Ten films that should have been included on the top 1000 films of all time

 IMDB's top 1000 films of all time covers ninety-four years of film from Charlie Chaplin's 1925 The Kid to Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley's 2015 Vacation. Of course, it cannot include every film ever made, but I do think there are some egregious omissions. Considering there are at least thirty films that do not deserve to be on this list, I'm going to propose ten films that could take their place. This list is in no order, but chronology.

Bugsy Malone (1976)

If there's something that IMDB loves, it's both gangster films and musicals. The Godfather, Sweeney Todd and Les Miserables  all feature on the famous list. Bugsy Malone combines these two genres in a heart-warming pastiche of the mob films of old.

It tells the story of Bugsy Malone (Scott Baio) who is caught in a war between two rival gangsters. The film is notable for how it cast teenage actors in adult roles - like Jodie Foster in one of her earliest roles. Sure it gets a bit cheesy at the end, but so does Argo and that won the Best Film Oscar, despite lacking so many of the brilliant musical numbers Bugsy Malone has.

1984 (1984)

This is a film that needs no introduction. Considering how IMDB seems to love dystopia films, with Twelve Monkeys, Dark City and V for Vendetta all placing on the list, I don't understand why 1984 wasn't even mentioned.

1984 and its associated ideas of double speak and Big Brother have long entered the cultural lexicon. The film stars John Hurt as Winston Smith and Richard Burton, but I still don't understand why it wasn't included. It can substitute Brazil. At least 1984 actually has a point.

It (1990)

This adaptation of Stephen King's horror epic was actually a two-part TV film, so I guess that's why it didn't appear on IMDB's list. Yet I still think it deserves a place.

You could certainly argue that it might seem dated by today's standards, but Tim Curry's villainous performance as Pennywise the Clown was a lot scarier than the excessive gore, CGI and jump-cuts that dominate horror today. Best of all, it isn't nearly as long as Stephen King's 1000 page source material.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

NBK was highly controversial on its release. Some were critical of its extreme depictions of violence, while its distinctive visual style probably did nothing to help naysayers. Even writer Quentin Tarantino has since disowned this film.

But I think those who hated this film have missed its key idea. Director Oliver Stone was criticising the true-crime phenomenon that fascinated society even in the 90's. He was making the point of how the media irresponsibly glorifies criminals, which is as true back then as it is now.

Some love NBK. Some hate it. I loved it and I think it deserved a place on this list. it could easily replace Field of Dreams. At least NBK has something to say.

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (2002)

Relax, fan boys. The prequels aren't as bad as you say. As long as you don't take them too seriously, they're good fun to watch. And Attack of the Clones has plenty of fun, action sequences to carry it through.

Yes the dialogue is pretty bad with the characterisations being very thin, but how does this make it any different from any of the other Star Wars films?

The other films (sans Phantom Menace, obviously) appear on this list, so why not Attack of the Clones too? At least there isn't a Death Star where the villains were so stupid the designed it with a giant hole - a plot chasm so great, they had to make a whole film to fix it. May the force be with you.

Three and Out (2008)

I must be the only person who would put this on a top 1000 film list. This British black tragicomedy was panned by audiences and critics alike.

But I loved it. It was equal parts hilarious and heart-breaking with great performances from Mackenzie Crook, Colm Meaney, Gemma Arteton and Imelda Staunton. It was a film severely hurt by a disastrous marketing campaign.

Some might say this is a terrible film, but so is Running Scared and the Boondock Saints and they still featured on the list.

The Road (2009)

The Road is a bloody depressing film. Perhaps that's why it didn't feature. But Blue Valentine is equally depressing and that still featured. The Road is another adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy book featuring a father and son traversing an apocalyptic wasteland. Yes, it is downbeat and frustratingly vague, but it is still a powerful tale of hope and redemption.

No Country for Old Men - another Cormac McCarthy adaptation - placed at number 204th. Why wasn't the Road included too?

Carrie (2013)

Remakes are rarely a welcome sight among audiences. Most see them as shameless cash grabs, as was the case with the 2013 remake of Carrie.

But I'm going to be controversial and say that Carrie deserved its place on this list alongside the 1976 original. For one, it has a more faithful representation of Carrie, and two it has the excellent Chloe Grace-Moretz taking over from Sissy Spacek.

Despite what some critics have said, there are also some genuine scares too.

Whiplash (October 2014)

Whiplash received critical acclaim. It was won a whole host of awards including multiple Oscars. JK Simmons won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as a tyrannical music teacher. it was directed by Damian Chazelle who two years later won a Best Director Oscar.

So why wasn't this film included on IMDB's list? I am absolutely baffled. It is a brilliant film - yes the ending doesn't make sense, but neither does The Hunger Games and that was still selected over Whiplash. Why?

Big Hero 6 (November 2014)

Frozen was a Disney film included on the IMDB list. Big Hero 6 was not. Frozen was picked over Big Hero 6. FROZEN!!! Big Hero Six was a fantastic film that had one of the cutest Disney protagonists since Wall-E. It had gorgeous animation and perfectly balanced humour and heartbreak. I can't think of many other films that make me cry from both laughter and sadness.

Have I missed out of any films? Let me know your thoughts below.

It review (1990 mini-series)

Review for It

SPOILER ALERT

We’ve come to another adaptation of Stephen King’s work.  As I’ve read ‘It’ and I've heard that the adaptation is supposed to be great, I thought I would it a go.

‘It’ is set in mostly Derry, Maine and in two different timelines, one in 1957 and the other in 1984.  The 1957 timeline follows the protagonists’ narrative as children.  There are seven protagonists: Bill Denborough (Richard Thomas,) the stuttering leader of the group, the fat but good-hearted Ben Hanscom (John Ritter,) the asthmatic Eddie Kasbarak (Dennis Christopher), the wisecracking smartarse Richie Tozier (Harry Anderson,) the sceptical and rational Stan Uris (Richard Masur), the only girl in the group Beverly Marsh (Annette O'Toole) and the only black member of the group Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid).  

These seven children do battle with the child-eating, inter-dimensional monster known as Pennywise the Clown or It (Tim Curry).  When they fail to kill Pennywise in 1957, they return in 1984 to do battle once again.  One prominent subplot also sees them facing off any times with the neighbourhood bully Henry Bowers.  Henry serves as a human and therefore more relatable, but no less psychotic antagonist.

‘It’ was released as a two-part TV movie, each part being 90 mins long.  Seeing as the book is over 1000 pages long, I would argue that this is a reasonable length for a film, which they achieved by cutting out some unnecessary secondary characters and some lengthy character development.  I’m glad they did this, as I thought the book had far too much backstory for its characters and I got very bored reading through parts of it.  The film also worked well as a horror.  It did well in, rather than showing the murders themselves, it showed the effects on those left behind.  Pennywise has the powers to shapeshift into a character’s biggest fear or make them see what they fear most.     The film depicted these different images very well, which all added to the scariness of it.  I also quite liked the child cast, although it was weird seeing Seth Green, who played the young Richie Tozier, as a sixteen year old.

However, the film missed out a couple of important scenes that featured in the book.  The first focuses on Beverly in the 1984 timeline.  In this timeline, she is married to the abusive and possessive Tom Hagen.  When she tells Tom, she wants to return to Maine, they get into a bloody and physical fight with Beverly being the victor.  In the film, this is mostly omitted, which I didn’t like, as in the book we see Beverly’s inner strength and power as a character, which isn’t conveyed in the same way within the film.  

The second scene focuses on Mike Hanlon’s past in 1957.  Within this scene, Mike’s father tells him how he and some of his friends created a club that was originally just for black people, but soon expanded to encompass all races, but the club was burnt down by white supremacists.  I felt that this really highlighted the racial prejudice that black people experienced at the time and by omitting this scene, I felt that the film glossed over this issue.  

Tim Curry was also good as Pennywise the Clown. Sure, you could argue he was a little over-the-top, but it worked. There's a reason why Pennywise is considered one of the scariest film villains ever.

And the less said about Bill Denborough's ponytail, the better. 

Overall, this was an enjoyable film.  It was certainly very creepy and horrific and for the most part, it was a faithful adaption of the book it was based on.  However, I felt that the filmmakers could have been a little wiser in the scenes that they omitted. That notwithstanding this film brought us one of the scariest villains of the 1990's.