The White Ribbon review

 Number 508 on the top 1000 films of all time is Michael Haneke's 2009 German mystery-drama 'The White Ribbon.'

The White Ribbon is set in the fictional village of Eichwald, Northern Germany, in the eve of World War One. Here a number of strange events occur including a farmer's wife dying in mysterious circumstances, the son of the local wealthy landowner being kidnapped and tortured, as well as a barn burning down. The village's school teacher (Christian Friedel) begins to suspect the village's children are behind everything.

This might have just been me, but the White Ribbon struck me as an unintentional homage to the German Expressionist films of old. Granted it lacked the surreal landscapes that Fritz Lang popularised, but it did have that overwhelming sense of dread. Plus, there was a very bleak mystery to be solved.

Yet there was something deeply unsatisfactory about the film. Despite how the school teacher has his suspicions about the village children, nothing is ever confirmed or denied either way. Of course that's life and sometimes you never find out the answers to your questions. However, when you have a mystery as great as this, you would expect at least some attempt at an explanation.

Instead when the school leader raises his concerns to the local priest and village's moral leader (Burghurt Klausner) he is quickly ran out of town. Some suspect the town's doctor, but the film ends with no satisfactory answers. All these strange events become strange stories.

Chances are we'll never know the real reason behind the mystery. I imagine that Haneke is one of those directors who like to leave it up to their audiences to decide. I guess it makes sense that the children were the culprits, but why? That's the biggest mystery of all.

Blowup Review

 Number 629 on the top 1000 films of all time is Michelangelo Antonioni's 1966 psychological mystery drama 'Blowup.'

Thomas (David Hemmings) is a photographer during the London's Swinging sixties. He believes he has unwittingly photographed a murder that is somehow connected to the mysterious woman Jane (Vanessa Redgrave.) This was Italian Antonioni's first English-language film.

Blowup? More like blow-out. This film was boring and tedious. If you looked up dull in the dictionary, you would see a picture of Blowup. It revolves around Thomas discovering a murder, yet this doesn't occur until an hour into the film. You get some movies that take a while to get going and then you have this...maybe if this film was three hours long (thank God it wasn't) the slow start would have been justifiable, but Blowup was under two hours.

There was no reason to have an hour of Thomas photographing models or photographing Jane and her lover in the park. I get it, the film is about photography, Thomas is a photographer, but seeing photos being developed hardly makes for the most entertaining or dramatic of cinema.

Not to mention that Thomas is one of the most unlikeable protagonists that I have seen on film. In the creative world, you get the pretentious, artistic genius archetype. Thomas embodies this and more. He is arrogant, spoiled, creepy and incredibly predatory. When he is photographing the model Verushka, he is constantly licking her ear. He has a weird sexual dalliance with two aspiring models, this scene went on for far longer than it should have, and there is an unwelcome sexual tension between him and Jane.

Thomas also seems remarkably uncaring about whether he solves the mystery or not. For some reason, he goes to a dope house to bring his obviously intoxicated friend to see the dead body. But by the time he actually gets there, the body has disappeared and he's more concerned with watching a group of mimes miming playing tennis. What was up with that? Why were we watching that?

It was like they had wandered off the set of La Dolce Vita and onto the set of Blowup. In fact, this whole film was like if Fellini had taken his existentially lost, young, annoying, artistic characters and transplanted them into a Hitchcock thriller.

But Blowup had none of the tension or suspense of a Hitchcock thriller. The severe lack of non-diegetic music did not help. Instead, we got a strange and unnecessary scene of the Yardbirds playing out a gig, and Jeff Beck smashing his guitar.

*spoiler alert*

The mystery is never solved. We never find out who killed this man or why, which I think was supposed to be the point, but it also made the film pointless. It left a lot of annoying plot holes. When Jane spots Thomas taking photos of her, she complains vehemently and visits his studio multiple times to get a copy of them. Why is she so interested? Who knows? And who cares? Obviously Antonioni didn't.

And I know this was the sixties, but Thomas' photos are so grainy and blurred, I don't know how he spotted any dead body in them. it was a bit like the so-called photos that prove the existence of Bigfoot or aliens.

Blowup was a tedious film. Not enough drama, tension or likeable characters. And too many shots of characters standing around staring into the middle-distance and bloody mimes playing tennis.

In the Heat of the Night review

 Number 322 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1967 mystery-drama 'In the Heat of the Night.'

Virgil Tibbs (Sydney Poitier) is a Philadelphia police officer visiting his mother in Mississippi. When a town official is murdered, he is drafted into helping the local Chief of Police Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger.) But the racist town folks are incredibly distrustful and hostile toward Virgil Tibbs.

It can be all too easy to dismiss America's fixation on race, as a mere perverse obsession. But then you watch films like this and you are reminded that less than sixty years ago, these racist attitudes were still alive and well. I'm not talking about the actual film either. Norman Jewison partly shot the film in Tennessee where the cast and crew were harassed by the locals. Plus, Sydney Poitier slept with a gun under his pillow. 

And Sydney Poitier was the driving force behind this film. He was great as Virgil Tibbs who bore all the racial abuse with a steely determination to solve the case. Poitier played the role with a righteous determination. He was terrific.

I would argue that he was even better than his co-star Rod Steiger who won the best Acting Oscar for his portrayal of Gillespie. Out of all the police, he is perhaps the most racist, but after being forced into working with Virgil, we see his outdated views changing. Steiger played this transformation well. But Poitier was the true star.

Another thing I liked was the simplicity of the film. Often in thrillers, like in sci-fi, you have writers trying to put in twist after twist to show how clever they are, when they're just making things convoluted. There is nothing wrong with simplicity. And that's where 'In the Heat of the Night' succeeded. Virgil Tibbs wasn't trying to decode the cyphers that the Zodiac Killer left. He wasn't tracking down the likes of Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Instead he was solving the murder of a single man. And the solution was far simpler than anybody thought.

Finally, I enjoyed the use of prolonged silences that really upped the tension especially where Virgil was facing off against a gang of white men looking to kill him. This silence was balanced well with Quincy Jones' excellent score which included Ray Charles on the title track.

In the Heat of the Night was a great watch with terrific performances from not only Rod Steiger, but, also, Sydney Poitier.

The Lady Vanishes review

 Number 311 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1938 mystery thriller 'The Lady Vanishes.'

Iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood) is an English tourist returning home from travelling in Europe. She befriends an elderly woman called Miss Froy (May Witty) on the train before drifting off to sleep. When she awakes, Miss Froy has vanished. The fellow passengers don't know where or even who she might be. Iris is convinced something bigger is happening and along with the pompous Gilbert (Michael Redgrave) she begins to investigate.

To say that this film employs the suspension of disbelief would be the understatement of the century. It stretches disbelief to ridiculous lengths. The plot creaks as much as the hokey special effects and cardboard sets. I know that this was the 1930's, but the final shootout was made less thrilling by the melodramatic deaths and tinny explosions/sound effects. And it emerges that Miss Froy was secretly a British spy who had to report vital information in the form of a tune. The only thing more unbelievable was how she escaped from the firefight unharmed.

Having said all this, I did enjoy this film. Yes, the beginning drags on for too long - too much time was spent introducing the characters. But when things did get going, the tension became very high. Just like Iris, I wanted to know where Miss Froy had gone and what was her true identity. Also it was a very funny film with Gilbert's standoffish attitude providing a lot of the comedy. Redgrave played the laughs well.

There were plot holes and loose ends - what happened to the henchman who holds our heroes at gunpoint just when it looks like the day has been saved? Nothing apparently, as they're all fine in the next shot.

Despite this, I did enjoy this film which was one of Hitchcock's earliest efforts. But he started as he meant to go on and it was a great start. 

The Game review

 Number 524 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Fincher's thriller 'the Game.'

Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas) is a wealthy investment banker in San Francisco. He is also lonely with no family, except for his estranged younger brother Conrad (Sean Penn.) Conrad enrols Nicholas in a mysterious game as a birthday present. Upon accepting, Nicholas finds his life spiralling out of control.

What David Fincher achieved in this film is taking an inherently unlikeable character and making you root for him. Nicholas is set up as grumpy, old curmudgeon. Haunted by the memories of his father's suicide at the same age he is now, he has no friends or family, save for Conrad. Michael Douglas played the fish out of water well. Nicholas' progressively growing panic was palpable to see, as the game evolves from mild inconveniences in his life to life-threatening situations. it might be tempting to describe him as a Scrooge, although I'm not sure if he performs a 180. By the film's end, he isn't welcoming Bob Cratchitt to eat with Christmas dinner with him, but there is a definite softening to his character.

This is exhibited within the character of Christine (Deborah Kara Unger) who is a waitress at Nicholas' favourite restaurant. Upon spilling wine on him, Nicholas admonishes her and gets her fired from her job. However, the two are thrown together, as Christine is also caught up in the mystery. But, by the end, the two reconcile and go for coffee. Nicholas may not have fully transformed yet, but there is the potential to do so.

Having said all that, I don't think Sean Penn was anything special as the unhinged Conrad. Yes, he kick starts the action by sending his brother down this rabbit role, but this role could have gone to anyone. Except for a few key scenes, he doesn't really do much. I guess the only reason that Sean Penn was billed second was his star power, rather than the importance of his character.

Fincher did well in always keeping the mystery high. The audience is in as much in the dark about the true nature of the Game as Nicky. And this always keeps the tension high. We have morally duplicitous characters like Christine who becomes an unlikely ally until she isn't. And, as things get weirder, Nicholas is sure that he is embroiled in some big conspiracy against him. The truth behind it all, which I won't spoil here, is far more innocuous.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable film with some edge-on-the-seat action. Douglas was great, but I do think Penn could have brought more to the role.

Prisoners Review

 Number 251 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2013 thriller 'Prisoners.'

Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard) are best friends and carpenters in Pennsylvania. But then their daughters Anna and Joy go missing. When Detective Loki's (Jake Gyllenhaal's) investigation breaks down, Dover takes matters into his own hands when he suspects local man and intellectually disabled Alex Jones (Paul Dano) as the kidnapper.

How best to describe this film? Doomy? Depressing? Downbeat? All of these adjectives are accurate. Yet it was till dramatic and interesting to watch. The setting was great as you can see the paranoia of the characters build and build up. The once familiar suburban houses and liquor stores become hostile.

And while the atmosphere was great, I do think it took a while for things to get going. The film opens with the two families sharing a thanksgiving dinner and Franklin showcasing his awful trumpet playing. And I get this was all setting the scene, but I think it could have been set a bit faster. I would have expected that the film opens with the disappearance of the daughters and we would see the backstory in flashbacks.

And I also think that everything was a little too perfect. Jackman, Gyllenhaal and Dano were all great in their roles, but maybe a little too great. Jackman was the angry grieving father, Gyllenhaal was the moody detective who doesn't play by the rules and Dano was the intellectually disabled fall guy. And I think to some extent, they were too good in the roles. Beyond these roles, there was little else behind the characters. In fact, they were closer to cariactures than characters. But I did enjoy the ending twist which I won't spoil here. It made a pleasant surprise and a nice subversion to what could have been a very obvious edning.

Although I enjoyed how Prisoners explored the theme of imprisonment - how we can all be prisoners of our own fears and demons, everything was just a little too perfect.

Dial M for Murder review

 Number 178 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's murder mystery Dial M for Murder.

Tony Wendice (Ray Milland) suspects his wife Margot (Grace Kelly) is having an affair with American Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings.) When his suspicions prove true, he plots to have her killed so he can inherit her fortune.

Hitchcock was famously known as the 'Master of Suspense,' and his skills came to the fore in this delightful movie. This is a deceptively simple film with a limited cast and only one or two sets, yet the tension is always high. Mr Wendice is a devious character evidenced by how he blackmails Captain Lesgate (Anthony Dawson) into murdering his wife. And Ray Milland did well to make such a despicable character interesting and charismatic. Although one could argue that the film leant into an excess of exposition at times, the overly talky scenes still brimmed with tension.

However, I think the film's greatest strength was also its greatest weakness. Perhaps it was too simple. Maybe I've been spoiled by all of today's complicated crime dramas, but I was expecting more from the police investigation. Sure there was a great dramatic irony in us knowing that Wendice was plotting to kill his wife while the police were clueless, but maybe that's because the police didn't do the most thorough of investigations. Wendice may have wiped clean most of his fingerprints with his encounter with Lesgate, but he still touched the silk stockings that he used as planted evidence with his bare hands. Maybe I'm being overly critical. Fingerprinting might not have had the importance it does now.

But what did puzzle me was the final act. After Margot is sentenced for Lesgate's murder, Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) returns to the crime scene to conduct his own investigation. He then listens to Wendice and Halliday suggest their own theories. And I don't believe that any chief inspector would even consider entertaining such crazy ideas.

Finally, the backdrops for the exterior shots in Maida Vale were so obviously backdrops. I know this was the fifties, but come on.

Overall, I did enjoy this film. Sure it wasn't always the most believable, but it had a delicious dramatic irony that kept me engrossed throughout.

Review for M

So number 62 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 German drama-thriller M.

Set in Berlin, Germany, Hans Beckert, (Peter Lorre) a peadophile and child killer is on the prowl.  After the police are unable to stop him, the citizens led by crime bosses band together.

This film is a great exploration of mob psychology and vigilante justice.  After it becomes obvious that the police aren't going to do anything, the people take the law into their own hands.  There is something poetical in how it is crime bosses who are leading the charge in catching this killer, as if they are any better than him.  Although their motivations for doing so make sense.  They want to stop this killer, as he is driving away business.  To catch him, they use the city's homeless population is used.

When a blind beggar recognises the familiar whistle of Hans Beckert, the people take him to stand trail at a Kangaroo Court that is strongly biased against him.  The jury are the townspeople and the judges are the criminal bosses.  However, despite this, Beckert still receives a defence lawyer.  This is where the film's best scene takes place.  Beckert gives an impassioned speech claiming that he was not conscious of his killings; something inside of him made him do it.  

From here the lawyer argues that Beckert is criminally insane and should therefore be sent to hospital instead of prison or being executed.  This touches upon the incredibly sensitive and hotly-debated issue of mental illness and crime.  If somebody is insane, are they really aware of that they're doing? Or is something deeper compelling them to do it? I'm not claiming to provide an answer, but the way this film engages with this theme is one of its driving forces.

Despite the power of the last scene, I did not enjoy the film, as much as I thought I would.  It flitted about a lot from scene to scene and the characters weren't as memorable, as they could have been.  Even as I am writing this review, I'm having trouble remembering the names of any of the characters. There seemed to be a distinct lack of a main character.

This notwithstanding, the film is still a fascinating examination of the human psyche.  It becomes even more poignant with the recent case of Anders Breivik who was denied the status of criminally insane.  If he had been declared insane though, would this have excused the deaths of seventy-seven people? I'll leave you to think about that.