle) is an unemployed former steel-worker in Sheffield. He is behind on his child support payments. If he doesn't pay £700 soon, he will lose custody of his son Nathan (William Snape.) Desperate for the cash, Gary and his best friend Dave (Mark Addy) recruit four other former steel workers to form a striptease act. The four others include the suicidally-depressed Lomper (Steve Huison,) Gaz and Dave's former foreman Gerald (Tom Wilkinson,) the ageing Horse (Paul Barber) and the well-endowed Guy (Hugo Speer.)

Like I say, I was surprised to find that this classic British-comedy doesn't feature on the top 1000 list. it was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, it won the Best Picture Bafta and it was voted twenty-five on the Best 100 British films. But beyond that it is a phenomenal film full of humour and heartbreak. It is one of those rare films that will have you crying tears of laughter and sorrow.

To fully understand the Full Monty, you have to understand the social context. It is set in Sheffield - the home of Britain's steel industry. Once a thriving city, it was absolutely destroyed by deindustrialisation. Whole generations of male steelworkers found themselves unemployed overnight. Struggling to find other work, many of them lose all hope for the future, just like Gary and Dave.

The Full Monty brilliantly captured the alienation that this generation must have experienced. In a mere ninety minutes, we received a stark picture of how badly these men have fallen. Once heroes of their community, they were reduced to mere shells of their former selves. I visited Sheffield a few years ago and I don't think that even twenty years on it has fully recovered from deindustrialisation.

The cast were magnificent without any weak links. Robert Carlyle, one of Scotland's best actors, was utterly magnetic as the roguish Gary. Yes, he is a petty criminal, Jack-the-Lad type, who isn't the best father to Nathan, but he is still incredibly endearing to the viewer. Like many of us, he isn't perfect, but despite his flaws, he still wants the best for his son. Carlyle quite rightly won the Best Actor Bafta for his performance.

But he can't take all the credit. Mark Addy was also brilliant as Dave. To some extent, Addy provided a lot of the film's comic relief, but he also proves a lot of heart. For Dave is a character with a lot of self-loathing. He is a fat man - an aspect of himself that he absolutely denies. His efforts to accept himself provided one of the film's best subplots. And his final reconciliation with his wife Jean (Lesley Sharp) still makes me cry even all these years on. Dave's character is definitely one of the best depictions of male body image that I have seen on-screen.

Coming in next is the terrific Tom Wilkinson (RIP) who played Gary and Dave's former foreman Gerald. Being their old boss, he is of a higher social standing and has some of the most to lose out of being given the sack. Or at leas the will do if he ever tells his wife about what had happened. Instead, he decides to keep it a secret for six months. One of his best scenes is his fiery confrontation with Gary and Dave after they sabotage his interview.

Despite being a comedy it tackles a number of difficult subjects like body image, masculinity, suicide - through the character of Lomper - homosexuality and fatherhood. And it tackles all these themes with the necessary gravitas and humility. Our six strippers go through so much trial and tribulation that you are really rooting for them. Director Andrew Johnson did well to pack all this into ninety minutes.

Lastly, we need to talk about the soundtrack. It was a mixture of original score and some of the best disco hits of the seventies and eighties. Minus the Gary Glitter hit, every song fitted each scene perfectly. As for the original score, it netted composer Anne Dudley a well-deserved Oscar.

I loved the Full Monty. Even though, IMDB didn't rate it, I would definitely count it among my top ten films of all time. The setting, the characters and the music all came together to make a film that I could watch over and over again.

Of Mice and Men (1992) review

 Number 730 on the top 1000 films of all time us Gary Sinise's 1992 drama 'Of Mice and Men.;

Based on John Steinbeck's story of the same name, we watch George (Gary Sinise) and his intellectually disabled friend Lenny (John Malkovich) try to find work during America's great depression. They then find work on a Californian ranch.

The reputation of this film precedes it. Many English school children study it for their GCSEs. I've never read it, but I knew the story and the ending. However, this didn't make things any less tragic. Where Gary Sinise succeeded was by taking a well-known story and distilling it to its base elements. Naturally, things were changed, but the core story remained the same.

It can't be easy both directing and starting in the same film, but Gary Sinise succeeded there too. George had to play a fine balancing line between looking after the emotionally immature and fragile Lenny, but also appeasing his new employer, more, in particularly, his nasty son Curly (Ray Walston.) The film also looked great, as Sinise captured the remote Californian landscape.

But I think the true star was John Malkovich who played Lenny with a great vulnerability and a great humanity. In many ways, Lenny was a gentle giant who didn't know his own strength.

I already knew how his story ended, but that didn't make it any less sad to see on-screen. And that was down to Malkovich's performance and Sinise's direction.

The Fifth Element Review

 Number 669 on the top 1000 films of all time is Luc Besson's 1997 science-fiction action film 'The Fifth Element.'

Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis) is a former army major and now taxi driver in 23rd century Earth. He receives an unexpected fare when Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) falls through the roof of his cab. It is revealed that she is the fifth element needed to safeguard the survival of the human race against an evil alien entity hell-bent on destroying the Earth. It's up to Dallas to bring her and the four other elements together before the planet is attacked. Ian Holm, Gary Oldman and Chris Tucker all co-star.

Luc Besson had a very specific vision when he created The Fifth Element. Rather than emulating the dingy, techno-dystopias of Blade Runner, he wanted a bright, vibrant and colourful world. That's why The Fifth Element has such eye-popping visuals and off-beat humour. In many ways, it seemed like a low-budget, science-fiction B-movie. Even for the 90's the special effects didn't look great. 

Rather than being depressing and downbeat, everything was over-the-top. And that's why I didn't like the film very much. Bruce Willis was just Bruce Willis. Korben Dallas was not unlike John Mclane - just another wise-cracking ex-military guy who becomes an unlikely hero. He certainly didn't bring anything other than a cheesy energy to the part. I don't think he had much chemistry with Milla Jovovich. 

And if we're talking about cheesiness, let's mention Chris Tucker. His performance has been divisive to say the least. Some critics liked him others hated him. I am in the latter category. He was so over-the-top to be completely annoying. Every time he was on screen I rolled my eyes. His character was just ridiculously loud and obnoxious. I guess he was supposed to be a comic relief character of sorts, but I didn't find him very funny.

I was also very disappointed with Gary Oldman. He played the film's villain Jean-Baptise Emanuel Zorg - an industrialist pawn working for the entity that wants to destroy Earth. But Oldman wasn't particularly villainous or scary or malevolent. He had no threat to his character. Perhaps that was because of how he spoke with a rather inconsistent Southern American drawl or he was just as over-the-top as Chris Tucker. It was very difficult to take Zorg seriously as a villain. His performance was a far cry from his excellent effort in Leon: the Professional - also directed by Luc Besson.

The film's saving grace was Milla Jovovich who was very charming as the eponymous fifth element Leeloo. She brought a great chaotic energy to the role, as well as a lot of humour. And unlike Chris Tucker, she was actually funny.

Overall, I wasn't impressed by the Fifth Element. From its b-film visuals to its over-the-top performances, it wasn't for me at all.

Kung Fu Panda 2 review

 Number 962 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Stevenson's sequel to the original 2008 animated wuxia film Kung Fu Panda.

Po (Jack Black) now a respected Kung Fu master is called upon to defeat the peacock Lord Shen (Gary Oldman.) Lord Shen aims to dominate ancient China by using the newly-discovered gunpowder as a weapon. This could spell the end of Kung Fu. Meanwhile, Po starts to learn more about this mysterious past.

What can I say about this film which I haven't said about its predecessor? The animation was gorgeous. And the score was superior. Po remained a goofy yet sympathetic protagonist thanks to Jack Black's performance. James Hong, who plays Po's adoptive father Goose, was also great. As Po's adoptive father, he is very protective of his son. And he is naturally worried when Po goes off on his adventures. This concern was touching to see. One heart-twinging moment was when Po, just about to leave to defeat Lord Shen, reassures Goose that he'll be back before he can say noodles. As Po is leaving, Goose mumbles 'noodles' to himself. I'm not ashamed to say that I nearly cried.

Gar Oldman was also great as Lord Shen. He helped to bring the peacock to life with his borderline over-the-top performance, reminiscent of his villainous role in Leon the Professional. He made Lord Shen a far more memorable villain than Tai Hung.

John Stevenson also changed direction in this film choosing instead to take a darker tone. Nowhere is this more evident than when we learn more about Po's past of which I won't spoil here. Yet he also stayed close to the roots of kung fu films. From the wuxia films that I have seen, I have observed that they always champion the art and prowess behind kung fu. It is a source of national pride. Having this pride threatened with the invention of gunpowder, the tension and stakes went right through the roof.

Unfortunately, Kung Fu Panda 2 shares the same failures as its predecessor in its under-utilisation of its considerable cast. Despite starring in major kung fu films, Jackie Chan and Michelle Yeoh were majorly neglected.

That notwithstanding, I did enjoy Kung Fu Panda 2. It holds the rare title of being just as good as its predecessor. 

High Noon review

 Number 195 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fred Zinnemann's 1952 Western 'High Noon.'

Marshall Will Cane (Gary Cooper) is ready to hang up his hat following his marriage to Amy Fowler (Grace Kelly.) However, he learns that Frank Miller (Ian Mcdonald,) an outlaw he put away, has been released and is coming for revenge. Will Cane must choose between running away with his new bride or standing and fighting.

I've never been keen on cowboy films. Westerns have never been something I've found engaging, so it's difficult for me to review this fairly, but I shall try. Honestly, I just found this film to be boring and generic. There was never any drama or tension. It was obvious that Marshall Will Cane would stay and defend his town. And that he would fight the outlaws alone after trying and failing to raise a posse.

This causes a problem with his Quaker and pacifist wife who threatens to leave without him, but jumps off the departing train at the last minute. All rather predictable. Grace Kelly did the best with what she had, but Amy Fowler was just a product of the female characters of her time - little more than inconvenience for the male protagonist rather than a character in her own right. Although I will admit that I did enjoy seeing her pick up a gun and shooting one of the outlaws. That was a nice touch of agency.

Gary Cooper won the Best Actor Oscar for this role. But I am at a loss to why. He has a reputation for being the strong, silent type, which I think is code for a big, block of wood. And that's exactly what he was, but, then again, I don't think the role of Will Cane afforded him a lot of opportunity to be anything else.

While some people might love Western and Cowboy films, they've never been for me. 

The Hunger Games review

Although the Hunger Games is not on the top 1000 films of all time list, its sequel Catching fire is, so it was only logical that I went back and watched the original first.

The City of Panem holds annual Hunger Games contests where 2 members from each of the nation's 12 districts are selected to fight to the death. 24 enter but there can only be 1 winner. When Katniss Everdeen's (Jennifer Lawrence) sister is selected, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Competing along aside her is baker's boy, Peeta (Josh Hutchinson.) Woody Harrellson, Elizabeth Banks and Donald Sutherland all co star.

To preface this review, I have not read the Hunger Games books so my comments are based on the film alone. Although this film is 10 years old with the books being even older, I've never had any interest in the Hunger Games. Having finally watched it, I can understand why. It was like watching Young Adult fiction. During the whole film, I was asking "is this it?" By " it, " I mean a film with a half-baked romance, generic villains, an undeveloped cast and a plot holier than swiss cheese.

One thing that irked me through the whole film is that there are no guns. I didn't get it at all. This isn't a medieval fantasy; it's a futuristic dystopia where they have genetically engineered wasps, tracking implants and holographic interfaces. The tributes are fighting to the death in a televised tournament. Wouldn't it increase the entertainment factor if they had guns too? It would definitely raise the tension especially if some tributes guns and some didn't.  But would that make things too easy? I don't think so. Katniss would have some big obstacles to overcome if she has a bow and arrow and her opponents have guns. Even when Rue dies and her district riots, the riot police don't use guns. They use water cannon. It doesn't make any sense. 

Speaking of Rue, she was an example of the severely underdeveloped supporting cast. She had the potential to be a really interesting character if she wasn't on screen for fifteen minutes. She saves Katniss from the Careers and the two ally with each other. Ten minutes later, she dies in a trap set by the leader of the Careers, Marvel. Her death causes her district to riot. Do I care? I should do, but I don't. Later on, when Katniss is being attacked by another of the Careers, Clove, Thresh saves her life. Thresh is also from Rue's district and killed Clove to avenge Rue. He then dies off screen. Again, I don't care.

Then we come to the group of tributes called the Careers - AKA, cliched public school bullies. Marvel, Clove, Glimmer and Cato ally together because they're the biggest and the strongest. But they were all too meh to present any real threat. While they all die one by one, they were too indistinguishable  for me to tell them apart or to care about their deaths. Plus calling the strongest, fastest and most handsome tribute 'Marvel' is way too on the nose. To be honest, the only interesting, well developed character was Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a previous winner and mentor to Katniss and Peeta. He begins as apathetic and jaded but soon starts to care about his trustees.

I would argue the premise of the film was flawed. Katniss only becomes tribute because she volunteers to take her sister's place, but what if she wasn't allowed? What if this was against the rules? What if Prim had to fight anyway? We wouldn't have a film then. Although the Gameskeeper Seneca obviously don't care about breaking rules. They throw in lots of curve balls to make things more interesting. And by interesting, I mean stupid. Katniss spends the first part of the tournament hiding at the edges of the arena. To drive her into action, Seneca starts a forest fire. Katniss is driven up a tree by the Careers who camp underneath, prepared to wait her out. she is only saved when Rue points out the nest of genetically engineered wasp nest hanging from a tree branch over them. Katniss breaks the branch and the wasps kill Glimmer.

 Thresh later dies when the organisers release some demonic big cat things. Sure this creates more drama and tension, but it's also stupid. Fire is fire, Wasps are wasps. Big cats are big cats. They don't know who they're killing. What if they kill all the tributes? Then there wouldn't be a champion. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) explains the reason they do the contest is so that the people will always have a spark of hope. But what hope can they have, when they know that the odds will never be in their favour? President Snow was obviously supposed to be the big bad villain but he was too underused to be any real threat.

And we come to the god-awful love story between Peeta and Katniss which had all the foundations of a lean-to shelter. In flashbacks, we see Peeta giving Katniss some bread. In a pre-tournament interview, Peeta confesses he is in love with Katniss. She angrily dismisses this as a shallow attempt to appeal to sponsors. When in the tournament, Peeta allies with the Careers and leads them straight to Katniss. But after the wasp attack, he joins Katniss after seemingly betraying her. I say seemingly as it's never explained why he joins the Careers and Katniss accepts this without question. It's not even just an acceptance...she falls in love with him. And they kiss! He could have got you killed, Katniss. And the less said about the Romeo and Juliet ending the better.

The Hunger Games was also criticised for its camerawork and it was pretty awful, especially the shaky-cam. In the film's final fight between Katniss, Peeta and Cato - one of these bland Careers, the camera moves around so much, I can barely tell who is who - not that I care much.

I am sure that this review will earn me the ire of Hunger Games' fans, but here's hoping Catching Fire will be better. May the odds ever be in my favour. Humph. Not bloody likely.