Ed Wood review

 Number 378 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tim Burton's 1994 biographical comedy-drama 'Ed Wood.'

Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) tells the real-life story of the film-maker Ed Wood and his ascension through the Hollywood ranks to become affectionately known as the "Worst Director of All Time." The film portrays his personal and professional relationships including with Dracula actor Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau) and drag queen John "Bunny" Breckinridge (Bill Murray.) Sarah Jessica Parker plays Ed Wood's first girlfriend Dolores Fuller, but when their relationship deteriorates he starts anew with Kathy O'Hara (Patricia Arquette.)

Tim Burton is well-known for gothic horror and dark fantasy films being the director of such films like Sleepy Hollow, Corpse Bride, Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice. Yet Ed Wood was an interesting mixture of the real and the fantasy. Being a biopic, the story was founded in truth. It portrayed the life of famed B-movie director Ed Wood, but did so through a fantasy lens. The use of black-and-white gave the film a timeless element - although it was depicting the 50s it could have been set anywhere. Martin Landau and Johnny Depp's performances were suitably surreal too.

Johnny Depp has become well-known for playing off-the-wall eccentric characters. We've already talked about Edward Scissorhands, but there's also Sweeney Todd, Willy Wonka and of course, his most famous role, Captain Jack Sparrow. I would argue that Ed Wood was just as off-the-wall and as eccentric as any of these characters. He soon became known for his unconventional production techniques such as providing little direction for his actors, only shooting one take and filling any gaps with stock footage. Having said that, George Lucas was also notorious for only saying "faster" and "more intense" to his actors, so maybe that point isn't that unconventional, but I digress. 

And, most eccentrically of all, there was also Ed Wood's transvestism. Yet despite all this, Johnny Depp gave a three-dimensional and well-rounded portrayal of the ill-celebrated director. Granted both and he and Burton admitted to being overly-sympathetic side to Wood. Reportedly, the real-life director suffered from alcoholism so bad it was the true reason why Dolores left him. These scenes were not included in the film.

Finally, let's talk about Martin Landau who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for playing Bela Lugosi. In the fifties, Bela Lugosi's best days were long behind him. Similar to Ed Wood he also had his own alcohol problems. Yet his collaborations with the ill-famed director saw a minor resurgence to his career. Just like Depp, Landau brought a vulnerability and tenderness to the damaged character.

Ed Wood was an enjoyable enough film. It had all the surrealism and eccentricity you would expect from a Tim Burton film and it also had Johnny Depp in one of his trademark off-the-wall roles. 

Hard Boiled review

 Number 368 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Woo's 1992 Hong Kong action-triller Hard-Boiled.

"Tequila" Yuen Ho-Yan (Chow Yun-Fat) is a cop who doesn't play by the book. His goal is to bring the triad boss Johnny Wong (Anthony Wong) to justice. He finds an unlikely ally in undercover cop Alan (Tony Leung) who is masquerading as Johnny Wong's closest advisor.

Similar to his previous effort of the Killer, Woo's Hard Boiled will be an acquired taste. If you're a fan of action films then you'll love it, but if not then I'd recommend you watch something else, as Hard-Boiled employs almost every action film cliche in the book including infinite ammo, plot armour, slow-motion, lots of blood and endless gunfights.

Thankfully, one refreshing change was how Hard Boiled's female protagonist - Tequila's girlfriend Theresa Chang (Teresa Mo) and fellow cop has some agency and does something else than incessantly scream like Sally Yeh did in the Killer. Teresa even shot one of the bad guys.

In making this film, John Woo wanted to romanticise the police rather than criminals, which he did do in fairness. True they weren't the most complicated of characters, but Tequila and Alan were undoubtedly the heroes of the films. Not the two-dimensional villainous Johnny Wong. 

I did enjoy seeing Yun-Fat and Leung together - they had good chemistry which is important in a film like this. I've seen Leung in both romantic and action roles and he's good at both. It's just a shame that I don't care for action films. The endless explosions and gunfights became rather repetitive. Rather than being exciting, it was very boring.

And I also found it strange how despite the film is mostly in Cantonese, the characters had a few odd lines in English. True Hong Kong was still a British colony, but it seemed like an odd, out-of-place choice.

Similar, to the Killer, I'd only recommend watching Hard Boiled if you're an action film fan. If you're not then you best find something else to watch as this is not the film for you.

Frailty review

 Number 963 on the top 1000 films of all time is Bill Paxton's 2001 psychological thriller 'Frailty.'

An adult Adam Meiks (Matthew McConaughey) wanders into an FBI office and confesses to agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) that his brother Fenton is the mysterious "God's Hand" killer. Afterwards, he recounts how as children, he and Fenton were subjected to their father's (played by Bill Paxton) twisted delusion about how he was on a mission from God to kill demons disguised as normal people.

Spoilers to follow

Frailty marked Bill Paxton's directorial debut. It was certainly creepy and thrilling with a great performance from Matthew  McConaughey, but it was all predicated on a rather flimsy premise. Bill Paxton's character says that he was randomly visited by an angel sending him on a mission to rid the world of its demons.

I found this less than convincing. Yes, he is a single father and widower, but I saw little to suggest that he would just snap like this. His character was missing some much--needed backstory as to why he would become a deluded serial killer. It might have made more sense if he was under a lot of stress, but we can see that he has a happy and healthy relationship with his two sons. Furthermore, there isn't any distinct catalyst that pushes him over the edge. While fixing a car at work, an angel randomly appears in a vision telling him to kill demons and he's all like "yeah, sure thing."

Things remain unconvincing as the story heads toward a conclusion that seemed like it was being too clever for its own good. In my summary, I identified Matthew McCongaughey's character as Adam, but this is only revealed at the film's ending. Hitherto, we were led to believe that he is actually Fenton who is reporting on his brother's murders. As children, their father's madness drives a wedge between the two brothers with Adam becoming his father's disciple and Fenton his opponent.

This culminates in Fenton ultimately killing his father rather than continuing to participate in the murders. We assume that his dad uses his dying breath to tell Adam to continue his legacy, which he does to some extent, but it is later revealed that the God's Hand murders are completely unrelated. This made little sense. Why have two different sets of murders? Surely, it was more logical for Adam to only be investigated for the demon killings.

Sure this film was entertaining, if rather joyless, but it was certainly not without its flaws.

Much Ado about Nothing (1993) review

 Number 858 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kenneth Branagh's 1993 adaptation of William Shakespeare's play 'Much Ado about Nothing.'

Don Pedro (Denzel Washington) and his noblemen Benedick and (Kenneth Branagh) Claudio (Robert Sean Leonard) are visiting their friend Leonato (Richard Briers) in Messina Sicily, after having crushed a rebellion by Pedro's half-brother Don John (Keanu Reeves.) In Messina, Pedro acts as match-maker, deciding to match Benedick and Leonato's niece Beatrice (Emma Thompson) who both seemingly hate each other. He also decides to match Claudio with Leonato's daughter Hero (Kate Beckinsale.)

Much ado about nothing is the best way to describe this film. It was beyond tedious. Granted, I'm not a Shakespeare fan, so I'm no doubt ignorant of the play's cultural significance. Call me a philistine, but I don't think that Shakespeare translates well to the big screen. At least not in its current form.

With Hamlet, Branagh ripped the dialogue straight from the folios. No doubt he did something similar here, as the dialogue was so expository. And it just went on and on. It was so verbose it was like the characters were reciting the dictionary. Plus Branagh and Thompson monologuing endlessly bored me beyond belief. This might have been okay for the 1500's, but not in 2024. Not even in 1993 when this was released. I'm not saying that I need gunfights and explosions, but I need more drama than Benedick trying and failing to figure out how a deck chair works.

Plus, this dialogue made the film so slow. It crawls toward a conclusion that I couldn't have cared less about - probably because I didn't care about the characters. Maybe if I was seeing it on stage, it would be different. But as I didn't care about the characters, I wasn't at all engrossed in the conflict. I say conflict, but a will they/won't they between either an annoying couple or a soppy one hardly makes the biggest stakes int he world.

It didn't help that Keanu Reeves was positively awful as Don John. True, as the villain, he doesn't really do much. He does some scheming in the shadows, promptly disappears, only to be caught and smirk at the camera at the end of the film. But Reeves never looked comfortable with the Shakespearean dialogue. No wonder he got a Razzie nomination.

I'm sure there are some Harold Bloom types out there ready to denounce me as a philistine, but this film was really much ado about nothing.

The Wicker Man (1973) review

 Number 620 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1973 folk-horror 'The Wicker Man.'

Police sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward) is a devout Christian investigating the disappearance of a little girl on a remote Scottish Isle. There, he is is appalled to find the residents, led by Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee) have rejected Christianity in favour of a dangerous form of paganism.

Horror films generally fall into one of two cliches: over-reliance on jump-scares or over-reliance on gore. Thankfully, director Robin Hardy and writer Anthony Schaffer deftly navigated these cliches. Schaffer deliberately eschewed the latter cliche in favour of a tense, unsettling atmosphere.

From the moment that Neil Howie steps onto the island, it's obvious that somebody isn't quite right. Nobody seems to know who the missing girl is nor do make any effort to help him. Instead they prefer to have sex in public and teach children about phallic symbols in school. And it is all treated as completely normal which is what makes it so scary.

It's normal to everybody, but Howie who is horrified by the debauchery he witnesses. Woodward played the straight man, so to speak, with all the moral indignation that we would expect to see. But I think the true star was Christopher Lee who played the villainous Lord Summerisle.

Lord Summerisle is a cult-leader who has brainwashed the island's residents in happily following his every word even when it crosses ethical boundaries. They blindly follow their pagan beliefs, gaily singing and dancing through the film's most terrifying sequences. Nowhere is this more apparent than the film's chilling conclusion. I won't spoil it here, but this is a horror film, so there's no happily ever after.

As the film was made on a shoestring budget, Lee was more than happy to work for free. This really shows his dedication to his craft.

Folk-horror has made a resurgence with the likes of Midsommar and the Witch, but they all pay homage to the pioneering Wicker Man.

Another Ten films that should not be on the top 1000 films of all time

 There are many films that should not be on the top 1000 films of all time. Ten of them appear on my first list. Here are ten more. I'm sure I will get some heat for this list, but that doesn't change the fact tat these films are overrated and plain bad. This list is in no particular order except chronology.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God (1972)

Defenders of Aguirre may argue that director Werner Herzog was making this film on a shoestring budget, but there are plenty of low-budget films which are so good. Once comes to mind. Aguirre: the Wrath of God was tedious from the start. The characters were stupid and annoying, there was too much philosophy and too many shots of characters standing around doing nothing. Klaus Klinski also gave of the most boring lead-role performances ever.

The Goonies (1985)

I can just hear all the Gen Xers and early millennials sharpening their pitchforks in protest. For many, the Goonies was a stalwart of their childhoods.

But I found this coming-of-age drama incredibly irritating. it didn't help that I couldn't understand much of the dialogue due to the pre-pubescent child actors screaming over one another.

The adult actors weren't much better. The usually charismatic Joey Pantoliano was reduced to a cartoon villain. At least Key Huy Quan redeemed himself in Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

How on God's Green Earth did this film win the Best Picture Oscar? How did Kevin Costner win Best Director? How did it beat Goodfellas and Awakenings?

I'm sure Costner would explain it to me in the verbal exposition that made Dances with Wolves such a tedious watch. This three-hour slog could be number one on the top ten films to put you to sleep. It has been accused of white saviourism, but I don't know how anybody stayed awake long enough to make that judgement.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

If you like your war films interesting, dramatic and explosive, you best look elsewhere than Terrence Malik's World War two film.

This boring affair spent too much time philosophising and too little time actually showing the characters fighting in the war...which is the subject matter of the film.

It also wasted its great cast. From Sean Penn to Adrian Brody to Woody Harrelson to John Travolta and George Clooney, I would challenge you to name the protagonist of this confused, pretentious mess.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Where do we start with this disaster of a film that polarised audiences and critics? Audiences loved it. Critics hated it. Guess what side I came down on?

From the over-the-top performances to the cheesy dialogue, gratuitous violence and confusing direction, this film had the feel of being shot, written and directed by a twelve-year-old boy picking up a camera for the first time. Definitely not worthy of a place on the top 1000 films of all time.

In the Mood for Love (2000)

We are going all the way to Hong Kong for this romantic drama that was lacking in suspense, tension and anything that would have made it remotely interesting. It was dull with a capital D.

There were too many characters making stupid decisions, plus too many shots of characters sitting in empty rooms not doing anything. In the Mood for Love? In the mood for an interesting film to watch.

How to Train your Dragon (March 2010)

Another film that started a franchise. But I am baffled as to how. Yes, the animation was cute enough, but that did little to make up for the predictable, tepid plot.

The supporting cast all blended into one another. And Hiccup and Astrid were two cliched, poorly-drawn characters.

Megamind (November 2010)

As I am writing this article, I am struggling to remember why I didn't like it, but that is its most damning criticism. It was not a memorable film. It wasn't even entertaining, as I could barely keep my eyes open. 

Maybe if I were a kid I would have appreciated the silly humour and Brad Pitt and Will Ferrell's lacklustre performances, but I didn't. I didn't appreciate this film either.

Despicable Me 2 (July 2013)

How the first Despicable Me got a sequel is a mystery to me. How the sequel ranked 733rd on the top 1000 films of all time is the bigger mystery.

It is as bad as its predecessor with its infantile humour and Steve Carrell's incredibly irritating voice performance. Yes, the animation was eye-popping, but, beyond that, there was nothing to appeal to anybody over the age of ten.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (November 2013)

Just like the Goonies defined the adolescence of early millennials, the Hunger Games did the same for late millennials. Except this late millennial.

Like Despicable Me 2, I'm puzzled as to how the Hunger Games got a sequel. Catching Fire is slightly better than its predecessor, but that isn't saying much.

It was mired by the same plot holes, the same tepid love-story and the same confusing action scenes. Yes, J-Law, PSH, Donald Sutherland and, especially, Woody Harrelson, gave good performances, but they were not enough to save this film. Catching Fire? Dumpster fire more like.

If I haven't given you enough reason to light your torches and sharpen your pitchforks, I wouldn't worry. There'll be another of these lists coming soon enough.

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.

Top ten films too traumatic to watch again

 There are some films that are so bad or boring that you can never face watching them again. You can see my list of those films here. But there are also some films that are so traumatic or depressing or upsetting that it's far too painful to watch them again.

Most of the films I'm about to mention feature on the top 1000 films of all time. I'm watching and reviewing them here. This list is in no particular order.

Requiem for a Dream

This is the only film on this list that I've been brave enough to watch twice. The first time was in 2016. The second time was in 2022. I went six years between the first and second watch. And that was not enough time.

Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, Jennifer Connelly and Ellen Burstyn give brilliant performances as drug addicts in New York. Darren Aronofsky's direction offers a brutal, unflinching look into this dark world. You will not find any happy endings here especially with Ellen Burstyn's character. Her performance was heart-breaking. I would count this film as one of my favourites of all time even if it is too traumatic to watch for a third time.

This is England

British white nationalism is as pervasive and dangerous now as it was back in 1982 where This is England is set. Following a gang of skinheads, we witness a horrific look into how they can brainwash the youth with their propaganda.

But what makes this film so scary is its realism. We're not talking zombies or demonic puppets, but real humans with real hatred in their hearts. Nowhere is that more present than with Stephen Graham who was magnificent as Combo - leader of the skinhead gang. He was so terrifying that he had trouble finding work after the film. I know I will have trouble watching the film again.

Precious

This is a powerful, but stark look into family abuse. It follows Precious (Gabourney Sidibe) a young black woman who was not only raped by her father, but also psychologically abused by her mother (Mon'ique.) Do you see what I mean about it being a rough watch?

Like This is England, it shows its villains as being incredibly cruel, but also incredibly human. It's horrible to watch, but you can't also look away. Mon'ique gave an Oscar-winning performance, but Mariah Carey was also surprisingly good in a supporting role. And, of course, Gabourney Sidibe was the star of the show. 

This is a film I won't be strong enough to watch again anytime soon.

Grave of the Fireflies

When you think of Studio Ghibli, you think of the adorable Totoro or the wonderful world of Spirited Away. You don't think of this heart-breaking tale of World War Two Japan.

Seen through the eyes of sixteen-year-old Seita and his little sister Setsuko, we see how they struggle to survive amidst the twilight years of the war. It is a tragic story that ends predictably tragically, but it is no less gut-wrenching. It made me cry after all.

It is also one of my favourite films of all time, but it is one of the few Studio Ghibli films that I won't be watching over and over again.

Amores Perros

If I were to describe why I wouldn't watch this film again, I would give you one compound word: dog-fighting.

This disgusting practice is central to the film's plot. It plays out in shocking detail. As an animal and dog-lover, this was distressing to watch. It's also difficult to root for characters who willingly enter their dogs into these fights.

Thankfully, Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's later films: 21 Grams and Babel are far easier watches.

Blue Valentine

Although this film isn't traumatic in the sense of depicting violent subject matter, it is still one of the bleakest films I've ever seen.

We follow Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) as their marriage and relationship self-destructs. Cue lots of shouting and tears and very little reason to smile while watching this film. And very little reason why I would want to watch it again.

Manchester by the Sea

Similarly to Blue Valentine, Manchester by the Sea was depression personified. It stars Casey Affleck as a man trying to move on after a house fire kills his entire family. Affleck was well-deserving of the best Actor Oscar, but the film's tragic storyline would surely win the Oscar for most depressing film ever.

The Celebration

This Danish film made for a deeply uncomfortable watch. At a birthday party for the aging patriarch of the Klingenfeldt-Hansen family, we see the whole affair descend into chaos as the whole family goes to war with each other. Cue shouting, arguments, casual racism and nasty people being nasty to each other. It's not a celebration. And there was nothing comedic about it, despite it being labelled a black-comedy. I did not enjoy watching this at all.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

This American classic was also an uncomfortable watch for similar reasons to the above. It was so just relentlessly depressing. Paul Newman and Liz Taylor star as a couple who spend the entire film yelling at each other and everybody around them.

Homophobic attitudes of the time saw the removal of a key storyline that would have added much needed meaning to all the shouting. Otherwise this was an uncomfortable watch.

Midsommer

Ari Aster's horror film is too modern to feature on the top 1000 films of all time, but I still hated watching it. Florrence Pugh stars as Dani - a young woman attempting to get over the death of her family by holidaying in Sweden with her boyfriend and friends. There they find an idyllic cult, but everything is not what it seems.

While I can respect the craft, I found this film intensely disturbing. It freaked me out and I can never watch it again. I'm sure this is just me, as I have heard others say it is boring, dull and tame compared to some other horror films. I'm sure those same people would say I'm a wimp, which would be true. But this film still made me deeply uncomfortable.

None of this is to say these films are bad, but they were either so traumatic, upsetting or disturbing that I could never watch them again. Did I miss any films? Let me know in the comments.

All Quiet on the Western Front review

 Number 284 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1930 epic war film 'All Quiet on the Western Front.'

Paul Bauhmer (Lew Agre) is one of many German raw recruits who signed up to fight for the fatherland during World War One. While here, they need the older, cynical corporal Stanislavus "Kat" Katcinzsky. Quickly, Paul's optimism fades away, as he witnesses the true horrors of war.

All Quiet on the Western Front won the 1930 Oscar for Best film, only the third film to do so. I'm so sure to audiences back then, it would have been powerful stuff. But it was also a film of its time. AQWF would have held a special relevance to 1930's audiences, as WW1 was still in living memory.

I watched this in 2024, so, naturally, it didn't have the same relevance for me. I'm sure it would have been ground-breaking at the time, but I've seen it all before. it was difficult not to draw comparisons to every other war film I've seen whether that's World War 1, World War 2 or the Vietnam war. Because AQWF was such a pioneer, it's become an influence on every film since.

At the time, the film industry was slowly transitioning to sound, so I'm sure the gunfire and explosions would have been as traumatic as the initial sequence of Saving Private Ryan, but for a modern viewer like me, it failed to resonate. Unsurprisingly, the special effects were nothing compared to Steven Spielberg's seminal work. But that is only to be expected.

And the deep philosophy about the nature of war wasn't ground-breaking either. Granted, it wasn't as in your face as the Thin Red Line, but, again, it was stuff I've seen before. The same can be said for the transformation of the naive, optimistic recruits into battle-hardened, cynical killers. Full Metal Jacket comes to mind.

Although, I did find it peculiar that there wasn't much conflict between the German soldiers themselves. It's quickly established that conditions are terrible with the troopers starving hungry, so you would expect them to be fighting among each other, but instead they're all very amiable with each other. 

That notwithstanding, I recognise most of my criticism is unfair. I'm sure that in 1930, this film would have been a masterpiece, but almost 100 years later, I don't think it held up at all.

The Abyss review

 Number 709 on the top 1000 films of all time is James Cameron's science-fiction drama 'The Abyss.'

Virgil "Bud" Brigman (Ed Harris) is the foreman of the Deepcore oil rig. Joined by his estranged wife Dr. Lindsay Brigman (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio,) they and their crew are tasked with the task of salvaging a US navy submarine that inexplicably lost power and sank to the bottom of the ocean. There they find a group of alien creatures.

Intense, claustrophobic and unrelenting, the Abyss was as difficult to watch as it was to make. Shot on a gruelling schedule in awful conditions with an authoritarian dictator in James Cameron, it is no surprise that Ed Harris almost drowned and later had a nervous breakdown. On another occasion, having been pushed too far by Cameron, Mastrantonio) stormed off set. Both actors have since distanced themselves from the film. And few, if any, of the cast and crew have worked with Cameron again.

It is a shame that they were pushed so hard, because they both gave excellent performances. Their chemistry helped give this film some much-needed heart, as we watched the pair re-discover their love for each other. I just don't think they needed Cameron's tyranny to bring out the best in them.

I couldn't help but compare this film to Das Boot. It had that same claustrophobic feel from the tight camera-angles to the cramped set and dim lighting. I couldn't help but feel a little trapped myself. And, as for the scene where the divers are exploring the lost submarine, that is a hard no from me. Sure, it was intense and well-shot, but not something I would ever want to do.

The other comparison would be Cameron's Aliens. Again that is a science-fiction drama taking place in a suffocating setting. But the obvious difference is the actual aliens. In the Abyss, they are friendly, plus they looked visually gorgeous. The visuals were stunning throughout.

I have read so many horror stories about the making of the Abyss, least of all about Cameron's dictatorial direction, that I'm surprised it was made at all. He pushed his actors to their absolute limit, but was that a really necessary thing to do?

The Kite Runner review

 Number 655 on the top 1000 films of all time is Marc Foster's 2007 adaptation of the Kite Runner based on Khaled Hosseini's novel of the same name.

Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) is a Pashto boy living in pre-soviet Afghanistan. His best friend is also his servant Hassan - a Hazara, (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada) who is an expert in the game of kite-running. After the soviets invade, Amir and his father flee to the US. Twenty years later, Amir (Khallid Abdalla) returns to a taliban-led Afghanistan to right the wrongs of his past.

I read this book in 2022. It was a powerful and harrowing read. But the film was incredibly underwhelming. I'm disappointed to stay this, but the film lacked the same emotional pathos. 

*spoilers ahead*

There are three harrowing stand-out scene in the book - Hassan's rape by Assef - an older Pashto boy, the stoning in the stadium and the final confrontation between an adult Amir and Assef. What should have been three brutally-honest scenes highlighting the sad reality of living in Afghanistan were little more than damp squibs. The emotional beats completely failed to land.

Perhaps that's due to the film's 12-rating. Maybe if it was fifteen or eighteen, it could have shown a lot more, and thus been more devastating to watch. But the 12 rating hampered it into either rushing or glossing over the most important scenes.

For example, Hassan and Amir win a kite-fighting competition. Hassan runs to collect the fallen kite as a prize for Amir. But Assef and his gang corner him and demand the kite. Hassan refuses. Assef rapes him. This is depicted mostly through allusion and some choice close-ups, but it is rushed, and thus the pathos didn't land. I'm not saying we needed to see a graphic depiction of the rape a la Oz or the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but they could have taken it further. Although I acknowledge this would have been problematic with the young actors.

As such, fearing for reprisals against the young actors, Paramount relocated them to the UAE, fully prepared to pay for them to grow up there. But Mahmoodzada had to return to Afghanistan due to visa issues. There he received death threats from both the Pashto and Hazara communities, and he had to seek asylum in Sweden.

Anyway, I would also make the same point about the final fight between an adult Assef and Amir. Again, it felt rushed without anytime for the emotions land. And I think this was a big faux pas considering this was such a climatic moment in the film. If anything the most emotional points came into the quicker scenes like after the rape Hassan returns to Amir still holding the kite. That was so sad.

But none of this criticism should be directed to the cast. Ebrahimi was very good as the adult Amir. He had to walk a fine line of a guilty man atoning for his past sins and a saviour saving Afghan children from a line of wretchery - a comparison aptly made within the film itself.

Perhaps I've been biased by reading the book first. If I had seen the film first maybe I would have left feeling more impressed. While it isn't inherently a bad film, it could have been a lot better.

Hamlet film review

 Number 544 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kenneth Branagh's 1996 adaptation of Hamlet by William Shakespeare.

Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh) is the crown prince of 19th-century Denmark. But when his father is murdered by his evil Uncle Claudius (Derek Jacobi,) Hamlet swears revenge. The huge ensemble cast includes Jack Lemmon, Julie Christie, Robin Williams and Kate Winslet.

There is a reason that film-reviewing will always remain my hobby rather than my profession. There so many films that are objectively-enjoyable, but I have no interest in. Hamlet is one of them. Most of that is down to how I have no interest in Shakespeare, but also in relation to Kenneth Branagah's direction.

Branagh's adaptation is the first un-abridged version with all the dialogue coming straight from Shakespeare's original folios. It has been transcribed verbatim. This means that there is a monologue every five minutes where characters would speak for whole paragraphs, but say very little. Some of the dialogue was needless exposition whereas others were purple prose. I'm sure I am sounding ignorant, but I had very little idea what they were talking about. And Hamlet was four-hours long. If the monologues were cut down, the run-time could have been easily reduced to one hundred and twenty minutes.

But also Brannagh made extensive use of extended long shots, having the camera rest on a focal object for much longer than necessary. This really killed off any narrative pace. It made the film feel much longer than four hours.

Although Kenneth Branagh has won an Oscar, it was for writing Belfast and not acting. Having seen Hamlet, I understand why. I was not impressed by his performance. It was so over-the-top.

I'm sure if you're a Shakespeare lover, you would love Hamlet, but I hated it. 

The Philadelphia Story review

 Number 231 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1940 romantic-drama 'the Philadelphia Story.'

Wealthy socialite Tracy Lord (Katherine Hepburn) has recently divorced from her ex-husband Dexter Haven (Cary Grant.) She is now intending to marry the wealthy George Kittredge (John Howard.) New York's Spy magazine sends journalists Mike Connor (James Stewart) and Liz Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) to cover the glitzy affair.

I'm probably just a culturally ignorant millennial who's been spoiled by the rich, complicated storytelling of directors like Christopher Nolan, and the like, but the older films are so much more simplistic.

And, by simplistic, I mean dull and predictable. It was obvious from the get-go that this film would centre around a love triangle between Hepburn, Grant and Stewart: Grant still has feelings for his old ex, but he faces new competition not only by Kittredge but also Connor played by Stewart. Meanwhile Hepburn is initially only interested in improving her social status. This is the only reason she is marrying Kittredge. However, she becomes romantically involved with Stewart. And I saw this coming from a mile away.

Of course, this is isn't to slate the acting talent in this film - Grant and Stewart were charismatic as usual - although I'm not sure whether Stewart was quite deserving of his Best Actor Oscar win. I think he was better in other roles like in Mr Smith Goes to Washington or Anatomy of a Murder. I did particularly like Hepburn. She was well-known as an outspoken feminist, constantly speaking out against the misogyny of the era. And she brought some of her fiery demeanour into her role. It was nice seeing a female lead as acting assertive and confident, rather than just a wet blanket, which was all too common for the films of the time.

While I was charmed by the three leads, I was less charmed by the film itself. All very cheesy and predictable.

Barry Lyndon review

 Number 228 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's 1975 epic historical drama 'Barry Lyndon.'

Based on William Makepeace Thackery's novel 'the Luck of Barry Lyndon,' Barry Lyndon (Ryan O'Neal) follows the eponymous Irish rogue as he wiles his way into the upper echelons of society through marrying the rich widow Lady Lyndon (Marisa Berenson) and ingratiating himself into her family and life.

Barry Lyndon really surprised me. As you may have gathered from some of my other reviews, I neither care for epics or period dramas of which Barry Lyndon was both. They're vague, overly-long and tedious. They're so boring. Yet I found Barry Lyndon to be very watchable. 

Did it need to be three hours long? Absolutely not. The pacing was incredibly slow, which was hardly helped by how the accompanying musical score was slow, serene and happy. That hardly helped to ratchet up the tension. Plus there were lots of shots of the characters sitting around doing very little.

But despite all that I thoroughly enjoyed Barry Lyndon. As a character, Lyndon is pretty despicable. He is charming on the surface, but he also has a darker side which regularly comes out when he doesn't get his way. However, he is still interesting to watch. I was intrigued to keep watching just to see whether he gets his just desserts or not, which *spoiler alert* he inevitably does. O'Neal made him a charismatic and three-dimensional character. It worked well enough to stop him from becoming a cliched cartoon villain.

Another reason period-dramas don't work for me is either the lack of stakes or stakes being so artificially produced that they become over-blown and contrived. Neither of these was the case with Barry Lyndon. There was plenty of drama. It was presented in a natural and authentic way, as we see Lyndon navigate obstacle after obstacle. He goes from duelling a rival to fighting for the English in the Seven-Year war to fighting for the Prussians in the Seven-Year war to becoming a gambler and hustler to marrying the widowed Lady Lyndon and then coming full-circle by duelling his stepson Lord Bullingdon. It is quite a journey.

Barry Lyndon really surprised me. I went into the film absolutely dreading it, but it was thoroughly entertaining. I guess you can't judge a film by its genre classification.

La Haine review

 Number 220 on the top 1000 films of all time is the French social thriller 'La Haine.' (The Hatred)

Vinz (Vincent Cassel,) Hubert (Hubert Kounde) and Said (Said Taghamaoui) are three friends and second-generation immigrants living in Paris. The day after a riot, where one of their friends is brutally beaten, we see the three young men navigating life in the ghettoes of Paris.

Part immigrant experience, part gritty drama, part slice-of life, La Haine was an illuminating look into working-class life within Paris. It was a far cry from the romanticised Paris that we see on social media. It was raw, gritty and stark. There were no frills - just an authentic portrayal of life in Paris. It strongly reminded me of similar dramas set in London like Kidulthood or Top Boy.

Those dramas have no pretensions; they don't impart any judgement on their characters. Instead, they give you the facts and allow you to decide for yourself. And that's what the best film makers do. They leave their biases behind and leave matters in the hands of the audience.

You could argue that Vinz, Hubert and Said aren't the most likeable of characters. They're destructive miscreants causing trouble wherever they go, but they're not meant to be liked. They aren't heroes. They aren't villains. They just are. We're forced to see the world through their eyes and nothing more. We have no choice.

What made La Haine so powerful was its realism. Everything felt so real. I was right there with the characters walking through the dark streets of Paris. And that was only made better through the excellent decision of rendering the film in monochrome. The stark black-and-white only made the action all the more poignant. There are no distracting colours to hide behind. 

Watching La Haine was a hell of a ride. It was intense and it didn't let up for a second. But it had a brilliant authenticity that carried things along very smoothly. For those who are thinking Paris is like the way you see in Amelie, think again. La Haine presents the oh so painful, but also necessary truth.

Memories of Murder review

 Number 213 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Bong Jong-Hoo's 2003 South Korean neo-noir crime thriller 'Memories of Murder.'

Park Doo-man (Song Kang-ho) and Kim Roi-ha (Cho Yong-koo) are police detectives in 1986 Hwaseong who are investigating a string of grisly rapes and murders. They are soon joined by the Seoul hotshot Seo Tae-yoon (Kim Sang-kyung.)

This was a convincing thriller. It was tense, gripping with plenty of plot-twists along the way. Granted it was complicated and convoluted at times, but as such is the nature with these films. Bong makes great use of the weather and music to really up the tension. There were great sequences like when the detectives chase a suspect through the backstreets of Hwaseong.

As is common for thrillers, many of the key scenes took place at night and in the pouring rain, which certainly built the suspense. And one of the biggest clues that cracks the case is a radio song that is always requested to play while the murders take place.

However, there was something stopping me from really engaging with it and that was the interpersonal dynamics between Park, Kim and Seo. Their constant unprofessionalism and squabbling really got on my nerves after a while. I get it. Park and Kim are resentful of having an outsider come help them. They neither want or need their help, but for the greater good they must work together. It is quickly implied that Park and Kim are out of their depths. Their small police department doesn't have the resources or funds to successfully complete this investigation.

But their constant in-fighting made them seem incredibly amateurish. I had no confidence that they would find the true killer especially when they resort to beating confessions out of their suspects. I get that they're from the school of flawed, psychologically-damaged, rough-around-the-edges, willing to break the rules to get the job done, police detectives, but it was all too much. They weren't very likeable and I wasn't too bothered if they would successfully apprehend the killer. Rather than catching the killer, they just get even more people killed like their initial suspect.

And *spoilers*

they don't. Despite having three key suspects, including the most likely candidate Park Hyeon-gu, the case remains frustratingly unsolved. Having the killer escape was refreshing to see. In many thrillers, it's expected that after some ordeals and struggles, the cops would eventually catch the murderer and everything would wrap up nicely. Maybe not with a pretty pink bow, but nicely enough. However, that isn't the case here. And I quite liked this ending. It felt painfully realistic. Sadly, in real life, many murders do go unsolved, because the killers are never caught. They do escape.

Despite the rather unlikeable main characters, I still think Memories of Murder is worth a watch. It's a gripping thriller with a refreshing ending.

Strangers on a Train review

 Number 210 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1951 psychological thriller 'Strangers on a Train.'

Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is an amateur tennis star who wishes to divorce his wife Miriam to instead marry Anne Morton (Ruth Roman,) the daughter of a US senator. On a train, he meets Bruno Antony (Robert Walker,) a psychopath who hates his father. Bruno suggests that the two swap murders - Bruno will kill Guy's wife if Guy kills Bruno's father. 

Hitchcock was dubbed the 'Master of Suspense' for a reason. This was another great outing. Possibly one of his scariest films since The Birds. A lot of this was down to Robert Walker's portrayal of the antagonistic Bruno Antony. Not only is he a psychopath, but he is a silver-tongued psychopath, charismatic enough to integrate himself into any social situation without raising an alarm. And he is clever enough to manipulate all situations to his advantage. He tricks his way into fancy dinners that Haines is attending and even into his tennis club. And like many psychopaths, he is delusional; he kills Haines' wife believing that Haines has accepted his offer, but this was never the case. 

Walker is definitely no hulking giant of a man, but he still created a true aura of menace. In some ways, he was what I would imagine Ted Bundy being like. Although I did read online that Hitchcock deliberately queer-coded Bruno. By today's standards that could be considered problematic, although I didn't really notice much of that. Perhaps because Walker was so charismatic.

But it wasn't just Walker's performance that kept me on the edge of my seat; it was the lighting, shadows and the cinematography. Guy is a famous tennis star who wears his shiny tennis whites while Bruno is a nobody languishing in his dark, dingy mansion. All his wealth has failed to save his soul. Of course, there is also the famous shot of Bruno strangling Miriam reflected in her glasses that had tumbled to the floor. In fact, the whole sequence was tense, as Bruno silently pursues her through the tunnel of love in a fairground.

Speaking of the fairground, I was sceptical about the final confrontation between Bruno and Haines taking place on a carousel that is spinning wildly out of control. I understand that it is going very quickly, but it's not that high off the ground. There's no real danger there. Unfortunately, this did push my suspension of disbelief a little too far.

Anyway, this was still an enjoyable film. It was tense, gripping and had a great performance by Robert Walker.

Scent of a Woman review

 Number 379 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1992 drama-film 'Scent of a Woman.;'

Charlie Simms (Chris O'Donnell) is an American prep-school student in desperate need of some money. He takes on what seems like the easy assignment of taking care of the grumpy, blind Vietnam veteran Colonel Frank Slade (Al Pacino.) However, he quickly learns this task will be far from easy.

For his role as Frank Slade, Al Pacino won the Best Actor Oscar. I understand why. He was very impressive. Perhaps I'm exposing my own ignorance, but I've only seen Al Pacino as either a gangster of a hard-boiled policeman. He's great in these roles, but I wasn't sure how that would translate to something more dramatic. Short answer? It translated very well. Slade, despite being a jerk at times, is a sympathetic character. Having driven away most of his friends and family, he is intensely alone. But Pacino still made him likeable. He brought a great vulnerability to the role. And he was also very funny. That surprised me the most: Pacino was funny.

Chris O'Donnell was also good. Unlike the rest of his prep-school friends, Charlie isn't a spoiled, entitled brat. He is very likeable. Despite their rocky beginnings, he forges an unlikely friendship with Frank Slade. Charlie has the patience to look past Slade's prickly exterior and see the man beneath him.

At two and a half hours long, I would argue the film is much longer than it needs to be. I definitely could have done without the corny ending. Charlie Simms bears witness to a prank that his friends execute on their headteacher. Rather than telling on them in front of their whole school, he stays quiet. Slade gives a speech praising his integrity, eventually leading to Simms going unpunished. And naturally the whole school goes wild. Why? Who knows? But I do know it was ridiculous.

Lastly, I have to praise Philip Seymour Hoffman who played Chris' friend 'George.' I have yet to see Philip Seymour Hoffman is a role that I didn't like. Generally, he plays slimy sleazeballs, but he plays them so damn well.

The acting was definitely the highlight of this film. And Al Pacino thoroughly deserved his Oscar. 

Departures review

Number 197 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Japanese drama 'Departures.'

Daigo Kobayashi (Masahiro Motoki)  is a failed cellist returning home to Yamagata after his orchestra in Tokyo dissolves. At a loss of what to do next, he takes the role of a Nokanshi - a traditional ritual mortician. However, he faces much prejudice due to strong taboo towards death in Japan.

This was a touching and humanistic portrayal of a sensitive subject matter. In the West, we have a similarly taboo attitude toward death so it was interesting seeing that it was the same in the Far East. A lot of this film's success rested on Daigo's character. He was infinitely relatable and sympathetic. Who out of any of us hasn't had a plan work out the way we would have liked only to find joy in something we never would have expected. Masahiro Motoki helped to bring this character to life. He played the role with a lot of nuance. And his arc was enjoyable to watch. Initially, he is reluctant to perform his nokanshi duties, but he soon executes them with grace and ease. We see the discomfort, grief and eventual acceptance all come to life.

But the same can be said with the supporting cast. Due to the taboos surrounding the nokanshi, his friends begin to ostracise him and his wife even leaves him. However, once they see his dedication to his craft, they slowly accept him back into their community. And, of course, I am only an outsider looking in, but I could see the care that the film-makers took to present Nokanshi in an accurate light. In turn, I could see the care that the Nokanshi give to the dead. The dead were treated with the dignity they deserve. Everything was treated with grace and elegance. And director Yojiro Takita perfectly captured the grieving families of the deceased.

Departures also had plenty of dark off-beat humour which was the perfect contrast to the sobering subject matter. Early on in his nokanshi career, Daigo has to act as a cadaver for an advert. There he endures a number of indignities such as wearing an adult nappy or having cotton wool stuck where the sun doesn't shine. It was a very funny sequence.

I also have to compliment the soundtrack. Departures was scored by Joe Hisaishi who has also scored a number of Studio Ghibli films, so no wonder the music was so good. It was accompanied, naturally, by cello music, played by Motoki who learned the cello especially for the part.

But my one big criticism centres around Daigo's relationship with his wife Mika (Ryoko Hirosue.) Unable to reconcile his new work, she gives him an ultimatum: his job or her. When he picks her, she leaves, only to return later with a baby in the way. And, lo and behold, all is well. This surprise pregnancy cliche was such a contrived and unnatural way to get Daigo and Mika back together. I wanted to see him struggle to win his wife back, but there was no struggle at all.

Nevertheless, this was an enjoyable film about such a taboo subject. It was so interesting learning about the traditions of another culture.

Roman Holiday review

 Number 230 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1953 romantic-comedy Roman Holiday.

Princess Ann (Audrey Hepburn) is just completing her European tour in Rome. Sick of her diplomatic assignments she runs away for a night of fun. Enter hard-nosed journalist Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck) who has been tasked with getting an exclusive interview with the princess but ends up falling in love with her.

Some have labelled Roman Holiday as one of the most romantic films of all time. I did enjoy it a lot, but I wouldn't go that far. I don't think there was enough conflict or tension running through the film. We see Ann and Joe scootering around Rome in a love-filled daze until it inevitably comes crashing down at the film's conclusion. But it might have been nice to see more worry and doubt throughout the film. We certainly saw the highs, but we also should have seen the lows. We needed that contrast.

Character-driven films like these rely on the strength of their two leads. And Hepburn and Peck were both good considering this was Hepburn's breakout role and Peck's first foray into comedy. He did very well with the comedy especially the physical comedy. At times the comedy descended into farce and incredulity, particularly the fight scene on the boat. Although perhaps I am unfairly judging it from my modern-standard. 

But there were still plenty of great supporting characters like Bradley's photographer friend Irving, Bradley's boss and all the small Italian roles especially the taxi driver at the film's beginning.

Is Roman Holiday an entertaining, fun romantic comedy? Yes. Is it one of the best romances of all time? No.