Hannah and her Sisters review

 Number 340 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's comedy-drama 'Hannah and her Sisters'

Hannah and her Sisters follows the entwined lives of three couples across a twenty-four month period. The first story focusses on TV writer Mickey and the destruction of his marriage with his wife Hannah (Mia Farrow,) all told in flashback. The second focusses on Hannah and her new husband Elliot (Michael Caine) as he falls in love with Hannah's sister Lee Barbara Hershey. The third story focusses on Hannah's other sister Holly (Dianne West) a former cocaine addict who is trying to break into Broadway with her friend and rival April (Carrie Fisher.)

I have yet to come across a Woody Allen film that I have actually liked. Hannah and her Sister was no exception. In fact, it had everything I don't like in a Woody Allen film: Woody Allen, inappropriate relationships and a distinct lack of laughs.

Woody Allen always seems to play the same character in his films: a neurotic, middle-aged Jewish writer. The novelty ran out five films ago. Now this character has become incredibly tedious. Mickey was no exception especially considering his hypochondriac ways. This hypochondria then stems into an existential crisis as Mickey starts looking for religion - a religion other than Judaism. This wasn't a character that I wanted to root for. At least he wasn't dating a seventeen-year-old.

The inappropriate relationship was saved for Michael Caine's character Elliot who cheats on his wife with her sister. Sure you can argue that Allen was depicting a true fact of life, but it didn't make the character very likeable. I'm also going to be controversial and say that Caine didn't support the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Sure, he was the best part of a bad film, but that didn't mean he gave an Oscar-winning performance. The same goes for Dianne Wiest who won for Best Supporting Actress.

The biggest problem about the film was that all the characters were unlikeable. They seemed to spend all their time fighting with each other from Mickey to Hannah to Elliot and Hannah to April and Holly to Hannah's parents. The whole barrel was rotten. There wasn't one character I cared for or even wanted to care for.

It didn't help that the film was so expository with title cards doing the cinematic equivalent of telling and not showing. As is par for the course for a Woody Allen film, Hannah and her Sisters was just not funny. I didn't crack a smile until the thirty-five minute mark and I don't think I laughed more than three or four times.

This is the sixth Woody Allen film that I haven't liked. Who knows? Maybe I'll like the next one. I'm not holding my breath.

Sleuth (1972) review

 Number 238 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joseph L. Mankiewicz' mystery thriller 'Sleuth.'

Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) is an eccentric crime writer with a love for puzzles, games and his mistress. He wants nothing more than to run off with her. The problem? He is still married. Enter his wife's lover, salon-owner and second-generation Italian immigrant Milo Tindle (Michael Caine.) Together the two hatch a plot for them to end up with their desired women.

You have to give Mankiewicz some credit. This is film with a minimal cast and sets, yet it is a true head-scratcher. It was a complicated affair. I'm not sure I understood everything even now. Despite that it is an interesting film that demands every ounce of your attention. At least for the many references to the crime genre in general. It is a meta text with many allusions to the likes of Agatha Christie etc.

It was originally adapted from a play by Anthony Schaffer and I wonder if it would have been more effective on stage and screen. The two-man cast and two or three sets would have lent itself well to Broadway. Considering it won a Tony, it obviously did.

Plus this film adaptation included a giant of the English theatrical world: Laurene Olivier. He was enjoyable as the eccentric Andrew Wyke, often giving the role an electrifying energy. This coupled with his larger-than-life performance certainly wouldn't have been out of place in the theatre. He was incredibly physical and incredibly theatrical. Andrew Wyke is an odd fellow who fancies himself the next Agatha Christie. His house is full of strange costumes and other peculiarities. Olivier played the role to a tee. He was rightly nominated for an Oscar.

Michael Caine - also Oscar-nominated - was every part his equal. He plays Tindal well and he soon enters a battle of wits with Andrew Wyke. Although the two start as uneasy allies, they then enter a cat-and-mouse game, as they desperately keep trying to outwit one another.

Although Sleuth was good on screen, I do think it was better suited to the stage. The intellectual plot, heavy dialogue, minimal sets and characters would have been perfect for any theatre hall.

A Bridge too Far review

 Number 886 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Attenborough's 1977 epic war film 'A Bridge too Far.'

A Bridge too Far tells the true story of the Second World War operation Market Garden - an ambitious, if ultimately failed, attempt of the allies to create a salient in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands. The large ensemble cast includes James Caan, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Olivier, Gene Hackman, Robert Redford and Maximilan Schell. 

Would it be fair to say that this film goes a "bridge too far?" At three hours long, some would probably have that judgement. It is a fair judgement to make. However, I think that compared to most three-hour long films it is paced incredibly well. Compared to some three-hour films, *cough cough* Gone with the Wind, it was engrossing from start to finish. 

Anybody who knows military history knows that Operation Market Garden was a massive failure that extended the war by another seven or eight months, yet it was still interesting seeing how the Allies' overconfidence proved to be their ultimate downfall.

One common flaw I find in war films with large ensemble casts is that the characters become indistinguishable from one another. They are all soldiers dressed in the same uniforms so they all look the same. things can become confusing after a while, but that wasn't the case here.

I think that was because the three-hour run time gave the film the time it needed to breathe. We didn't get any rushed character development. Instead, each character was given the time they deserved. And that allowed the actors to do the best they could. Also, let's talk about the incredible cast. There were no less than seven Oscar winners including Anthony Hopkins, Sean Connery, Michael Caine and Gene Hackman. And there wasn't a weak link in the cast. Gene Hackman was particularly good as the cynical and jaded Polish Major General Sosabowski - we just won't talk about his accent.

Only six years Richard Attenborough won an Oscar for directing Gandhi, but A Bridge Too Far displayed his early promise as one of the best film-directors of his generation. Contrary to many film critics, I quite enjoyed A Bridge too Far. I didn't find it too long or lacking at all.

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.