Zero Dark Thirty review

 Number 865 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kathryn Bigelow's 2012 historical-drama-thriller film Zero Dark Thirty.

On the ninth of September 2001, America bore witness to its worst terrorist attack in history. And so started the war on terror as well as the man-hunt for the leader of Al-Qaeda Osama Bin Laden. Jessica Chastain stars as Maya, a CIA intelligence analyst who is in charge of the operation to bring OBL to justice. The huge ensemble cast includes Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke, Mark Strong, James Gandolfini, Chris Pratt, Harold Perrineau and John Barrowman.

In creating this film, Bigelow and writer Marc Boal wanted to highlight the efforts that women played in the catching of OBL. Maya was reportedly a composite of several female CIA analysts who spear-headed the operation. Of course the CIA have never formally acknowledged the existence of these analysts out of fears for their safety. But, either way, Bigelow and Boal did these women justice. It was a great way to showcase female representation on the screen especially because of all the obstacles Maya faces. I'm not even talking about Al Qaeda, but her male superiors constantly undermining her ideas.

Jessica Chastain received an Oscar nod for her performance. It was well-earned. She played the role of Maya with a quiet confidence. And she was very convincing. I think it was a powerful portrayal of a character who despite being constantly set back never loses faith in herself, her abilities or her mission. As for the rest of the cast, I may argue it was bloated. There were a lot of characters that blended into each other. I don't think there was need for all of them. And, unfortunately, that led to some brilliant actors being absolutely squandered e.g Mark Strong, John Barrowman or James Gandolfini. The cast could have definitely be trimmed.

Zero Dark Thirty did receive some criticism for glorifying the use of torture as an interrogation method. This refers to the opening sequence where CIA officer Dan Fuller (Jason Clarke) waterboards and otherwise brutally tortures a terrorist. Torture not being an effective method to gain information aside, I would not agree that this sequence was glorified at all. Granted, it makes for unpleasant viewing, but you can see that Dan is not a sadist. He doesn't enjoy doing what he's doing, but he has a job to do. Later on, he laments on his actions.

But I think Bigelow's direction excelled in the final half-hour of the film where we see a Navy Seal team infiltrate OBL's compound. This was a brilliantly-directed sequence that always kept the tension high. It was gripping to watch. A lesser director may have added on a cheesy and grandiose score, but Bigelow made the excellent decision to not have an incidental music at all. And that was a great way to keep me on the edge of my seat.

Yes, Zero Dark Thirty has a bloated cast - Maya was a composite of many characters, why couldn't they have done that for the other characters - but Chastain gave an Oscar-worthy performance and the final sequence was fantastic film-making.

Capote review

 Number 891 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2005 biographical-drama Capote.

Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) was an American novelist who gained fame after the release of his 1961 book 'Breakfast at Tiffany's.' After the Clutter family are murdered in their Kansas home, Capote becomes fascinated with the case, so much so, he decides to make it the subject of his next book. Together, with his friend and confidante Harper Lee (Catherine Keener,) he begins interviewing the killers Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr) and Dick Hicock (Mark Pellegrino.)

As many of you will know by now, I don't care for biopics. I find them overly-long, vague, lacking in tension and bloated e.g The Aviator or Catch me if you Can. But Capote succeeded because instead of telling his life from start to finish, it narrowed in on a very specific part, and, arguably, the most interesting part.

From the off, we are thrust into murky territory as we see our hero Capote coming to form strong relationships with Perry Smith and Dick Hicock, the longer he gets to know them. He begins empathising with them. Although he claims that he just wants to document the facts, the more he investigates, the more there is the chance that he will discover something that could exonerate the pair. Or worse, he may deliberately sabotage the case, so the pair will go free. This conflict kept things moving on nicely. It stopped things from becoming too slow.

Philip Seymour Hoffman won the 2005 Best Actor Oscar for his performance as Truman Capote. It was well-deserved, as unlike his other roles it was wonderfully balanced. We saw many different sides of Capote: the flamboyant party animal, the duplicitous liar keeping the truth from Smith and Hicock, and the quiet, vulnerable man looking for support from his friend Harper Lee.

I have yet to see Hoffman in a role that I haven't liked. Many of the characters he has played have been very sleazy. There is nothing wrong with this; he plays the sleaze well, but I was wondering if he was becoming a one-trick pony. Capote proved this was far from the case.

Catherine Keener was also good as Harper Lee, often acting as Capote's conscience, telling him what he needs to hear, rather than what he wants to hear. Clifton Collins Jr was also good, but I think Mark Pellegrino was thoroughly under-used.

Nonetheless, this film pleasantly surprised me. Who knows? I might become a die-hard biopic fan?

Boogie Nights review

 Number 431 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Thomas Anderson's 1997 period comedy-drama 'Boogie Nights'

Set in 1970's San Fransisco, Boogie Nights follows high-school dropout Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) who is scouted by porn producer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds.) Eddie Adams soon becomes the biggest pornstar in the business, before it all comes down crashing down. Julianne Moore, Don Cheadle, John C. Reilly and Heather Graham all co-star.

I really didn't care for this film at all. It was long, tedious and repetitive. I understand it was about the Golden Age of Porn, so it would make sense that it looked like a seventies' porno. Unfortunately, it also had the acting and writing of a porn as well.

Much of this criticism is levied at Mark Wahlberg who was less than convincing as the main character. Granted Eddie Adams was never the most likeable protagonist, being obnoxious and arrogant, even before his career crashes and he gets hooked on drugs. But Wahlberg was not believable in the role. Even in the more emotional scenes, he resembled a crying tree.

The film's first half is slow and meandering where nothing happens. We get little hints of the lives these people live: fellow performer (Julianne Moore) has an estranged relationship with her children, porn producer Little Bill (William H. Macy) is being publicly cuckholded by his wife, but these segments were never taken seriously enough for me to care that much about. Little Bill's constant cuckholdry is largely played for laughs.

It is only in the film's second half, which explores the decline of the Golden-Age of porn in the eighties do things actually become interesting. We see how the negative stigma behind porn is affecting character's lives. Now a faded has-been, Eddie has become a coke addict, Buck Swope (Don Cheadle) is denied a business loan, because of his connections to the industry, and in one of the film's most shocking scenes, tired of being a cuck, Little Bill kills his wife and then himself in a murder-suicide. This was far more interesting, but I had almost lost interest at this point.

One thing I certainly did like was the soundtrack. Set firmly in the disco era, it featured some absolute classics of the time. Overall, I didn't like Boogie Nights. It was slow and boring. And I did not like Mark Wahlberg. In fact, I have yet to see him in anything I've liked. Boogie Nights was not the exception to the rule.

Stardust review

 Number 532 on the top 1000 films of all time is Matthew Vaughn's 2007 fantasy romantic-drama 'Stardust.'

Tristan Thorn (Charlie Cox) is a young man from the fictional Victorian village of Wall. In love with an already betrothed woman, he ventures into the neighbouring fantasy land of Stormhold to collect a fallen star that has taken the form of a woman called Yvaine (Clare Danes.) However, a coven of witches led by Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) are also seeking Yvaine in their quest for immortality. Meanwhile, Stormhold's dying king (Peter O'Toole) decides that his successor should be whoever can find the ruby he has thrown into the sky. His squabbling sons led by Prince Septimus (Mark Strong) start fighting to become the new king.

This was a fun re-imagining and subversion of the fairy-tale, as well a great take on the fantasy genre. Like science-fiction, I find fantasy to be full of pretentiousness - authors desperate to show off how creative they are put all their efforts into world-building and purple prose, neglecting their characters and narrative. The result is usually an overly-serious and stuffy story.

 Yet Stardust was refreshing and charming. There was no shortage of well-choregraphed, slapstick fights, as well as comedic characters. Robert De Niro as the effeminate pirate Captain Shakespeare is a prime example. De Niro has such a reputation for playing grizzled, old gangsters, it's difficult to imagine him as cross-dressing dame, but he did the comedy so well. He only had a supporting role, but a scene-stealing one.

Similarly, the old man (David Kelly) guarding the wall was great. He uses his staff to fiercely stop Tristan from crossing realms. Granted, he isn't very effective, but it was great slapstick all the same. And there's loads more examples of quiet humour from Lamia's youth potion wearing off leading to her hair falling out and her breasts sagging, to the king's sons committing fraticide one by one. When one of them has his throat slit, he bleeds blue blood. All of these were nice little touches.

I wish my praise could extend to Charlie Cox, but he was very bland and sappy as Tristan Thorn. Arguably, he becomes progressively more heroic, but he is still a rather dull protagonist. It's a shame as I've seen Charlie Cox in more action-oriented roles and he's very good, but he was nothing out the ordinary here. Mark Strong and Michelle Pfeiffer made great villains though. Generally, I've only seen Mark Strong in villainous roles, but he does do them so damn well.

All in all, I did enjoy Stardust. It was wonderfully creative. Yes, Charlie Cox, is sappy, but Stardust proved that fantasy does not need to be dark and serious all the time.

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.

The Fighter review

 Number 408 on the top 1000 films of all time is David O'Russell's biographical sports drama The Fighter.

Micky Eckland (Mark Wahlburg) is an up-and-coming boxer coached by his brother, famed ex-fighter Dicky (Christian Bale) and managed by his mother Alice (Melissa Leo.) With the help of new girlfriend Charlene (Amy Adams) Micky aims to make a name for himself.

Since starting this challenge, I have watched a lot of boxing films: Rocky, Raging Bull and Million Dollar Baby. And I didn't like any of these films, because I don't care for boxing. The Fighter was no exception. As I don't care for boxing, I couldn't get invested in the film. For me, there was no tension or stakes. I couldn't give a damn if Micky won his fights or not and I certainly didn't care if he became the champion of the world. And considering that's what the film was building to but that didn't make it very interesting for me. And I know the film is all about boxing, but the boxing montages were very boring. I know this is a very subjective take - I'm sure boxing fans would love this film, but I didn't.

What's more objective is Mark Wahlburg's performance. I don't particularly like him as an actor or a person. He always takes the same roles, generally as the tough guy hero with the emotional range of a block of wood. Considering the film is called 'The Fighter,' he is weak-spined. Obviously he's a boxer who could quite easily knock me out, but why couldn't he have done the same to his manipulative, conniving mother and seven sisters? They were the very definition of toxic.

Dicky wasn't much better, leeching off of his brother's achievements, because he couldn't quite reach those heights himself. In fact, the only likeable character was Charlene, because she is one of the very few who had Micky's best interests at heart. All credit to Amy Adams for a great performance.

If you're a boxing/Mark Wahlburg fan, you'll probably love this film, but I am neither, so I did not. And, finally, there are lots of strange accents in the US, but Massachussetts has to be one of the strangest.