The Untouchables review

Spoilers ahead 

Number 355 on the top 1000 films of all time is Brian De Palma's 1987 crime film 'The Untouchables.'

The Untouchables tells the true-life story of Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) a prohibition agent who forms a team of untouchable, incorruptible men to bring down the era's biggest gangster and bootlegger Al Capone (Robert De Niro.) Ness' team consists of the veteran Irish-American cop James Malone (Sean Connery) young hot-shot George Stone (born Giuseppe Petri - Andy Garcia) and accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith.)

Firstly, let's address the Sean Connery in the room. Despite Malone being an Irish-American character, Connery's accent is neither Irish nor American. Like he does in every other role, he stubbornly played the role with his native Scottish accent. This was quite distracting to say the least, but what else can you expect from Sean Connery? He won the Best Supporting Oscar for his role and, despite the accent, I think it was a well-earned win. Malone acted as a mentor-cum-father figure for Ness helping to coach him on the best way to take down Al Capone. Connery played the role well bringing a great energy and life to the character.

The rest of the performances were fine, but none of them matched Sean Connery. Garcia was never really given the chance to exercise his acting chops - granted Stone IS a supporting character, but I don't think he was really fleshed out beyond being the best shot in his class. Charles Martin Smith was also good, but, alas, Oscar Wallace was the first of the Untouchables to prematurely die. It was a sad death as due to his accountant background he was the least suited for the way of life, but he still proved his worth for the team, being the one who suggests prosecuting Capone for tax evasion. 

Hell, I even liked Kevin Costner - Elliot Ness wasn't a character with a lot of depth, but he made for a good action hero and Costner played the role well. I was particularly surprised with Robert De Niro as Al Capone and I don't mean surprised in a good way. Considering I'm speaking about Robert FREAKING De Niro, I thought his portrayal of Capone was rather simplistic. There was none of the depth or complexity that I would expect from one of De Niro's roles. To paraphrase Capone himself, he was nothing but a receding hairline and a baseball bat.

Brian De Palma also played fast-and-loose with history often fictionalising or completely making up most of the film's key events. Ness's team had very little to do with Capone's tax evasion case and the train station shootout or the Canadian border raid never happened in real life. But that didn't matter as it all made for dramatic, entertaining viewing. The train station shootout was inspired by the Russian step scene in Battleship Potemkin with the parallels being obvious to see. Despite being pretty unbelievable/cheesy, it was still good fun to watch.

And that is a good summary of this film. It is an incredibly loose retelling of historical events but was still a thrilling watch. The acting wasn't fantastic except for Sean Connery, yet it still earned its place on the top 1000 films of all time.

Top ten times the Academy got it wrong

 By now you should that I have some hot takes about the films that appear on IMDB's top 1000 films of all time. You can check out my lists on some of the most overrated films ever.  But the hot takes don't stop there, as I will be counting the top times that the Academy got it wrong whether that's awarding or even nominating a film or an actor or actress. This list is in no order but chronology.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Number 333 on the top 1000 films is Kevin Costner's epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.' Yet that isn't its only accolade for it also won the 1991 Best Film Oscar.

Yes, you read that correctly. It beat the likes of Goodfellas and Awakenings to win the Academy's most prestigious award. How? This three-hour long film is beyond tedious. Costner's wooden performance did nothing to help matters at all. And to all the critics saying it contains a white saviour complex, I challenge you to stay awake long enough to provide evidence of that. If it were up to me, then I would award the Oscar to Awakenings. Both Robert De Niro and Robin Williams excelled in that.

JFK (1991)

Oliver Stone's epic political thriller ranks 306 on the top 1000 films of all time. It focusses on the investigation following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Again, it stars Kevin Costner. Again, it is a three-hour snooze-fest. Thankfully, it didn't receive a Best Picture Oscar, but it was still nominated. Why? It is a bloated, over-long, unfocussed affair that is bursting to the brim with absolutely anything that is related to the Kennedy case. It quite rightly lost to the Silence of the Lambs, but it shouldn't have been in the running in the first place.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Terrence Malik directed this Vietnam war-film to 694th on the top 1000 films and to a Best Picture nomination. But just like JFK, I am puzzled as to why it was nominated.

It is just plain pretentious. Malik seemed more interested in philosophising and arty camerawork than in telling an interesting story. It's a war film, right? So, why don't we see any war happening?

It is also unfocussed with too many cameos and not enough main characters. It ultimately lost to Shakespeare in Love, but I think its fellow nominee Saving Private Ryan explored the theme of war much more effectively.

Crash (2004)

Paul Haggis' Crash ranks 383rd on the top 1000 films.

Crash won the 2005 Best Picture Oscar. And I am definitely not alone in thinking this was the wrong decision. The concept was admirable - an exploration of race relations in Los Angeles, but the execution left a lot to be desired.

Crash was a contrived, convoluted mess that rushed and over-simplified its key themes and ideas. The far simpler Brokeback Mountain should have won instead. But Hollywood just wasn't brave enough to celebrate a film about two gay cowboys.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Michael Clayton ranks low on the top 1000 films at 977th. It stars George Clooney who plays a fixer un-masking a cover-up at his New York law firm.

Michael Clayton received a number of Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor/Actress. I don't think it deserved any of them.

It was a clinically, cold film which is severely lacking any heart. Although that does make sense since it is about lawyers. George Clooney's lacklustre performance did little to help things.

The Fighter (2010)

David O'Russell's biographical sports-drama ranks in as 408th on the top 1000 films.

This film follows the lives of two boxing brothers played by Mark Wahlburg and Christian Bale. Melissa Leo plays their mother and she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Although she was good, I would argue her co-star Amy Adams, who was also nominated, was even better. Amy Adams should have won instead.

She was the one redeeming feature in a film that I didn't care for at all.

Argo (October 2012) 

Ben Affleck's directed this biographical history thriller to the 445th place on the top 1000 films, as well as the Best Film Oscar.

Don't get me wrong. This is a fine film, but is it really Oscar-worthy? Is it better than its fellow nominees like Django Unchained, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook or Zero Dark Thirty. I'm not sure about that. Sure, it's thrilling enough, but then the tension dissipates in an overly-sentimental conclusion.

And while Ben Affleck is a good director, he is a rather wooden actor. Argo definitely would have been better if it had a different performer in the lead role.

Lincoln (November 2012)

Steven Spielberg's biographical drama ranks as 836th on the top 1000 list. It also netted Daniel Day-Lewis his third Best Actor Oscar win.

I haven't seen My Left Foot, but I can attest that he was magnificent in There will be Blood. Does the same magnificence transfer over into Lincoln? I'm not so sure. It certainly doesn't help that the film is 150 minutes long with a massive cast. 

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Abraham Lincoln, but I'm really not sure that his performance was Oscar-worthy. It lacked the same depth that I've seen in his other roles. I would have much rather seen Denzel Washington win his third Oscar for Flight, but we know that the Academy loves a biopic.

Captain Phillips (2013)

Paul Greenglass' Captain Phillips ranks as 302nd on the top 1000 films.

Tom Hanks stars as the eponymous Captain Phillips - a shipping captain taken prisoner by Somali prisoners.

Captain Phillips was nominated for a number of Oscars including Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor, but not Best Actor. It was a brilliant performance, so why wasn't Tom Hanks nominated. This has to be one of the most egregious snubs in Oscar history. In Captain Phillips, Tom Hanks plays an everyman who becomes an unlikely hero. The Academy loves a biopic, so why wasn't Hanks nominated?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Being released in 2022, EEAAO is seven years too late to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time. However, it still swept the Oscars winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screen, Best Editing and Best Supporting Actress.

I take issue with the Best Supporting Actress win. Jamie Lee-Curtis won this Oscar for the role of IRS inspector Deirdre Beaubeidre. While Michelle Yeoh and Key Huy Quan were well-deserving of their Oscar-wins, I can't say the same for Jamie Lee-Curtis. She was good, but definitely not Oscar-worthy. It didn't have the depth I would expect to see from an Oscar performance. I would argue that her co-star Stephanie Hsu, who was also nominated for the same role, should have won the award instead.

Have I missed out anything? Gone with the Wind? Shakespeare in Love? Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive? Don't worry. A second list will be coming soon enough.