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 Man who would be King review

 Number 385 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Huston's 1975 adventure film: 'The Man who would be King.'

Based on Rudyard Kipling's novella of the same name, the Man who would be King follows two former soldiers in 19th century Afghanistan. Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) and Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) are two rogues seeking their fortune in Kafirstan. Telling their story is Kipling himself played by Christopher Plummer. Saeed Jaffrey and Shakira Caine co-star.

At its heart, the Man who Would be King is a cautionary tale about the dangers of greed. Carnehan and Dravot go seeking fame and fortune. They find it in Kafirstan by exploiting the fears of the locals. Instead of getting out while the going is good, they stick around as everything crumbles around them.

It's also difficult not to read this as a post-colonial narrative. The original story was acknowledged as an allegory of the British Raj. Kipling himself was born there. Carnehan and Dravot effectively colonise and take over Kafirstan by tricking, exploiting and manipulating the locals. They then both receive their just desserts.

Although they are both roguish characters, Caine and Connery played Carnehan and Dravot with enough charisma to make them likeable and entertaining to watch. Both of them have some of the most iconic voices and accents in the history of cinema.

We also can't forget Saeed Jaffrey who plays their translator Billy Fish. He received horrific racist abuse on set, but he brought a great life and energy to his role. Although he did come to an unlikely end.

The Man who would be King reminded me of John Huston's earlier 1948 effort: the Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Again, it has characters seeking fame and fortune, but are ultimately corrupted by their own greed. Originally, Huston wanted Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable in the lead roles. If they had not died years earlier, we would have had a very different Carnehan and Dravot. Thankfully, it went to two British actors which made more sense, considering the historical context.

Like the Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the Man who would be King has some brilliant cinematography and morally-grey characters. It also showcased the dangers of greed.

The Man who would be King was another John Huston success. It was a thumping-good adventure film.

The Adventures of Robin Hood review

 Number 297 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1938 swashbuckling adventure 'The Adventures of Robin Hood.'

Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) is an outlaw living in Sherwood forest while King Richard I is fighting in the crusades. In his absence, the villainous Prince John (Claude Rains) rules the country along with the evil Guy of Gisborne (Basil Rathbone) and Sheriff of Nottingham (Melville Cooper.) When the trip start exploiting the poor, it is up to Robin Hood and his merry men to save the day.

Unlike other films where Robin Hood does not speak with an English accent, the Adventures of Robin Hood succeeds, because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's complete nonsense, but that's what Robin Hood should be. It shouldn't be dour and broody like Prince of Thieves or a block-buster like the Russell Crowe adaptation. Robin Hood should be fun, gaudy and colourful and this film fit the bill perfectly.

A lot of that was down to Errol Flynn's energetic and irreverent portrayal of Robin Hood. He played the outlaw with a brash aloofness that meshed well with the light-hearted nature of the film. In many ways, it reminded me of Cary Elwes' portrayal of our roguish outlaw almost fifty years later. 

Although, reportedly, Errol Flynn was a nightmare on set, being difficult to work with and acting with a level of unjustified arrogance. Perhaps his portrayal of Robin Hood was Flynn being his usual rude self.

I've never been accused of being a SJW, but I definitely depicted some queer-coding within Claude Rains' portrayal of Prince John. I'm not sure whether this was historically accurate, but I can understand why modern audiences might find that problematic.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy the light-hearted romp that was the Adventures of Robin Hood.

Rio Bravo review

 Number 253 on the top 1000 films of all time is Howard Hawks' 1959 Western 'Rio Bravo.'

John Chance (John Wayne) is the sheriff on a boarder town who has to hold the wanton criminal Joe Burdette (Claude Akins) in custody until he is collected by US Marshals. However, Joe's brother and the rest of his gang are coming to get him back. Chance has to hold them off with the help of the alcoholic dude (Dean Martin,) the lame old Stumpy (Walter Brennan),) and the young gunslinger Colorado (Ricky Nelson.)

This film was Wayne's return to the Western genre after a dip in his career. Considering only a decade later, he won the Best Actor Oscar you could argue it was a very successful return.

But was Rio Bravo a successful film? It was watchable enough. I'm not sure whether it brought anything new to the Western genre. You had the men in white fighting off the men in black. You had the Mexican characters relegated to side parts. You had the insipid female lead Feathers (Angie Dickinson.) And you had lots of of gunfights. It was everything we've seen before. Yes, it was entertaining, but it didn't blow me away.

John Wayne was your standard, cut-and-dry hero. There was no depth to his character beyond that. The cheesy romance between him and Feathers didn't help either. And it certainly didn't help that Wayne was double Angie Dickinson's age.

The supporting cast where the film really shone. I've never seen Dean martin act before, but he was quite convincing, as the alcoholic seeking redemption. He made Dude a sympathetic character. Three-time Oscar winner, Walter Brennan brought a lot of energy and life to Stumpy. He was a joy to watch, as well as some more important light-hearted relief.

Of course you can't make a film with one of the era's biggest crooners and one of the biggest teen idols without having a scene of them singing together. While this was pretty shoe-horned in, it was still great to watch.

Rio Bravo certainly didn't bring anything new to the Western genre, but some of the supporting cast gave great performances.

True Grit 1969 Review

 Number 885 on the top 1000 films of all time is Henry Hathaway's 1969 Western 'True Grit.'

Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) is a teenage girl living in Yell County, Arkansas when her father is unjustly killed by outlaw Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey,) she enlists federal marshals Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) and La Boeuf (Glen Campbell) to bring him to justice. Accompanying them on their mission, Mattie soon forms a close relationship with Rooster and La Boeuf.

For a Western film, I quite enjoyed True Grit. This goes for both the original and the 2010 remake. Generally, I find cowboy films tedious and overly-long *cough cough* Sergio Leone, but True Grit was thoroughly watchable.

One reason was because of Mattie Ross. Just like in the remake, she was far from the typical damsel-in-distress cliche that many women of her era were relegated to, so it was very refreshing to have a character with as much agency and pep as Mattie did. She was a feisty female before that was even a thing. I do think it's a shame they gave her a tomboyish appearance though. She's a woman. Let her look like a woman. The Coen Brothers let Hailee Steinfield look feminine. Why not the same for Kim Darby?

True neither John Wayne or Henry Hathaway thought much about Darby's acting abilities, but I think that was more down to her dialogue. Her lines were so verbose and clunky, it was like she was in My Fair lady having elocution lessons with Rex Harrison. Her actions were also rash and impulsive and drove a lot of the film's conflict, but again that's more her writing than Darby's acting.

John Wayne gave a good spin as the irrascible Rooster Cogburn. It was good that he won the Best Actor Oscar. And I did enjoy his performance. He was a very likeable cinnamon swirl. Robert Duvall was also great as minor villain Ned Pepper. If anything he was better than Jeff Corey's rather simplistic performance as Tom Chaney.

Overall, I enjoyed True Grit more than I thought I would. It had John Wayne giving a great lead performance, a fresh spin on the standard female character and had that glorious cinematography that you would expect from a cowboy film.

Being John Malkovich review

 Number 500 on the top 1000 films of all time is the surrealist fantasy-comedy 'Being John Malkovich.'

Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is a down-and-out puppeteer living in New York City. He is trapped in a loveless marriage with his wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz.) When he finds work as an office-clerk, he stumbles upon a mysterious portal that leads him into the mind of John Malkovich. He discovers that for fifteen minutes a day he can literally be John Malkovich. He and his co-worker Maxine (Catherine Keener) then decide to exploit this by charging people $200 for the experience of 'Being John Malkovich.'

I have watched over 500 films on this list. I have watched comedies, dramas, musicals, romances and horrors. And this has to be one of the weirdest, zaniest, most creative films I have ever seen. It takes a simple concept, which could have easily become tedious, and kept taking it to new levels. The surrealism is what made everything so relatable. In many ways, the film is like a daydream - who hasn't thought about being a celebrity for a day? It's one hell of a vicarious thrill if completely bonkers.

Although could we expect anything less from Spike Jonze? This was the man who went onto the direct the absolutely excellent and similarly creative 'Her.' But what's most impressive is that 'Being John Malkovich' was his directorial debut, as well as the debut of Charlie Kauffman, who penned the script. Kauffman was up for the best Original Screenplay Oscar, but he ultimately lost to Alan Ball and 'American Beauty.' While 'American Beauty' is a good film in its own right, it is pretentious, and not nearly as creative as 'Being John Malkovich.' Kauffman penned a great script that didn't take itself too seriously.

But it only worked because John Malkovich agreed to star in it. Reportedly he only wanted to produce and instead recommended Tom Cruise, but Kauffman was adamant that it had to be Malkovich in the role. When the studio also suggested other actors, Kauffman stuck to his guns. This was a great decision, as the film wouldn't have worked with another actor in the role.

Cameron Diaz also really surprised me. She was virtually unrecognisable as Lotte. I have never rated her much as an actress, but she did the drama well here. And although Craig Schwartz was a slimy toad, John Cusack played the role well. He was intriguing enough to want to keep watching. He was also weak-minded enough to be influenced by the scheming Maxine who was a Lady Macbeth character of sorts. She machinates much of the film's conflict including the scheme to charge people to inhabit John Malkovich's mind.

Being John Malkovich might have been one of the zaniest films ever-made, but it is definitely worth a watch. 

Midnight Express review

 Number 644 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1978 prison-drama film 'Midnight Express.'

Based on the memoir of the same name, Midnight Express follows Billy Hayes (Brad Davis.) He is an American college student who is caught trying to smuggle drugs from Turkey back to the US. He is sent to the notorious Sagmalcilar prison where he and his fellow prisoners are routinely beaten and mistreated. Realising that he will die if he stays there, he and fellow prisoners hot-headed Jimmy Booth (Randy Quaid) and quieter Max (John Hurt) plot to try and escape a.k.a catching the Midnight Express.

My biggest problem with this film was with the protagonist of Billy Hayes. Initially, he didn't seem very likeable or sympathetic. He willingly tries to smuggle drugs; it isn't like he is forced or coerced into it. He breaks the law and he is punished for it. And we're supposed to empathise with him? It was a very strange character to have as a protagonist. It might have made more sense if he were forced into the role or if like the Shawshank Redemption, he was frame and imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. This would have certainly made him more of a likeable character.

Putting this aside, this was still a thrilling and enjoyable film, despite the odd loose end and plot hole. It was a story of redemption. There is unflinching brutality but also moments of true tenderness. I guess Billy goes through a hero-arc of sorts, yet some of the other characters are tossed aside. For example, Jimmy Booth is quickly introduced as Billy's hot-headed cellmate. After an escape route goes wrong, Jimmy is taken away to never be seen again. Although I only realised this after the film had finished. It is never explicitly stated in the film. I found it odd how we never even had one line of exposition addressing that. He was an important character.

Initially, Billy is only sentenced to three years, but fifty-three days before his release, the prosecutor successfully has his sentence extended to life. Brad goes on an impassioned rant in the courtroom where he insults everybody in sight. Surely, no judge would stand for something like that. He would have been held in contempt for court and thrown out. 

What I enjoyed most about this film was the relationship between Billy Hayes and Max. John Hurt is always wonderful in everything he's in, but he was especially good as Max. I can totally understand why he was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He brought a quietness and a tenderness to the role. It made for a refreshing change to the ongoing violence. And he and Billy become very close friends. When Billy eventually escapes, he swears to come back for Max. We don't see it on-screen, but I hope he did.

This film wasn't for me. Yes, it was powerful and touching in its own way. But too many loose ends and an unlikeable protagonist made me wish I could catch the Midnight Express out of the cinema!

The Breakfast Club review

 Number 376 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Hughes' coming-of-age comedy-drama 'The Breakfast Club.'

The Breakfast Club tells the story of five high school students from different cliques spending one Saturday in detention. Claire Standish (Molly Ringwald) is the popular, spoiled princess, Brian Johnson (Anthony Michael Hall) is an over-worked nerd, Andrew (Emilio Estevez) is an athlete and wrestler, Alison Reynolds (Ally Sheedy) is a quiet outsider and John Bender (Judd Nelson) is the rebellious delinquent. Over the Saturday, the five teenagers realise they have more in common then they first realised.

It's safe to say that the Breakfast Club has become a cult classic. A favourite of eighties' kids, I was expecting a lot, but I was left cold. It's labelled as a comedy, but it didn't make me laugh very much. In fact, it was fifteen minutes before I even cracked a smile. Perhaps that's because the beginning was slow. We're introduced to our main characters as they take their places for detention. Hardly riveting stuff. And the lack of background music made things even duller.

The cast themselves were boring. I understand that each character was supposed to resemble a different high school stereotype - the cheerleader, the nerd, the jock, the goth and the bad boy, and then as the story progresses, we see that they're more than the labels that society has imposed onto them. But it didn't help they were all so insipid  to begin with. The only interesting character was the delinquent John Bender whose behaviour is attributed to his abusive home life, which helped to give his character a bit of depth. And Judd Nelson did inject some much-needed life and energy into proceedings.

He is an agent of chaos throughout the film, harassing Claire, fighting with Andrew and convincing an unwilling Brian to smuggle in his weed. All of this culminates in an overly-sentimental conclusion where the characters reflect on how they've become such good friends in the space of a day. And as the movie ends, Allison and Andrew get together as do Claire and John, which seemed like a weird, contrived way to pair everybody off.

Is the Breakfast Club a bad film? No. But is it the 376th best of all time? I'm not so sure about that.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles review

 Number 742 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Hughes' 1987 comedy 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles.'

Neal Page (Steve Martin) is a high-strung ad-man trying to return home to New York from Chicago in time for Thanksgiving. However, after his plane is diverted due to a snow storm, he seeks an alternative way home. He is joined by the oafish, but kind-hearted Del Griffith (John Candy.) 

This was a great comedy that focussed on the age-old trope of the odd couple. Steve Martin and John Candy were absolutely brilliant together. Neal Page was the grumpy, irascible jerk playing the straight man to Griffith's funny man. And there were some great gags in this film from Page trying to bribe another businessman to use his taxi to Page and Griffith inadvertently spooning in a motel room from the two of them hitch-hiking in the back of a pick-up truck that belongs to a Southern hick in Missouri. Yet unlike with some comedies, the jokes never strayed into the predictable or cheesy territory. Part of that was down to Martin and Candy having a really great chemistry.

Yet this wasn't just a comedy. It was a film with real heart. John Hughes and the two leads did well to stop the different characters from becoming caricatures. Del Griffith was more than the lovable, fat oaf. Neal Page had more to his character than simply being an unlikeable jerk. When the two are forced to share a motel room for the night, Page tires of Griffith's slovenly habits and snaps at him. Instead of snapping back, Griffith unapologetically states that he might be a buffoon, but he likes who he is and he isn't changing. Most importantly, his wife also likes him. It was difficult not to feel for Griffith at this point. Page also realises that he has gone too far and the two reconcile. Page shows some real growth and has a great character arc.

And I did enjoy how this comedy did engage with some deeper themes. It stopped it from being a pointless farce yet it wasn't corny or sentimental either. It engaged with the film's key theme of thanksgiving. Page might have initially been very angry at being lumped together with Griffith, but by the film's conclusion, the two have become good friends. Page is thankful for his experiences. And when Griffith reveals *spoiler alert* that he has nowhere to go for thanksgiving as his wife is long dead, Page openly welcomes him into his home.

All in all, I really enjoyed this film. It was a great comedy film that had real heart. And Steve Martin and John Candy just had a great chemistry. If we celebrated Thanksgiving in the UK, I would surely be watching this every year.

A Time to Kill review

 Number 969 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joel Schumacher's 1996 legal drama 'A Time to Kill.'

Based on John Grisham's book of the same name, A Time to Kill focusses on the relationship between white Mississippi attorney Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) and his black client Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson.) After Carl Lee's ten-year-old daughter Tonya (Rae'ven Larrymore Kelly) is brutally raped and almost murdered by two racist rednecks Billy Ray Cobb (Nicky Katt) and James Willard (Doug Hutchinson.) Carl Lee takes the law into his own hands and shoots them dead. Brigance decides to defend him. He is aided by his old mentor, the alcoholic Lucien Wilbanks (Donald Sutherland) and law student Ellen Roark (Sandra Bullock.) But Brigance is up against stiff competition as district attorney Rufus Buckley (Kevin Spacey) takes up the case for the Cobb family. Billy Ray's brother - Freddie Lee (Kiefer Sutherland) also resurrects the Mississippi KKK chapter to exact his revenge on Carl Lee.

Joel Schumacher is so well-known for almost killing the Batman movie franchise with the abysmal Batman and Robin, it is easy to forget that he has made other films. A Time to Kill is one of these films. It's just as cheesy as Batman and Robin, but it is a million times better. That is a low bar and it's certainly not perfect, but it's watchable enough.

A lot of that is down to the star-studded cast. To be honest, I don't think McConaughey was anything special. Brigance is your classic, intelligent, handsome clear-cut hero - there's not much more to him than that. But I thought Samuel L. Jackson was great. He's so well known for either action roles or over-the-top, eccentric oddball, it was refreshing to see him in a more human role. He played it well conveying a brilliant vulnerability. Carl Lee is an obviously sympathetic character. His daughter is raped and left for dead. She is attacked because she is black. He only did what any father would do. Is that so wrong? 

According to Spacey, it is. Men must not be allowed to take the law into their own hands. Spacey shone, as he always does, playing a slimy lawyer, who only takes the case to build his own public profile. And he does that Southern drawl so damn well. I couldn't help but be reminded of one of Spacey's most famous roles: President Frank Underwood on House of Cards. Kiether Sutherland was also enjoyable as the villainous Freddie Lee Cobb. Hell-bent on revenge, he starts up the local KKK chapter and terrorises everybody involved in the trial. Granted all the roles I've seen Sutherland in are villains/morally dubious, but he does them well.

The only character I was unsure about was Ellen Roark. An ACLU activist and law student, she helps Brigance pro bono, so to speak. Yet she was such a poorly written character. It seemed like Sandra Bullock was only cast because she was hot and not because of her great acting ability. As she doesn't really have a chance to do much except to riffle through cabinets and have sexual tension between her and Brigance. Perhaps her character is there to tempt Brigance into an extra-marital affair and put a strain between Brigance and his wife. But these ideas never came to fruition. An affair between the two is teased, but Brigance always stops himself before things go too far. But this is never something that makes it home to his family. In fact, rather than Roark, it is the KKK leaving burning crosses outside of Brigance's home that drives a wedge between him and his wife. She and her daughter soon leave for their own safety. And so does any potential for narrative tension.

If the intention was to force some sexual tension then it failed dramatically. And if it wasn't then what was the point of the character? Why would you squander Sandra Bullock's acting ability - she is a best actress Oscar winner? Why would you put two young hot people like Mconaughey and Bullock together if they're not going to get it on? Sure, he might need a paralegal, but why does that have to be somebody like Bullock. He character seemed so contrived. Also Bullock was in her thirties while filming - too old to be playing a law student.

The ending also seemed too contrived and cheesy. Brigance *spoiler alert* convinces the jury of Carl Ray's innocence, but his method is what troubled me. He effectively tugs at heart strings rather than using the law. He asks the jury to close their eyes and to imagine the rape and attempted murder of Tonya. He ends by saying "imagine if she was white." Obviously race is a presiding issue and Tonya suffered a horrific hate crime, but as, Spacey spends much of the trial protesting, it isn't Tonya's rape that is at issue, but Carl Lee's murder of her rapists. During Brigance's impassioned speech, Spacey doesn't object once, nor does Judge tell the jury to strike it from the record. This was all too difficult to believe.

I also found it troubling that Freddie Lee and the other KKK don't face any proper consequences for their actions. Sure, we see them being quietly confronted by the cops, but nothing more. Freddie Lee left a burning cross outside of Brigance's house, he beats his secretary husband's to death, he tries to shoot Brigance and he kidnaps Roark, takes her to the woods, strips her and leaves her tied to a tree. Yet his actions are effectively brushed under the rug. All I needed was the coppers clasping him in irons and reading him his Miranda rights.

Also there was a mysterious man operating through the film. He warns Brigance's family of the burning cross through a shadowy phone call. But was the person's identity ever revealed? Was it the same man who rescued Roark or was that just a stranger?

So yes, this film is cheesy, unrealistic and relegates Bullock to playing little more than a sex object, but I do think it is well worth a watch. Look past the cheese and you'll find an entertaining and gripping thriller. Just a shame that Schumacher followed this up with Batman and Robin.

Zodiac review

 Number 640 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Fincher's mystery thriller Zodiac.

Telling the true story of the investigation into the infamous Zodiac killer, 'Zodiac' stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo. Jake Gyllenhaal stars as San Fransisco Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith and Downey Jr plays crime reporter Paul Avery. Both journalists become so obsessed with investigating the Zodiac killer that their lives quickly fall apart. Rounding out the trio is police inspector Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo.)

There's no denying the Zodiac killer has its place in the cultural zeitgeist. This film was released in 2007, a good thirty-three years after he supposedly stopped killing. Buzzfeed's video concerning Zodiac has over 15 million views. A few years ago there was even a running joke that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac killer. The Zodiac Killer is a cultural phenomenon and David Fincher capitalised on this brilliantly. Drawing inspiration from Robert Graysmith's true-crime books 'Zodiac' and 'Zodiac unmasked.' Fincher is a great thriller director, but he has a tendency to be gratuitous in his depiction of violence. Se7en is a top example of this. However, he shot Zodiac with a nice level of restraint. I thought we would be seeing Zodiac brutally torturing and killing his victims, but Fincher was far more subtle than this. 

Although what he had in subtlety, he lacked in pacing. I would argue that the film was unevenly paced. It is set between 1969 and 1991. And things move along very quickly. Too quickly, I think. Fincher would show one scene in a particular year and then move on before you have time to get your breath. You would see a scene from 1970 and then the next scene is in 1971. You don't have time to adjust to one scene before it has moved onto the next. This fast-paced nature did make things hard to follow at times. 

However, Fincher did well to always keep the suspense up. I'm not an expert on the Zodiac killer, but I know that he was never identified or caught. I was wondering how this might affect the ending. Would Fincher stay true to life or take creative license? He stayed true to life and left the identity of the Zodiac as ambiguous - although heavily implied to be the suspicious Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch,) but this could never be proved. I think if Fincher had offered a definitive solution would have been disrespectful to the real victims of the Zodiac killer. 

If anything, this film was about obsession. Both Graysmith and Avery become obsessed over finding the true identity of the killer and it costs them everything. Graysmith loses his family and Avery turns to drugs and alcohol before eventually losing his job. Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr were great in their parts. Downey Jr played Avery with the usual aloofness that he affects to all his roles, but Gyllenhaal was more understated as the quieter, socially awkward Graysmith. Although that isn't really unlike much of his other roles. But I particularly liked John Carroll Lynch who was heavily suspected of being the Zodiac killer. He played the role with an arrogance and a menace like he knew that he was untouchable. And he was. He died before he could be officially charged.

True, Fincher's pacing is uneven in places, but Zodiac is still a great thriller with genuine scares that don't lean into gory, as well as a tense plot that will keep you guessing. Will we ever find out the true identity of the Zodiac killer? I wouldn't hold my breath.

BlacKkKlansman review

 Continuing my deviation from the top 1000 films of all time by reviewing Spike Lee's 2018 biographical crime comedy-drama 'BlacKkKlansman.'

Based on a true story and nominated for the Best film Oscar, BlackKklansman follows the story of Ron Stallworth (John David Washington.) Stallworth is the first black cop in the Colorado Springs police department. He starts to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan led by David Duke (Topher Grace.) He is aided by his Jewish partner Philip "Flip" Zimmerman (Adam Driver) who attends Klan meetings while impersonating Ron.

Although BlacKkKlansman is set in 1970, it is as relevant now as it was back then. Race relations has always been a controversial topic in the USA especially in 2018. Spike Lee incorporated a lot of this cultural context into his film giving it a thematically powerful ending.  In 2017, in the wake of the Charleston Church Shooting, there were many movement to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces. One of these monuments was the Robert E. Lee statue in Lee Park, Charlottesville, Virginia. In response, a rally of alt-right and Neo-Nazis counter-protestors clashed with the protestors already there. This all culminated with one white supremacist driving his car into the crowd and killing activist Heather Heyer. I think that this context gives the film a special place in the cultural zeitgeist. This hatred is intrinsic within American culture. It always has been and maybe always will be.

However, I'm no cultural theorist or commentator so on with the review. I've watched quite a few films about race relations in the US from Green Book to the Help and Hidden Figures, which I am yet to review. And it's safe to say that BlacKkKlansman is far more in your face about its portrayal of racism. Rather than being subtle or understated, Lee goes straight for the throat. The KKK members are expectedly abhorrent especially the disgusting Felix Kendrickson, played brilliantly by Jasper Paakkonen. 

There is the showing of the racist film 'A Birth of a Nation,' liberal use of the N-word, numerous anti-semitic remarks, racist police accosting black activists and even the recounting of the horrific real-life lynching of Jesse Washington told by Harry Belafonte. All this made for uncomfortable but entirely necessary viewing. Lee brought the true nature of the 'black' experience to the forefront and forced us to absorb it whether we wanted to or not.

I have to also give full credit to lead actors John David Washington and Adam Driver, who was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. They were brilliant in their roles. Ron Stallworth initially gains entry into the klan through telephone calls alone, but when it comes to going there in person, Flip assumes this role. Despite being Jewish himself and having to endure plenty of casual anti-semitism, he quickly ingratiates himself into the group. Driver definitely deserved the Best Supporting Actor nomination. 

I am reminded of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained. Leonardo Dicaprio was initially uncomfortable with playing such an overtly racist character, but Tarantino took him aside and said that if he doesn't 100% commit to the role audiences will hate him forever. He committed to the role and was brilliant. And so was Driver. I found him very meh in the Star Wars sequels, but he was great here. This was a far more mature and developed role and very much suited Driver's talents. Mahershala Ali might have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Green Book, but Driver was just as good.

John David Washington was also great as Stallworth. He had a difficult role to play - the first black policeman in Colorado dealing with his racist colleagues while also going undercover in the clan, but he played the role of a man caught between two worlds very well. He is a black man working for the police - an institution that many of his friends and even his activist girlfriend Patrice Dumas (Laura Harrier) declares as systemically racist. 

Topher Grace and Ryan Eggold who played Colorado KKK chapter leader Walter Breachway were also great. Their more restrained but no less abhorrent racism was a nice contrast to Felix's more overt racism.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, it would be that on occasion Spike Lee chose some odd shots and some editing techniques. It was like he was trying to be all gritty and artistic, but it just came across as silly. There was the split screen at the end, where Ron was revealing his true identity to David Duke over the phone, which looked like a comic book. But the penultimate shot made me laugh out loud over how silly it looked: Ron and Patrice are investigating a strange noise outside their apartment with their guns drawn. There is a dolly shot that makes it look like the actors are floating toward the camera. It's like they're on a travelator. 

But this was a great film. Spike Lee took a challenging and provocative subject matter and put it up front for all to see. This is a film that might leave you in shocked silence or maybe it will leave you thinking. But there is no way you will  be left unaffected by BlacKkKlansman. 

The Killing Fields review

 Number 382 on the top 1000 films of all time is a biographical drama 'The Killing Fields.'

Set during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, the Killing Fields details the relationship of two journalists during the Cambodian genocide. One journalist is the American 'Sydney Schanberg' (Sam Waterston) and the other is Sydney's Cambodian interpreter Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor.) John Malkovich co-stars as Sydney's photographer Al Rockoff.

Whenever I watch films about subjects like war or genocide. I am always of the mantra or go hard or go home. The Holocaust film 'The Pianist' goes hard and it's all the better for it. However, I cam coming to believe that this doesn't always need to be the way. the Killing Fields is subtle and understated. This isn't to say it shies away from the horrors of the genocide, but it far more selective in what it chooses to show.

We see the build-up of prisoners being executed, but we never see these executions first hand. So when we do see scenes like Pran escaping his internment camp to find himself tumbling into a pit of skeletons, the impact is all the stronger. The fact these skeletons are the remains of the executed prisoners makes the image even scarier.

A recurring issue I find with films about world historical events told from a Western lens is that there is the tendency to wrongly focus on the Western character. I wouldn't go far to say there was a white saviour narrative. Sydney is no hero and definitely no saviour. When he and the other Western journalists are being evacuated home, they do all they can to take Pran with them - even going so far to making him a fake passport. When this fails, they have no choice, but to leave them behind.

Sydney later acknowledges had a chance to leave long ago, but Sydney convinced him to stay. Back in the US, Sydney uses every contact he has to find Pran, but it is Pran who escapes and find a Red Cross refugee camp near the border with Thailand. Obviously growing up in the Western world, I view things through a Western lens. And so narratives like Sydney's are very familiar to me. Overly-familiar I would say. It wasn't until halfway when the film switched to Pran in the internment camp did I start taking serious interest. Pran was an infinitely more interesting character and I was rooting for him to escape. He was also a very clever man, playing dumb when interred, as he knows he'll be killed otherwise. If he is even suspected of being a working professional then the regime would kill him.

And all due credit to Haing Ngor. Having survived three stints in Cambodian prison camps, he went onto win an acting Oscar for this role, despite having no previous acting experience. He is the only Asian actor to win an Oscar and he very much deserved it. It is so sad his life was cut short when he was killed in a 1996 robbery.

Please give this film a watch. Albeit, it is very traumatic, but it makes for absolutely essential viewing.

JFK review

 Number 306 on the top 1000 films of all time is Oliver Stone's epic political thriller: JFK.

Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is the former New Orleans district attorney. After President Kennedy is assassinated, the Warren report declares that Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) was the lone perpetrator. Garrison has his doubts and reopens the investigation. He inadvertently unearths a massive conspiracy theory. The huge ensemble cast includes Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and John Candy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a film needs a very good reason to be over three hours long. And it needs an excellent reason to be three hours and twenty-five minutes long. JFK had no such reason. it was one of the longest films I've seen and far longer than it needed to be.

It's safe to say that Kennedy's assassination is one of the most controversial topics in history. Few people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting as a lone wolf. The true perpetrators range from the mob to the CIAS to the Russians to the Cubans. Any one of these explored in isolation could have made a very interesting film, but where Stone went was how he tried to connect everything. Reportedly, he read two dozen books on Kennedy's assassination and his research team read 100-200 books. And it was like Stone tried to include every single scrap of information he could find. This made for a bloated, unfocussed film.

The supporting cast was huge and certainly could have been trimmed down. Garrison's many deputies were very similar to each other and I regularly mixed them up. Some of them were also ultimately pointless to the plot as they were involved in subplots that went nowhere. Bill Broussard (Michael Rooker) is one such deputy who becomes uncomfortable at how the conspiracy begins to implicate LBJ. He betrays his former boss by starting to work for the feds, but we never see any consequences for this.

Stone was heavily criticised for taking liberties with history. But my issue isn't so much was he included, but what he didn't, which was nothing. He included everything which was not necessary. I could have done without seeing how Garrison's investigation was affecting his family life. This would have cut the film down a lot.

And everything was slow that after a while it became very tedious. Much of the film were characters sitting in a room either quietly talking or loudly yelling at each other. As such, a lot of the supporting cast was wasted. Gary Oldman did very little as did Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. With so many famous faces, it's inevitable that you can't give them all the attention they deserve and a lot of them did fall by the wayside. Although, John Candy and Joe Pesci gave memorable performances and Costner's ending monologue was particularly powerful.

The film did have the potential to live up to its ambitious premise, but if you have to watch a film in two halves then it is too damn long.

Argo review

 Number 445 on the top 1000 films of all time is the historical, dramatic-thriller, Argo, produced, directed and starring Ben Affleck.

Based on the true story of the Canadian Caper, Argo follows CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) as he launched a daring scheme to rescue six escapees of the 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis. He is aided by his boss Jack O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston,) Oscar-winning make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and movie bigwig Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin.)

Right from the start, we knew this was going to be an intense film. Argo opens with supposed archival footage of the real storming of the US embassy in Iran. The footage wasn't real, but it didn't make it any less scary. The fear was palpable as the employees desperately shred paperwork and wait for the police who we know aren't coming. When the Iranians eventually storm the embassy, I was wondering whether they would just shoot everybody. Obviously, I know that this didn't happen in real life, but that fear was always at the back of my mind. In the chaos, six of the diplomats escape.

Enter Tony Mendez who suggests extracting the diplomats under the guise of filming a science-fiction movie called Argo and having the escapees pose as crew members. To help him, he enlists Chambers and Siegel. Goodman and Arkin played well off each other and provided a lot of much-needed comic relief. While Argo was intense, Goodman and Siegel stopped it from becoming too dark.

Everything culminates in an extremely dramatic if over-exaggerated ending. At the airport, Mendez and the others are pulled aside and interrogated by security. The Iranians call to verify their story and Chambers does so, right at the last minute. They allow the Mendez and co to board the plan, but then realise their mistake and they send the army chasing after them. Just when it looks like they could be caught, they escape just in time. Interestingly, none of this happened in real life. The employees boarded the plane at 5.30am without much incident. But I guess this wouldn't make as much of a thrilling ending.

I may argue that Affleck was better at direction than acting. Mendez wasn't a character with a lot of depth. He's your run-of-the-mill dark, brooding hero with a drinking habit, a divorced wife and a kid he sees once a year. beyond that, there isn't a lot more to him and Affleck added little else to the part.

Yes, the ending with the medal ceremony and deafening ending was pretty cheesy, but this was an enjoyable view. Just wear your seatbelts as it's a hell of a ride.

Ferris Bueller's Day off review

 Number 425 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Hughes's teen comedy drama 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off.'

Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) is a high-school slacker. He fakes illness to skip school for the day joined by his best friend, the neurotic Cameron (Alan Ruck) and Ferris' girlfriend (Mia Sara.) In the meanwhile, he is relentlessly pursued by his high school dean Ed Rooney (Jeffrey Jones) who is determined to prove that he is up to trouble. He is also separately pursued by his sister Jeannie (Jennifer Grey) who similarly believes that Ferris is faking his illness.

To say that Ferris Bueller has had a massive cultural impact would be an understatement. It's constantly parodied and referenced in popular culture. Deadpool parodying the famous end scene is just one of the million examples. Part of its cultural legacy comes from the film's intertextual humour. Ferris constantly breaks the fourth wall by directly addressing the audience and explaining his inner thoughts. This was a great insight into the character and it provided a lot of the film's humour.

But Matthew Broderick was also great at physical comedy. The famous scene of Ferris  lip-syncing and dancing in the parade was so much fun to watch. It was made even better by virtue of how that was filmed in public and contains unscripted dancing of genuine members of the public. Another great scene is when Ferris is rushing home so as not to be caught out by his returning parents.

But I think another reason it was so popular was how relatable it was. I feel at that age we all have dreams of skiving off school and getting into trouble. We all have fantasies of what we could do if we had the chance. Granted it probably wouldn't be as anything as fantastical as what we see here. I certainly would not be lip-synching on a parade float, but at least I would be out there enjoying life as a teenager rather than being condescended to by a passionless teacher. It depicts a very romanticised view of a more innocent time and it provides a nostalgic lens for modern audiences to look back on.

I just wish that we could have focussed a little more on Cameron. He was the foil to Ferris' carefree ways. Against Cameron's wishes, they drive to downtown Chicago in his dad's vintage Ferrari before leaving it with a parking attendant. Ferris promises that they'll return it undamaged before Cameron's dad even notices. We get glimpses that Cameron's dad is this hard-arse, over-bearing father who projects fear. Cameron is very wary about upsetting him. Yet we never see any of this first-hand. I think something like this could have really helped to flesh out his character, but perhaps it would have been too dark for a comedy.

But overall I really did enjoy this film. It was a funny watch and in lieu of any profound concluding remarks, I'll quote the film's key lesson "life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you'll miss it."

Halloween Review

 Number 411 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Carpenter's slasher-horror classic 'Halloween.'

In 1963 Illinois, six-year old Michael Myers stabs his older sister to death. Fifteen years later, he escapes from his psychiatric institution and begins hunting down a group of high school students including Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis.) This is all while he is being pursued by his psychiatrist Dr Loomis (Samuel Pleasence.)

There is definitely something to be said about modern horror films over-relying on tacky CGI and jumpscares to terrify their audiences. The 2018 It Chapter Two was particularly guilty of this. However, John Carpenter was far more subtle. Instead, he made brilliant use of silence and a brilliantly simple piano score to boost up the tension. And similar to what Spielberg did in Jaws, Carpenter made careful use not to show Mike Myers too much. He only appears when he is needed and yet his menace is felt throughout the film. A simple shot of him staring at Laurie by a car is far more effective than him going on a ten-minute killing rampage. 

And, of course, Mike Myers, spends the entire film in his trademark grey boiler suit and white, expressionless mask. This anonymity only made him all the scarier. It could be anybody hiding behind those clothes, even a seemingly invincible serial killer. Despite how Laurie supposedly kills him twice, he comes back every single time with a vengeance. His only weakness comes at the film's conclusion where in Laurie's desperation, she tears off his mask. He scrabbles to replace it, distracting him enough for Dr Loomis to shoot him. But not even this is enough to kill Mike Myers.

Although despite being so invincible, Mike Myers isn't the most effective of slasher horror villains. Okay, he kills his sister and Laurie's friends, but despite getting the jump on Laurie on many occasions, he botches it every single time. But how else would Halloween fit the "final girl," horror film trope? Also I'm not really sure why Myers waited right until the film's climax to try and kill Laurie, but I guess it was nice that he made sure he tried to kill her at such a pivotal moment.

Those small quibbles aside, I did enjoy this film. John Carpenter put forward a truly scary ninety minutes, not with a million jumpscares and tacky CGI, but by creating an atmosphere worthy of Halloween night.

The Thing Review

 Number 186 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Carpenter's 1982 sci-fi horror 'The Thing.'

Macready (Kurt Russell) is a helicopter pilot on an Antarctic research base. When a shape-shifting, parasitic alien attacks the research team, paranoia sets in as the men realise that any one of them could be the alien.

After my world-tour of cinema, from Serbia to Italy to Russia back to Italy to Korea and finally Japan, we are back in the States for this 80's horror classic. Although it is only a classic by modern standards. Upon its initial release, it was panned by critics with some deriding it as an Alien knock-off. While it is easy to draw comparisons between the two, the Thing is a good film in its own right.

But it isn't perfect. The cast is large and sometimes confusing. As is typical in horror films, the cast is killed off one-by-one, but I did have trouble keeping track of who was who. Every time somebody died, I had to double-check who they were and what role they played. The cast was so large that I think even Carpenter lost track of who was who. Right at the end of the film, cook Nauls (T.K Carter) goes missing. It's implied that he's been killed by the monster, it isn't specifically stated which is a dangling plot thread. It's made even more peculiar by how mechanic Childs (Keith David) also goes missing to reappear at the end - although we're not sure whether he is really Childs or not. It was a little strange that we had this certainty with one character but not with another. 

Secondly, and perhaps, I've been spoiled by modern CGI, but I'm not sure how well the special effects hold up forty years later. The various incarnations of the alien looked a little too silly to be threatening. When Dr Copper is trying to resuscitate, geologist Norris, Norris turns into the alien and bites off Cooper's arms. The fake blood was less than convincing. Later you have a decapitated head grow spider legs and some weird slug antennae before being set on fire.

However, the Thing worked brilliantly as a horror film. Rather than overly-relying on jumpscares, like many modern horror films do, John Carpenter builds tension by exploring the strained relationship of the different characters. We slowly see this group of friends turn into enemies as their paranoia consumes them. Dog handler Clark (Richard Masur) lunges at Macready with a knife and is shot dead as a consequence. Chief Biologist Blair (A.Wilford Brimley) is locked away in a cabin after he destroys the communication equipment and helicopter in a paranoid rage. 

Carpenter also balanced Ennio Morricone's original score with the use of silence. Silence is employed well in the scene where the Macready threatens to use dynamite to blow the whole base to kingdom come, after the men turn on him. This amped the tension up to no degree and a lesser director might have used tacky sound effects. But the opening scene has the film's famous space-age score which is just quiet and subtle enough to make you uncomfortable. 

I bet that the critics who initially maligned this film are now eating their words. The Thing is a definite classic of horror cinema.

Dial M for Murder review

 Number 178 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's murder mystery Dial M for Murder.

Tony Wendice (Ray Milland) suspects his wife Margot (Grace Kelly) is having an affair with American Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings.) When his suspicions prove true, he plots to have her killed so he can inherit her fortune.

Hitchcock was famously known as the 'Master of Suspense,' and his skills came to the fore in this delightful movie. This is a deceptively simple film with a limited cast and only one or two sets, yet the tension is always high. Mr Wendice is a devious character evidenced by how he blackmails Captain Lesgate (Anthony Dawson) into murdering his wife. And Ray Milland did well to make such a despicable character interesting and charismatic. Although one could argue that the film leant into an excess of exposition at times, the overly talky scenes still brimmed with tension.

However, I think the film's greatest strength was also its greatest weakness. Perhaps it was too simple. Maybe I've been spoiled by all of today's complicated crime dramas, but I was expecting more from the police investigation. Sure there was a great dramatic irony in us knowing that Wendice was plotting to kill his wife while the police were clueless, but maybe that's because the police didn't do the most thorough of investigations. Wendice may have wiped clean most of his fingerprints with his encounter with Lesgate, but he still touched the silk stockings that he used as planted evidence with his bare hands. Maybe I'm being overly critical. Fingerprinting might not have had the importance it does now.

But what did puzzle me was the final act. After Margot is sentenced for Lesgate's murder, Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) returns to the crime scene to conduct his own investigation. He then listens to Wendice and Halliday suggest their own theories. And I don't believe that any chief inspector would even consider entertaining such crazy ideas.

Finally, the backdrops for the exterior shots in Maida Vale were so obviously backdrops. I know this was the fifties, but come on.

Overall, I did enjoy this film. Sure it wasn't always the most believable, but it had a delicious dramatic irony that kept me engrossed throughout.