Dead Man review

 Number 531 on the top 1000 films of all time is the acid Western 'Dead Man.'

William Blake (Johnny Depp) is a 19th century timid accountant who accidentally kills a man. He is forced to go on the run. While a fugitive, he befriends Nobody (Gary Farmer) an enigmatic Native American who believes that Blake is the reincarnation of the famous poet of the same name.

After Down By Law and Night on Earth, this is the third Jim Jarmusch film that I've seen. Although Jarmusch rejects the idea of being an auteur, I can't think of a better description of his films. They are always on the weird side with a healthy slice of surrealism. Dead Man was no exception.

Just like his third film Down by Law, Dead Man was in monochrome. This feeds into Jarmusch's minimalist style, but also removes any distraction for the audience. Instead their focus is purely on the characters led by the accountant William Blake played by Johnny Depp.

In many of his films, Depp plays an oddball character in a normal world. Here the inverse is true. Depp plays the relatively normal William Blake in a strange world full of strange characters such as the very surreal Nobody. It was enjoyable seeing Depp in a fish out of water role even if it wasn't one of his most memorable performances. Farmer was also enjoyable as Nobody.

Jim Jarmusch, perhaps because he is a musician himself, is well-known for casting musicians in his films. Johnny Depp also has an accomplished music career while Tom Waits has appeared in a couple of Jarmusch films. But as well as having music royalty appear in his films, he also has them provide scores. The brilliant Neil Young composed a largely guitar soundtrack that fitted the film perfectly.

Dead Man was an enjoyable film. It was surreal and strange with an interesting lead performance from Johnny Depp.

Clerks review

 Number 421 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kevin Smith's slice-of-life comedy film 'Clerks.'

Clerks follows a day in the life of best friends supermarket cashier Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) and video shop employee Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson,) as they navigate the challenges, customers and struggles of their own personal lives.

I've been fortunate enough to have never worked a retail job. There is no shortage of stories entailing the horrors of working with the general public. It is for that reason that I failed to properly connect with this film. Not to mention, it just wasn't funny.

I had my first chuckle at minute seventeen, my second at minute twenty-nine and I don't think there was a third. If a comedy film only makes you laugh twice in its ninety-minute run time then it has failed. It didn't help a lot of the humour was immature and juvenile.

It also didn't help that the main characters weren't characters I wanted to laugh with or at. Dante is constantly bemoaning how he wasn't supposed to be working that day, but was called in to cover a colleague's shift. At the film's conclusion, Randal correctly admonishes him on his self-pitying behaviour. Yet by this time I had grown weary of both characters. Randal's immaturity was equally annoying.

If I were to say anything positive, it would be about Kevin Smith's vision. He directed, produced and wrote a critical and commercially successful film for a miniscule budget of $27,000. To cut costs, he filmed in black and white, cast his friends and set the film in the video store where he worked during the day. His efforts worked as the film went onto gross almost $4,000,000. All credit to Kevin Smith.

Clerks was not a film that landed for me. It was funny with annoying, unlikeable characters.

8 1/2 Review

Number 181 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fellini's 1963 surrealist, comedy-drama 8 1/2.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastrioianni) is a famous Italian film director who experiences a creative block when directing his latest science fiction film. To overcome this block, he revisits pivotal points and relationships in his life.

Much like any of Ingmar Bergman's film, 8 1/2 is a film that can only be enjoyed if you're a diehard cinophile. I know that I'm doing a challenge to watch the top 1000 films of all time, but I am not a diehard cinophile. I'm not that deep when it comes to films. There's stuff I like and stuff I don't. And 8 1/2 wasn't something I particularly liked or could follow. Films like these are usually surreal - to the point of frustration, and I don't have the patience to wade through the many dream sequences or worse have to figure out what's a dream and what's reality.

Films about films like Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood have an air of superiority. They're not so much a reference to what came before, but an ego trip for directors proving how much of a film buff they are. Granted being made almost sixty hours before OUATIH, 8 1/2 didn't have the same air of superiority, but it did feel like Fellini was dangling ideas over my head that I'm not intelligent enough to know they're even there.

But like I say, I'm not a cinophile and probably not intelligent enough to even begin interpreting this film. One IMDB reviewer noted you have to watch the film a few times to understand it. I probably won't be doing that anytime soon unless I have trouble getting to sleep.