Megalopolis review

 Having been released in 2024, Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis is too young to feature on the top 1000 films of all time. It is unlikely to feature on any future editions of this list either.

Cesar Cantilina (Adam Driver) is a famous and influential architect in New Rome - an alternate, futuristic New York City. His creation of the element Megalon has proven revolutionary in constructing buildings. It has also brought him fame and fortune. He has visions of building a new utopic city called Megalopolis, but these plans bring him into conflict with New Rome's mayor Franklyn Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito.) The huge supporting cast includes Nathalie Emmanuel, Aubrey Plaza, Shia Laboeuf, Jon Voight, Talia Shire, Grace Vanderwaal and Dustin Hoffman.

Megalopolis has long been Coppola's passion project. After decades in development hell, he finally raised the money to self-finance the film by selling off part of his wine-making business. Yet it was not smooth-sailing from here.

Megalopolis had a troubled production from filming delays caused by the pandemic to Coppola's experimental style where he encouraged his cast to improvise scenes in theatre-style workshops. The visual effects and arts departments were either fired or resigned during production too.

All of this had a negative knock-on effect on Megalopolis. It was a pretentious, bloated, incomprehensible jumble of scenes with little to no plot. Coppola certainly wasn't short of ambition, but he couldn't convert that into a cohesive film. 

Inspired by the Catilinarian Conspiracy and the transition of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, Coppola tried modernising the story by transplanting it into a futuristic, science-fiction setting, but all this did was confuse things further. As well as being a trail-blazing architect, Cesar also had the power to stop time. Why? Because ... reasons.

I mentioned earlier that the visual effects and art departments were either fired or quit during the production. You could definitely see the end-result of that in the finished product, as the film looked incredibly inconsistent. Some parts like the cityscape from the top of Metropolis, but other parts looked like they were out of the worst acid trip ever. Did we really need to see Aubrey Plaza's face in a cup of tea? And as for the weird circus/gladitorial/Grace Vanderwaal show, that was just poor chaos. Not chaos in the good sense either. It was a confusing, overwhelming mess.

As for the acting, this matched the larger-than-life nature of the film. Driver, Esposito, Voight, Plaza and, especially, Laboeuf were dreadfully over-the-top. Granted the dialogue wasn't great - case-in-point, Voight talking about having a boner - but their performances were still so campy that it was difficult to take them seriously.

I really wanted to like Metropolis. The Godfather is one of my favourite films. Coppola is a titan of the film industry having also having also directed classics like Apocalypse Now. Yet he couldn't replicate that same success here. At eighty-years-old, this could very well be one of his last films. What a disappointing swansong. Never mind, Megalopolis. This was Megaflopolis.

Manhattan review

 Number 293 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's romantic, comedy-drama 'Manhattan.'

Woody Allen stars as Isaac Davis, a 42-year-old TV comedy writer living in Manhattan. He is dating the 17-year-old Tracy (Muriel Hemingway) but soon falls in love with his best friend's mistress Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton.)

This was a comedy, right? Woody Allen directed it, right? He wrote it too. So, why was it so unfunny? The film was only ninety-six minutes, but it felt so much longer. It wasn't until the forty-sixth minute that I even cracked a smile. The rest of the film rarely elicited more than a chuckle.

And that comes back to Woody Allen who effectively always plays the same character - a neurotic, middle-aged Jewish man with a tendency to psycho-analyse everything. it's all well and good, once or twice, but after a while, it becomes tedious. Tedious is the best way to describe this film. It was just a bunch of would-be academics name-dropping philosopher after philosopher.

Manhattan was also uncomfortable in its depiction of Isaac and Tracy's relationship. He's old enough to be her father. And the romantically inexperienced Hemingway also experienced a lot of discomfort in the role. Considering the allegations that have since been levelled against Allen and considering how he is married to his step-daughter who is over thirty years his junior, it only made things ickier. I know that nothing ever came of the allegations, but it still felt creepy.

If I were to praise the film on anything it would be its cinematography, which was wonderful. Allen shot the film in black-and-white, which gave it a timeless, vintage feel. The scenes of Allen and Keaton in the planetarium where they were silhouetted against the stars were gorgeous.

I've seen a few Woody Allen films in my time. I can't say I like them very much. Even though, they're comedies, they're just not funny.

Gangs of New York review

 Number 790 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsesee's historical crime epic 'Gangs of New York.'

Set in 19th century Manhattan, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo Dicaprio) is a man seeking revenge. Sixteen years earlier, his father "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) was killed by fearsome gangster Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) leader of the xenophobic gang 'the Natives' - one of the many gangs who ruled New York. Amsterdam also grows friendly with attractive pickpocket Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz.) Stephen Graham, Brendan Gleeson and Jimbroadbent all co-star.

Gangs of New York showcased Scorsesee at his absolute best. Based on a true story, he brought characters and a setting that have long been dead to history, back to life again. Everything coalesced to make a thrilling spectacle. The costume design was on-point as the actual set production. Scorsesee had a mile of nineteenth-century New York reproduced on a film set in Rome. He also hired a dialect coach to make sure that all the accents were historically accurate. Dicaprio speaks with a hybrid Irish-American accent and Day-Lewis has a hard New York accent.

And Day-Lewis is a hell of an actor. He might take method acting to an extreme, but it paid off in the finished product. He is scary as the unpredictable Butcher - a character who has lived to forty-seven through terror alone. How does the adage go? Be wary of the old man in the profession where men die young. Day-Lewis really just embodied the character. No wonder he's considered one of the best actors of his generation.

Dicaprio was great as well, taking Amsterdam through an arc of a poor Irish immigrant's son to become the unlikely leader of the resistance movement. He really shone here. The same can't be said for Cameron Diaz who was nothing special in her role. Her character - a former prostitute who suffered an abortion is certainly a tragic one, but one that anybody could have played.

Despite being close to three hours, Gangs of New York never felt over-long. It was masterfully paced and throttled along. Granted, it wasn't perfect. At times, it leant into melodrama with some excessive slow-motion and grandiose music. During the final fight sequence, we see some of our favourite characters die in strange and contrived ways, which I won't spoil here.

Nonetheless, Gangs of a New York is a brilliant film - one of Scorsesee's best. The titular gangs may have once been forgotten, but Scorsesee has ensured that they will be remembered forever more.

Whale Rider review

 Number 606 on the top 1000 films of all time is the New Zealand drama 'Whale Rider'.

Set in modern-day New Zealand, Whale Rider is about Kahu 'Paikea' Apirana (Keisha Castle-Hughes,) a twelve-year old Maori girl who dreams of becoming the chieftain of her tribe, despite the fierce opposition of her grandfather Koro (Rawiri Paratene) who is adamant that the chieftain should always be male. Paikea works hard to overcome these patriarchal traditions.

It was a joy watching this film. I was fortunate enough to visit New Zealand in early 2020 and even more fortunate to attend the Tamaki Maori village. This was a fantastic experience which taught me a lot about the Maori culture and Maori traditions. And it was lovely revisiting some of these memories within 'Whale Rider.' And it was also great seeing the beautiful New Zealand landscape again.

One of the things I've loved about this challenge is that I get to watch films that I would otherwise have never heard of. And Whale Rider was a film that was definitely not on my radar, but I did enjoy it. It's strange, because the film seemed to give off a very low-budget feel, despite having a budget of almost 10 million New Zealand dollars. There wasn't any explosions, CGI or special effects and the film quality never seemed that high, but maybe that's because this was filmed in 2002. Despite that, I did enjoy watching it. Keisha, in her feature film and acting debut, gave a great performance as Paikea. She was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar and deservingly so.

I feel like it's all too common for a lot of children to feel like the black sheep of their families. They feel like they don't live up to expectations or have unsupportive, strict parents. A lot of well-meaning, but misguided parents can fail to properly support their children to realise their goals. Or as in Koro's case, they do everything in their power to stop them. This could have made Paikea a bitter and resentful character, but, instead, she was empowering and inspirational. She was determined to overcome the obstacles placed before her and that determination made her very endearing to watch. After her conflict with her grandfather comes to a head, Paikea gives an emotional speech in front of her family and friends that is dedicated to Koro and the traditions of her tribe. Keisha delivered it well. And it was difficult not to feel for her.

I also enjoyed Rawiri Paratene as Koro. He provided a lot of depth to what could have been a cardboard cut-out character. Instead of being only a grumpy grandfather, Koro is just an old man desperately clinging to his traditions in an ever-changing world. It was a sensitive portrayal of how sometimes we have to abandon tradition in the favour of progress.

The only thing that I took issue with was the ending. MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT. Koro throws his rei puta (whale tooth) into the ocean and  sets a challenge for his male proteges to recover it. The winner will become the new chieftain of the tribe. After they all fail, he despairingly summons the ancient ones - a group of whales as tradition stated that the first leader of their tribe rode to land on a whale - for guidance. Paikea also summons the whales in an attempt to help. The next evening, a pod of whales beach themselves. Despite the efforts of the whole tribe, they fail to get them back into the sea.

Just when it looks like all hope is lost, Paikea mounts one of the whales and coaxes him back into the water. The rest of the whales follow suit, but instead of returning to land, Paikea rides the whale back into the open water, seemingly ready to drown. I thought this went against the key message of 'Whale Rider.' This whole film is about her becoming the first female chieftain of her tribe. She is determined to smash open the traditional patriarchy. Why would she be so ready to die like this? If she does die then all of her efforts would have been for nothing. The audience has been invested in her journey and what have they received for it? A dead heroine? Unless she was hoping to be a martyr who would go onto inspire other women, but I didn't buy that.

Of course, this drowning was just a fake out. Paikea survives and is nursed back to health. Realising the error of his ways, Koro declares her the new chieftain. So Paikea achieved her goal, but I think this was a really extreme way of doing so.

The ending was a shame, as it did spoil an otherwise really good film. But that shouldn't stop you from watching Whale Rider. I would argue that it is an underrated movie that deserves all the recognition it can get.

The World's Fastest Indian review

 Number 326 on the top 1000 films of all time is the New Zealand biographical drama: 'The World's Fastest Indian.'

Burt Munro (Anthony Hopkins) is an ageing speed bike racer from New Zealand. He travels tot he US to fulfill a lifelong dream: to race his bike on the Bonneville salt flats in Utah.

By all accounts, this is a film that wouldn't interest me. I know that I should review these films with an open mind, but motor bike racing has never been something that interested me. I thought this would be a film that would only appeal to other bike racers, but I was wrong. It was an incredibly watchable film.

And a lot of that is down to Anthony Hopkins' portrayal as Burt Munro. Munro is such a likable character that it's difficult not to root for him. He is charming, jovial and personable. To gain passage to the US, he works as a chef on a small ship. Upon reaching the US, he encounters many obstacles with the local bureaucracy, but he always manages to talk his way out of trouble. He even convinces traffic cops to let him go without a ticket.

He also quickly befriends people who help him on his journey whether this is a transvestite motel clerk or a second-hand car salesman. This pays dividends when the jobsworth racing officials deny him the opportunity to race because he hasn't pre-registered. But the other racers rally around him and he is eventually allowed to race where he goes onto break the land speed record.

The only thing I found weird was how Hopkins didn't speak with a Kiwi accent. Considering this is a New Zeland production that's set in New Zealand and constantly has Munro referencing he is from New Zealand, it was a really bizarre choice. Surely this was some weird director decision as an actor of Hopkins' calibre must be capable of doing a convincing Kiwi accent.

This was an entertaining film. It could have been a tedious adventure that would only appeal to a small audience, but instead it was a heart-warming tale about an old man fulfilling his lifelong dream. 

The 400 Blows review

 Number 174 on the top 1000 films of all time is Francois Chauffert's 1959 coming of age drama 'The 400 Blows.'

Antoine Daniel (Jean-Pierre Lenard) is a school boy growing up in Paris. Plagued by behavioural problems, he acts up in schools and causes trouble at home.

The 400 Blows is considered to be one of the best French films of all time, but I am at a loss to why. Partly based on Chauffert's own troubled childhood, The 400 Blows did remind me of Ingrid Bergman's work. Granted it wasn't as nearly as abstract or surreal, but the same themes of introspection and a misunderstood character rebelling against a tyrannical system were present. 

Now I have no problem with character-driven films that study characters in depth. But for these to work, the characters in question have to be interesting and empathetic. Antoine Daniel was neither of these. He is barely even a rebel. Stealing type writers and writing on school walls hardly makes him a rebel without a cause. On that note Rebel Without a Cause explores similar themes and does it so much more effectively, mainly because of James Dean's brilliant performance. I really believed the alienation and isolation he was feeling.

Not so with Jean-Pierre Lenard. I just didn't care about him. Later on, upon trying to return the typewriter, he is arrested. His despairing parents send him to a psychiatric institution where it's revealed that he was an illegitimate child born to a mother that didn't want him. While this goes some way to explaining his behaviour, I think it came too late in the film. I had just stopped caring at this point. Plus Antoine reveals how his mother would shout at him, but I saw little evidence of this. Rather, his parents seemed to resort to bribes to control his behaviour as opposed to violence.

Honestly, I thought Antoine was just another poxy little kid causing trouble for the sake of it and the 400 Blows was a pale imitation of its far superior predecessors.