Lucky Number Slevin review

 Number 504 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul McGuigan's 2006 neo-noir thriller 'Lucky Number Slevin.'

Slevin Kelevra (Josh Hartnett) is a victim of mistaken identity. Believed to be his friend Nicky, he is thrust into a war between two mob bosses - the Boss (Morgan Freeman) and the Rabbi (Ben Kingsley.) This is all while Slevin tries to evade the ruthless hitman Goodkat (Bruce Willis.) Together with the love interest and coroner Lindsey (Lucy Liu.) Slevin has to survive however he can. But all is not what it seems.

The general problem with the noir and, by extension, neo-noir films is that they are so overly-convoluted. The Big Sleep is notorious for its incomprehensible plot. Lucky Number Slevin is no exception. Major spoilers lie ahead.

Things are all relatively straightforward until the film's conclusion where everything is explained in the most complicated way possible. Slevin has actually been playing both mob bosses against in each other. This is to take revenge for how they murdered his father when Slevin was a child. To top everything off, a corrupt cop Brikowski (Stanley Tucci) murdered Slevin's mother. And, of course, he is the cop investigating the Boss and the Rabbi. Naturally he comes under Slevin's radar too.

This was a contrivance too far. I don't see why they had any reason to connect Brikowski with the main pot. it was all so unnecessary. Plus Slevin was supposed to be killed at the same time at his parents. Carrying out the hit was none other than the ruthless Goodkat who spares Slevin as he is a hitman who has suddenly developed a conscience because of ... reasons. And then Goodkat becomes a mentor to Slevin helping him to take revenge.

And despite having some major acting talent, Kingsley and Freeman are both Oscar winners, none of the characters were particularly memorable. Maybe that's because the characters weren't particularly memorable.

Although the mistaken identity element did produce some funny parts earlier on, the overall convoluted plot and one-dimensional characters made this an unenjoyable watch.

Black Hawk Down review

 Number 571 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ridley Scott's 2001 war film 'Black Hawk Down.'

Based on true events, Black Hawk Down is set during the Somalian civil war. A group of American soldiers are sent to extract the top lieutenants of the Somalian dictator Mohamed Farrah Aidad from the capital Mogadishu. But the extraction goes wrong and the soldiers are left fighting for their lives. The massive ensemble cast includes Josh Hartnett, Ewan Macgregor, Ewen Bremner, Eric Bana, Ioan Gruffard, Orlando Bloom and Tom Hardy.

The problem with war films is that the characters always look the same. It is so difficult to tell them apart. Obviously, that comes with the territory, but other films and directors have done a much better job in distinguishing them than Ridley Scott does. True, he did choose to write the character's names on their helmets, but it was still difficult to tell who was who. Part of that was down to the sprawling cast, but also a lack of a clear protagonist.

Josh Hartnett received star billing, so I guess he was the main character, but there were so many other characters with so many storylines that they were all overshadowed by one another. They were all fighting to be noticed, but they all failed dreadfully. And that led to an overlong, bloated film which lost narrative direction. At times, it seemed like Ridley completely forgot about some of his characters and plot points.

Orlando Bloom plays raw recruit Todd Blackburn who is desperate to start fighting. He is due to drop into the city, but when his helicopter has to dodge an RPG, he tumbles to the ground below. A massive effort is made to rescue him, but what happens after isn't focussed on at all. Another soldier Michael Durant (Ron Eldard) is captured by the Somalians. Yet we only find out through a line of exposition at the film's end that he was released after ten days. Hell, the whole point of the mission was to capture Aidad's lieutenants and bring them out safely. But even this central plot point was left by the wayside. Ridley Scott set up so many storylines, but he forgot to finish them satisfactorily.

Instead any storyline takes a backseat to the action. Due to the army's mantra of leaving no man behind, the soldiers aim to rescue every single one of their fallen comrades (except for Durant who was mostly forgotten about) this includes the troopers inside the Black Hawk helicopters which are downed by RPGs. Yet the rescue effort goes awry as the soldiers quickly find themselves overnumbered. Cue endless gunfights and explosions. The action is fast, frenetic and chaotic. It doesn't let you catch your breath, so you're left blankly watching the screen asking 'what the hell is going on?' Ridley Scott was obsessed in creating a spectacle, he forgot to include any story.

Black Hawk Down was also criticised for its portrayal of the Somalian population. I would echo this criticism. The Somalians were generic, two-dimensional villains with no depth or clear motivations. I'm sure if Ridley wasn't so concerned with the gunfights he could have created a memorable villain, but he didn't.

*Spoilers* the film ends with a group of a soldiers running to safety from the crash site to a safe zone - something that has retrospectively been called the Mogadishu mile. They all make it safely. I know this was based on real life, but I found it hard to believe that the Somalians allowed them to do this in peace.

It's hard to believe this is the same man who created Alien - a masterpiece of horror and science-fiction. But Black Hawk Down was certainly no masterpiece. It was an overlong, monotonous affair with too many characters and paper-thin villains.

No Country for Old Men review

 Number 204 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men.

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is a Vietnam war veteran and welder who stumbles upon a big bag of drug money in the desert. He takes the money in the hopes of giving him and his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Mcdonald) a better life. However, he is being hotly pursued by mysterious hitman Anton Chigurin (Javier Bardem) who leaves a trail of chaos in his wake. Investigating this is local sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Woody Harrelson co-stars as a bounty hunter who is also tracking down Chirgurin.

Since I started this challenge, I've watched a fair few films by the Coen Brothers and they all contain the same offbeat, surreal humour. At times it did make things funny and at times it was tiresome. I was glad that No Country for Old Men was far more straightforward. It was more of a neo-western/thriller rather than an off-the-wall comedy. Everything was direct and easy to follow. Chigurin made a scary villain and I do think Bardem deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar. I loved the cinematography that was reminiscent of the old Spaghetti Westerns; the sweeping shots of the desert were great to see. You felt the isolation of all the characters. They were in this expanse all alone. Nobody was going to help them.

But despite all that, the film felt lacking. I was expecting so much more, but I was left short-changed. And I think that's because the film never really provided closure on anything. Our hero Llewelyn Moss dies off-screen. He isn't even killed by the bad guy, but by a Mexican drug cartel. There is no build-up and no payoff. He's our protagonist - the main character and he doesn't even have the dignity of an on-screen death. Sure, kill him off, but show it to us. He doesn't even have a confrontation with Chigurin. The sheer psychopathy behind Chigurin's character made him frightening to watch, but we don't even get to see him have a showdown with Llewelyn.

I was also sorely disappointed with Woody Harrelson's contribution. It looked like the film was setting up a confrontation between he and Chirgurin. And while the two meet, it's hardly the most thrilling of encounters. And shortly after, Chigurin kills him. Harrelson felt very underused.

But, perhaps this is supposed to be the point of the film. Times have changed. The days when films provide you closure and wrap everything up are long over. This is no country for old men, but also not a country for reviewers who like all their films neatly wrapped up with a pretty pink bow.