The Longest Day review

 Number 494 on the top 1000 films of all time is the epic historical war-drama 'The Longest Day.'

The Longest Day tells the dramatic story of the invasion of Dunkirk told from the perspective both the Allies and the Germans. It has a large ensemble cast with a whole host of famous stars like John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Sean Connery, Richard Burton, Robert Mitchum, Rod Steiger, Robert Wagner and Paul Anka.

There is no denying the the technical prowess behind The Longest Day. Shot as a docudrama, director Daryl F Zanuck deliberately chose a black-and-white colour scheme so he could really zero into the human element of the war. 

His cinematographers Jean Bourgoin and Walter Wottiz went onto the Best Cinematography Oscar for black and white. Znuck's special effects team led by Robert Macdonald and Jacques Maumont also won for Best Special effects. Neither of these were a surprise as the film was gripping from the outset, making a two and a half World War Two epic, a fast-paced thrilling watch. No doubt 'The Longest Day' influenced subsequent WW dramatisations like Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk or Band of Brothers.

However, while the film looked great on-screen and was technically proficient, it fell down on its character work. Like I said, it had a massive supporting cast with many of its actors like Mitchum, Connery, Fonda and Burton being rendered to mere cameos. It was less immersing yourself in a different world and more spot the famous face. There wasn't a single protagonist or protagonists that you could follow throughout the film.

Nonetheless, the Longest Day was an entertaining dramatisation of one of the most important moments of not just World War Two, but world history.

The Counterfeiters review

 Number 606 on the top 1000 films of all time is the German historical war drama 'The Counterfeiters.'

This film is based on the true-story of Operation Bernhard. During the Second World War, the Nazi's had a plan to destabilise the British economy by flooding it with fake currency. To achieve this goal, they coerced Jews into helping them - the chief among these is renowned counterfeiter Salomon "Sally" Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics.)

The Counterfeiters won the 2007 Best Foreign Language film Oscar. I can see why. It is a quiet, but powerful story about the lengths that people will do to stay alive. Sally is just one of a group of Jews exploiting their skills to save their own lives.

Plenty of questions are raised about the morality of what the counterfeiters are doing, least of all from former Nazi dissident Adolf Burger (August Diehl) who is the first to point out the relative luxury that they are living in - in comparison to the Jews not lucky enough to be in their positions.

Sally's office is at the back of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. We often get chilly reminders of how he and the other Jews are in a special type of bubble - far enough away to be protected by the Nazis, but close enough to hear how the rest of their people are being massacred. It was a clever juxtaposition which reminded us that horror was never far away.

The different prisoners all have their own reasons to submitting to the Nazi demands yet they all felt human and believable. This is especially true of Sally who very much eschewed your standard hero archetype. Despite Burger's many attempts to spur him into rebelling, he stubbornly refuses. He's more interested in his own self-preservation. Considering his circumstances, who can blame him?

I do think that the film could have used an extra ten or fifteen minutes to wrap up the ending, as everything was rushed. Otherwise, this was a quietly powerful about a little-known part of the Second World War.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God

 Number 326 on the top 1000 films of all time is Werner Herzog's epic historical drama 'Aguirre: The Wrath of God.'

Aguirre (Klaus Klinski) is a soldier who is marching through the Andes Mountains in the search for the legendary lost city of El Dorado.

While the soldiers were looking for El Dorado, I was looking for an interesting film to watch. As Aguirre was boring with a capital B. It is low on action and high on characters staring into space saying nothing.

I understand this was partly down to Herzog's tiny budget. He couldn't afford any big action scenes. Fair enough, but the constant monologue and philosophising became tedious after a while. It hardly made for the most exciting of cinema.

It was also difficult to empathise with Spanish conquistadors who not only massacred all and enslaved the indigenous populations, but were so stupid they took horses and cannons into the jungle.

Reportedly, Klaus Klinski was an ogre on set, constantly coming to verbal blows with cast and crew. But he brought none of that energy to the role of Aguirre. I expected him to have a larger-than-life persona, but instead he remains in the background, simply pulling the strings, like a puppet-master who hides behind the curtain, because he's afraid to see his audience. He did not make for an interesting protagonist.

Finally, the crew also had trouble recording the sound, so much of the dialogue had to be dubbed. While this couldn't have been helped, it was not a good dub, and it was distracting.

I really did not like this film. It was a tedious affair with stupid characters and a boring protagonist.

Doctor Zhivago review

 Number 316 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lean's epic historical-romance 'Doctor Zhivago.'

Doctor Zhivago (Omar Sharif) is a physician during the Russian revolution. Although he is married to Tonya ( Geraldine Chaplin,) he soon falls in love with Lara (Julie Christie.) When the civil war tears them apart, fate throws them back together again.

We have returned to my favourite genre of film: period/historical dramas. That was sarcasm. As you know well by now, I hate period dramas. They're just so boring.

Doctor Zhivago wasn't quite in the top ten films to put you to sleep - that honour goes to Gone with the Wind or even David Lean's other historical epic 'Lawrence of Arabia - but it was still pretty close. Biopics or character dramas like Doctor Zhivago tend to be vague and unfocussed. They tell far too much story in far too much time.

Doctor Zhivago was no exception tot his. It introduces Doctor Zhivago and we follow him through his life until *spoilers* his death. Surely, some of this could have been edited out. Then the film wouldn't have been over three hours long. It had no business being that long. Never mind bloated, this film was so pregnant, it was about to give birth.

Having said that, Omar Sharif was very good as our titular protagonist especially when the Communist protestors are massacred by the mounted Cossacks. He can only watch in horror, as his people are mown down.

Doctor Zhivago also won five Oscars including best cinematography, art direction and costume design. These were well-earned as the cinematography was brilliant especially all the desolate, Russian landscapes. The costumes were also brilliant. You can see how hard they tried to get everything right.

That notwithstanding, I didn't enjoy Doctor Zhivago. It was a bloated, over-long affair.

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.

Ben-Hur review

 Number 203 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1959 biblical epic Ben-hur.

Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) was once a noble Jewish man who finds that Ancient Roman is quickly turning against the Jewish people. When Judah refuses to swear allegiance to the new Roman commander and his childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd,) he makes an enemy of the Roman people. Later on, to seek redemption, he escapes from slavery and becomes a champion charioteer. Meanwhile, a new religious leader is making waves as he begins preaching across the Roman empire.

Ben-Hur? A cinematic masterpiece? Or a four-hour snooze-fest? I'm tempted to say the latter. It wasn't completely boring, but it dragged on. Maybe I'm just a philistine, but why does a film need to have a six-minute overture? Or an intermission? We're not at the theatre. Any film that has to be cut into half is too damn long.

Obviously the Academy didn't agree with me as they awarded Ben-Hur with eleven Oscars including Best Picture and Best Actor for Charlton Heston. This was a puzzling choice for me as his range was incredibly limited. It was like William Wyler had directed him to be either angry or bitter with nothing in between. He reminded me a lot of Clint Eastwood who I've always thought was a better director than an actor.

The plus side of historical epics like Ben-Hur is that the set production is always on-point. Two big examples come to mind. The first is when Ben-Hur is serving on the slave-ship that is then attacked by Macedonian pirates which leads to his escape. The second is, of course, the famous chariot race scene that employed thousands of extras. Both of these looked great on-screen.

Ben-Hur wasn't a particularly awful film. It was watchable enough despite its unnecessary length and Heston's wooden performance.

Lust Caution review

 Number 699 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ang Lee's erotic, period-war drama 'Lust Caution.'

During the second Sino-Japanese war, Wong Chia Chi (Tang Wei) is a naive Shanghainese student going to study in Hong Kong which is currently being occupied by Japan in 1938. There she joins the patriotic drama club led by Kuang Yumin (Wang Leehorn,) but soon they decide to make a more meaningful contribution to the war by proposing to assassinate collaborator and puppet leader Mr Yee. Wang (Tony Leung Chiu-Wai) is drawn into a world of lies and conspiracies, as she is at the centre of a honey trap to catch and kill Mr Yee.

Lust, Caution begins in 1938 during the Second Sino-Japanese war before continuing to 1942 Shanghai where part of China were under Japanese occupation. It was very interesting seeing another side of the Second World War. Naturally, many WW2 films in the West focus on WW2 in the West. But there was a whole other war going on in the east. And that isn't something that is really talked about enough. It made a refreshing change to all the Nazi Germany/holocaust films I've watched.

In some ways, this film reminded me of the Dutch film Black Book. Lust, Caution also had morally grey characters conflicted by their own emotions. This created a great dramatic tension that progressed the film nicely. You are wondering when Kuang's plan is going to go wrong. But guessing where and how is what kept me hooked. The production was brilliant as well. From the costume to the set design, I really felt like I was in 1930's Hong Kong/1940's Shanghai.

But, of course, we have to talk about what the film is famous for and that's the sex scenes. It is an erotica after all. Unlike virtually all other sex scenes in films, these actually served the plot and weren't there for pure titillation. To get close enough to the ultra-careful Mr Yee to actually kill him, wang agrees to become his mistress. Initially, she is a virgin, but one of her comrades takes her virginity in an awkward encounter, very befitting of the context. It is the later scenes with Mr Yee that become passionate and steamy. So steamy that the actors themselves were asked if the sex was unsimulated.

The initial sex scene demonstrated Wang's nervousness, but she grows in confidence, as she becomes more committed to her cause. In may ways, it's a theme of female empowerment. In the initial scene, she has her power taken from her, as was China's when Japan invaded, but she slowly takes it back in the later scenes.

This was a very good film. It focussed on a lesser-known part of history with a great parody element. It's probably just best not to watch this with your parents.

October Sky review

 Number 493 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joe Johnston's biographical drama - October Sky.

Based on the true story, October Sky follows four teenage boys in Coalwood, West Virginia, who after being inspired by the Sputnik launch, decide to enter their county's science fair with their own rocket programme. The group is led by Homer Hickham (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is assisted by his friends Roy Lee Cooke (William Lee Scott) Sherman O'Dell (Chad Lindberg) the nerdy Quentin Wilson (Chris Owen) and their teacher Miss Riley (Laura Dern.) However, the group faces stiff resistance especially from Homer's father John (Chris Cooper) who is adamant that his son follows in his footsteps of working in the local coal mine.

Since starting this challenge, I have always tried to refrain from comparing films. I believe you should judge each film in its own right. But a comparison here would be appropriate. The last film I reviewed was the Breakfast Club. But where the Breakfast Club failed, October Sky succeeded as a great coming-of-age film. It had heart, drama and plenty of laughs.

Our group of boys faced innumerable challenges, but they resolve to never give up and eventually achieve their dream. And in the process, they all grow up. It is quickly established that the most common career path is to work in the coal mine, but Homer refuses to accept this. This steely determination made him a likeable protagonist. Even when it looked like all hope was lost, he continued working toward his dream.

And Jake Gyllenhaal did the part justice. This was his first leading role and he displayed an impressive maturity for such a young age. His tension with his father was one of the driving conflicts behind the film. And Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper are very good together. Sure their relationship borders on the melo-dramatic - especially nearing the end, but it was no less effective. In essence, it was a clashing of generations - the old man bound by tradition and the young buck wanting to make his own way.

All in all, I did enjoy this film. It balanced humour with heartbreak. And, no doubt, it was a major contributor to Jake Gyllenhaal's current status as one of Hollywood's leading men. 

300 review

 Number 513 on the top 1000 films of all time Zack Snyder's historical, action film '300.'

Based on the historical events, 300 follows King Leonidas (Gerald Butler) leading his 300 strong soldiers in battle against the Persian King-God Xerses (Rodrigo Santoro.) Fiercely outnumbered, Leonidas and his soldiers are determined to fight with everything they have.

300 strongly reminded me of a sword-and-sandals version of Braveheart. You had your dodgy history, your cheesy dialogue, your dodgy accents and plenty of blood and guts. However, what's important to remember that, first and foremost, 300 and Braveheart are films. They're films designed to entertain and not documentaries designed to inform. So it wouldn't really be fair to judge the films on their historical accuracy. Also 300 was inspired by Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name. Just like Snyder, Miller embellished history to tell a better story. Snyder also utilised a special chroma key technique to represent the graphic novel's visual style. Granted the film isn't the most believable at times, it definitely isn't something to be taken seriously.

That notwithstanding, I do think you can legitimately criticise the film for its pacing. It was just so damn slow. Away from Leonidas, there are a lot of dialogue-heavy scenes between Lena Headley and Dominic West. And even though there were plenty lots of action/battle scenes which you would think would speed things up, this was immediately undermined by the gratuitous slow-motion. We saw some exciting action sequences that became boring when they were slowed down. There's only so many times we can see Leonidas or one of his generic minions cutting off a Persian's head or impaling them on a spear in slow-motion.

The cheesy dialogue did not do anything to help speed things up either. Just as it looks like things might get going, the plot is slowed down with some verbose, corny monologue. These monologues were mostly delivered by Gerard Butler in an attempt to psych up his troops. But he also had plenty of cheesy and unnecessary one-liners. Yet a lot of the dialogue was over-written. It could have been pared down immensely. 

The supporting cast were all very indistinguishable at all. I did struggle in telling who was who. Yes, they were all soldiers and dressed the same, but even so I think they could have been better characterised. Even though there were some famous faces like Michael Fassbender or David Wenham, it was hard to tell one Spartan from another.

Speaking of David Wenham, he plays Dillos - the only survivor of the attack and also the narrator of the film. I really feel like we could have done without the narration. At times, it did help to elucidate what was happening, but mostly, it seemed like a massive engine for exposition. And this constant, non-stop exposition killed the pacing time after time. Dillos was generally telling us things that we already knew or that we could infer from the context. It just wasn't necessary most of the time. 

Also the CGI was just awful. All of the backgrounds and the monsters looked so fake. I can only assume this was intentional, but I'm not sure why.

300 is an enjoyable enough film. Yes, it is cheesy, slow and historically inaccurate. But you have to remember it is only a film at the end of the day. Watch it for its entertainment factor and you won't be disappointed. 

Hotel Rwanda review

 Number 169 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2004 drama Hotel Rwanda.

Hotel Rwanda tells the real-life story of Paul Rusesabagina (portrayed by Don Cheadle) and his wife Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo). Paul is the manager of the Hotel Des Milles Collines during the Rwandan genocide. He becomes a reluctant hero as he and his family begin sheltering Tutsi refugees against the Hutu militias who want to kill them all.

Claudia Puig of USA Today described this film as an African Schindler's List - a comparison that was running through my mind as well. Like Oskar Schindler, Paul Rusesabagina, despite being Hutu and in a position of respect and influence, does everything in his power to protect the oppressed Tutsis. However, unlike Schindler's List and The Pianist which detailed an unflinching portrayal of the Holocaust, Hotel Rwanda is far more understated. While sometimes it is better to depict a genocide in all its atrocious detail, at times it is also better to leave more to the imagination.

Throughout Hotel Rwanda, we hear a lot about the machetes that the Interahamwe militia use to kill the Tutsi, we don't witness any of these executions ourselves. Instead we hear the victim's screams or in a particular chilling scene, upon negotiating with Interahamwe leader Georges Rutaganda for supplies and refusing his offer to give up the Tutsi he is harbouring, on Paul's journey home, he finds that the road he and his traitorous receptionist (more on this later) Gregoire are driving on is uneven and bumpy. However, due to a fog, they are unable to see anything. Upon leaving the van, Paul is horrified to see that they have been driving on a road of bodies. I found this to be a far more subtle and sensitive way to depict the horrors of the genocide.

But, also importantly, the film focused on the plight of those left behind. While the UN is present with its peacekeeping force, their orders are to only evacuate foreign nationals i.e anybody who isn't Rwandan. The local church with its white missionaries arrive to be evacuated but their Rwandan congregation is refused entry. In a film, littered with heart-breaking scenes, this was the scene that told me that Hotel Rwanda is too upsetting for me to watch ever again.

Joaquin Phoenix and Nick Nolte also star in supporting roles, Joaquin Phoenix as photojournalist Jack Daglish and Nolte as UN Colonel Oliver respectively. And while both men were only in supporting roles, they were some of the best characterisations within the film. Daglish is disgusted by a massacre that he films and the fact that he cannot do anything to help these people. Paul reassures him that when Western audiences see his footage, they will be moved to take action. Daglish disagrees with him, proclaiming that "they'll say that's disgusting and carry on eating their dinners." 

Truer words have never been spoken. Speaking as one of these privileged Westerners in my proverbial , ivory tower, it's difficult for me to truly connect with the struggles of these people as I am so far removed from them. And I think the same goes for lots of Western audiences. How many times have you seen a charity advert for starving African children and gone "oh that's awful. I can't imagine what that's like" before continuing on with your day? My answer to that. More times than I can count.

Nolte also bought a great humanity to the character of Colonel Oliver. In what could have easily been a generic army grunt, I truly felt the inner conflict that Oliver was feeling. Having connected with Paul and seen the horrors first-hand, he desperately wants to help them but his hands are tied by bureaucracy. Overworked and understaffed, I truly felt his frustration at his superiors who could not care less about the plight of the Rwandans for the sole reason that they're black. And I don't mean to be provocative, but truthful. Although interestingly Senator Romeo Dallaire, whom Oliver was based on, has always been a vocal critic of the film's historical accuracy.

And of course we have to applaud Don Cheadle who received an Oscar nod for his portrayal of Paul Rusesabagina and deservingly so.  He was playing a man who had to survive in an impossible situation, and not just survive, but keep his Tutsi family alive, keep running his hotel, fend off the Interahamwe and look after the 1000 Tutsi refugees that he is harbouring. And that is exactly what he did. He managed to get every single one of those refugees to safety. I just wish that Sophie Okonedo had more to do. She is a great actress and I think she was short-changed in this film. Okonedo was great in the parts that she was in and was deserving of her Oscar nod, but her part could have been more interesting.

All in all though this was a brilliant film that broke my heart and made me cry many tears. Just don't ask me to watch it again. My heart couldn't take that.