Night of the Living Dead review

 Number 327 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Romero's 1968 zombie-horror film 'Night of the Living Dead.'

Barbra (Judith O'Dea) and her brother are laying flowers on her father's grave when her brother is attacked by a zombie. Barbra runs in terror to a nearby house where she meets Ben (Duane Jones) and a group of other survivors. Together, they need to figure out how to survive the coming zombie hordes.

I am conflicted about this film. I am well-aware of its reputation. In many ways, it pioneered the zombie-horror genre popularising many of the tropes we now see in the likes of the Walking Dead Franchise or Z Nation. However, at its heart, 'Night of the Living Dead' is a siege film.

A group of characters are boarded up in a location and are besieged by an enemy force. Romero's unrelated sequel Dawn of the Dead follows a similar plot line. But I often find siege films lacking in tension and forward momentum. The characters are stuck in one place not going anywhere neither physically or emotionally. In many ways, Night of the Living Dead also fell into this trap until the characters decide to escape for a safer location.

That is until they start making stupid decisions which screws everything up. Stupid characters making stupid decisions for no other reason than to forward the plot is an annoying and tiresome cliche. Unfortunately it has become a mainstay of horror films. Is Night of the Living Dead to blame for this? I'm not sure.

What I am sure about is how I did not like how they reduced Barbra to little more than a damsel-in-distress. After she is rescued by Ben, she very much becomes an empty shell lacking in agency. While this would be a realistic reaction, it is difficult to believe that a character like that could survive in a world like this. Originally, Barbra was written with more grit, but upon casting Judith O'Dea, Romero rewrote her character.

But one thing Romero did right was the casting of Duane Jones as Ben. He very much carried the film on his back, as Ben was the leader of the survivors. Plus, it was a rare occurrence to have a black man star in a 1960's film. Originally, Ben was supposed to be a crude, un-educated truck  driver, but at the intellectual Jones' insistence, he was changed into a more well-rounded leader.

One cliche I was glad not to see was the one black character dying first in the horror film.

*spoilers*

In fact, Ben was the last one to die. And I did not like how he died. It wasn't in a glorious last stand with the zombies, but by a posse of white men who mistake him for one of the undead and promptly shoot him. But was it a mistake? There are some who have read into the racial undertones of a white man shooting a black man in the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement.

Either way, I found it to be an anti-climatic death unworthy of a good character. Reportedly, Jones wanted it this way saying it would be too Hollywood for him to be the last-man standing. That, notwithstanding, I would have preferred if he had been killed by a paranoid or scared man panicking over whether Ben was a zombie or not. Then his death might have had more meaning.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy Night of the Living Dead. It wasn't without its flaws, but it was still entertaining.

Y tu Mama Tambien review

 Number 641 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfonso Cuaron's Mexican road film 'Y tu Mama Tambien.'

Tenoch (Diego Luna) and Julio (Gael Garcia Bernal) are two bored, over-sexed teenagers who meet the older Spanish Luisa (Maribel Verdu) by pure chance. The three of them embark on a road trip to a paradise beach. Cue a coming-of-age drama with a lot of sex.

There have been some who have dubbed Y tu Mama Tambien as a Mexican 'American Pie,' while the two both are coming-of-age stories with a lot of sex, I don't think the comparison is really fair.

Y tu Mama tambien has a lot more depth to it than four boys trying to lose their virginities. It is a story about love and friendship taking an introspective look into adolescence. It made me nostalgic for an adolescence I never had. And that's where Alfonso Cuaron's excellent direction came into play.

Tenoch and Julio are never the punchlines to any jokes. Yes, the film has its funny moments, but it isn't a comedy. Instead of laughing at the characters, we can relate to their innocent ways. Yes, the two are directionless miscreants who go through life with a starry-eyed naivete, but that is what makes them infinitely relatable.

That is until, by chance, they meet Luisa and invite her to a paradise beach that might not even exist. She decides to join them for reasons that aren't immediately clear. This is one of the film's most unrealistic moments. The film was released over twenty years ago, but, even then, what would woman would join two strange teenage boys on some random round trip.

Nonetheless, she acts as a calming force helping to bring the two boys back to reality, all building toward to the ending, where they inevitably lose their innocence in one way or another.

Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal are best friends in real life, which meant their on-screen counterparts have an excellent chemistry. And Maribel Verdu was a great addition to the cast. In many ways she acts a mentor to her co-stars, especially, in the steamier scenes.

And this is definitely one of the steamier films I've seen. Yes, it's a great take on the coming-of-age drama, but not one to watch with your parents.

The Count of Monte Christo review

 Number 572 on the top 1000 films of all time is the swash-bucking adventure 'The Count of Monte Christo.'

Based on Alexander Dumas' novel of the same name, 'The Count of Monte Christo' follows Edmond Dantes (Jim Caviezel,) a French sailor wrongly imprisoned due to a collusion between his so-called friend Fernand (Guy Pearce) and the corrupt magistrate Villefort (James Frain.) With the help of fellow prisoner Abbe Faria (Richard Harris,) Edmund swears revenge on all who wronged him.

I enjoyed this film a lot more than I thought I would. Before watching it, I had unfairly written it off as another tedious period drama, but I was pleasantly wrong.

This was an entertaining, fun-filled drama, albeit often straying into nonsense territory, but it was good fun nonetheless. Richard Harris only appeared in a supporting role, but he provided some much-needed light relief to what else could have been an overly-serious revenge story.

Guy Pearce was very good as the slimy Fernand. With friends like him, who needs enemies. And Jim Caviezel was likeable enough as our eponymous count. But can we just talk about his accent? I think it was supposed to be an English accent, but on many occasions it strayed back into his native American accent.

But both of them were far more convincing than Luis Guzman who played Dantes' loyal manservant Jacopo. He was completely out-of-place. He also stars in Narcos and Oz as gangsters and he was far more convincing there than here. Henry Cavill also plays Fernand's son Albert. And he was such a wet blanket, it's difficult to believe that Cavill is now one of the hottest men in Hollywood.

Nevertheless, the Count of Monte Christo was a fun, swashbuckling adventure albeit with awful accents and a miscast Luis Guzman.

The Pursuit of Happyness review

Number 394 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2006 biographical drama 'The Pursuit of Happyness.'

Based on the true story, Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is a down-on-his-luck salesman. Seeing an opportunity to save himself and his son Christopher (Jaden Smith) from homelessness, he enrolls in a stock-broking internship. But the journey proves a lot harder than he ever thought it would be.

I must have first watched this film over ten years ago before revisiting it for this challenge. And it still remains absolutely brilliant. It is inspirational, but heart-breaking. It is poignant, but never overly-sentimental or cheesy. In many ways, it is the American Dream in action. Chris Gardener starts at rock-bottom, but through determination and hard work, he makes a true success of himself. For some, the American Dream is purely just that, but for Gardener this dream became reality.

Will Smith was absolutely fantastic. This was the first time that I really took notice of him as a dramatic actor, and he was well-deserving of the Best Actor nomination. After he and his son are evicted from their motel, they spend a night in a public bathroom with the door barricaded shut. When a cleaner tries entering, Christopher locks the door and silently breaks down. Ten years later, this scene still brought tears to my eyes. I don't cry often at films, but this was a true exception. Beyond that, Smith turned Gardener into a well-rounded and passionate character. To succeed as a stock-broker, Gardener is told that he needs to be good with numbers and good people. And Gardener is certainly a charismatic character.

Jaden Smith, Will Smith's real-life son, was also very impressive. He was only five-years-old, but he brought a different element. We saw the stresses of poverty through the eyes of a child. Christopher Jr doesn't understand why he can't go back into the motel room after being evicted. He doesn't understand why he has to sleep in a homeless shelter. 

And this confusion and pain was equally heart-breaking to watch. But Jaden also provided so much humour to what could have been such depressing and hard-going film. He was just as charismatic as his father. And the two of them had great chemistry, which wouldn't be surprising considering they are father and son. However, the two of them have appeared together in subsequent films which have been less than well-received.

I've been speaking a lot about the men, but I cannot forget Thandie Newton who plays Chris's over-worked wife Linda. She has to work two jobs to cover Chris' lack of income. This stress eventually leads to her breaking down and leaving her family. Although I wasn't entirely clear on why her son had to stay with Chris, and not go with her, Thandie Newton also excelled in this role. She was one of the most sympathetic characters in this film; constantly trying to fix an inherently broken marriage that cannot be fixed.

The Pursuit of Happyness was such a great watch. In one second it will be knocking you to the ground, but the next it will be picking you back up. And just remember what Chris Gardener tells his son: "don't ever let anybody tell you that you can't do something."

Field of Dreams review

Number 715 on the top 1000 films of all time is the sports-fantasy drama film 'Field of Dreams.'

Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) is a corn farmer in Iowa. Haunted by his poor relationship with his late father, he fears growing old without achieving anything. And that's when a mysterious voice tells him to plough part of his corn farm and to build a giant baseball ring instead. Several months after building the field, ghosts of famous baseball players Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) start appearing.

"Build it and and they will come" is the famous line from this film. Let me tell you if somebody built this film in a middle corn field in Iowa, I would not come back as a ghost and see it. I am not a baseball fan, so I didn't think I would enjoy this at all. However, the real reason why I did not enjoy it was that it was cheesy, overly-sentimental and completely lacking in any type of dramatic tension.

To say it had a slow start would be an understatement. The beginning is so lacking in any conflict that it almost put me to sleep. There's a middle-aged man, whom I have no reason to sympathise with, is going through a mid-life crisis. He thinks the solution to this is to go build a baseball diamond because some random ghost told me to do so. His wife goes along with this and the diamond is built without any issue. Ghosts of baseball players start appearing and Kevin Costner starts pitching and batting with them. Everything's hunky-dory. Where's the tension? Where's the conflict? Where's any reason for me to be interested in this film?

And the lack of any central conflict was this film's biggest problem. Ray Kinsella's mid-life crisis had such little immediacy and urgency that it was not engaging at all. His wife Annie (Amy Madigan) was fully supportive of his dreams, which again removed another source of conflict. Any recognisable conflict came from Ray and Annie potentially losing their farm to the bank, but even this was mostly-glossed over. And this all eventually culminated when their daughter Karin falls or is knocked off (it isn't clear which) some beachers and tumbles down in the most unrealistic and silliest looking way possible. But then she's healed by one of the baseball - playing ghosts. Just what?

This film wasn't entirely bad - James Earl Jones was enjoyable in a supporting role. But Field of Dreams was so lacking in substance and conflict and tension that it failed to be anything other than boring.

Elite Squad review

 Number 256 on the top 1000 films of all time is Jose Padilha's Brazillian crime drama 'Elite Squad.'

Captain Nascimento (Wagner Moura) is a police officer in BOPE - an elite squad of police who patrol Rio De Janerio's drug-fuelled favelas. Burned out and with a baby on the way, he is searching for a replacement. And his two best choices are the impulsive Neto (Caio Junqueira) or the more measured and restrained Matias (Andre Ramio.)

Elite Squad reminded me of the fantastic City of God. Both stylistically and content-wise, the two films were very similar. Whereas City of God focussed on the drug dealers that ruled the ghetto, Elite Squad focused on the police who have to catch them. It presented a raw, gritty and unflinching look at a brutal reality. The camera work was intimate with plenty of close-ups that make you feel you're right alongside the characters. No punches are pulled. Nothing is romanticised. We see the ruthlessness of the drug gangs as well as the police who catch them. it is an intense non-stop rollercoaster.

However, I would criticise Elite Squad for its portrayal of Captain Nascimento. Despite being the main character, he felt like a secondary character. Although he narrates, he has very little on-screen presence in the film's first half. This was because he was always intended to be a secondary character with Neto and Matias acting as the protagonists. During post-production, Jose Padilha's realised Wagner Moura's on-screen charisma and edited the film to make him the main character.

This was a major oversight and it showed. His retrospective editing did nothing to help things. Wagner Moura's considerable acting ability largely went to waste. Don't forget this is the man who went onto star as Pablo Escobar in Netflix's series Narcos.

Despite Wagner Moura being completely squandered, Elite Squad was still a great film if a tough watch at times.

Lord of War review

 Number 661 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2005 crime drama 'Lord of War.'

Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) is a Ukranian-born, American international arms dealer. He and his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto) deal weapons to warlords and governments worldwide. However, he is relentlessly pursued by INTERPOL agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke.)

Although Nicolas Cage has had a prolific career, I know him more from internet memes rather than his films. In fact, I have seen very few of his films. In fact, I know him so much from clips where his acting is incredibly over-the-top, to the extent of being ridiculous, that I had forgotten that he was once a serious actor. And one that could seriously act. After all he did win the Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, which I've also not seen. But I do think Cage was a big reason why this film was so successful.

Yuri Orlov narrates the film giving a blunt and cynical take on the subject. But his narration gives 'Lord of War,' a brilliant energy that moves everything along at a blistering pace. Cage's laconic delivery provides a lot of the film's black humour which does stop things from becoming too dark. And, as you can imagine, a film about arms dealing does get pretty dark at times. However, what was great about Cage's portrayal of Orlov was the authenticity of the character. He isn't a hypocrite. He knows exactly what he's doing and he doesn't care. For him, it's just business. And this unapologetic perspective made him such a compelling character to follow.

He was far more compelling than Jared Leto as Vitaly. I have mixed thoughts of Jared Leto. Sometimes he gives great performances like in Dallas Buyers Club or Requiem for a Dream, but he was very boring here. Some of that was down to the character. Vitaly lacked much of the nuance and depth that Yuri had. Instead he is ill-disciplined and petulant leading to him gaining a cocaine addiction. And his inclusion at the end seemed like a very contrived way to generate conflict. 

*Spoiler alert* After Yuri enters retirement, an old client - Andre Baptiste Sr (Eamonn Walker) the brutal dictator of Liberia - offers him his biggest payday yet in exchange for one last deal. Yuri accepts and brings Vitaly with him. When Vitaly realises that Andre Baptiste intends to use the weapons to massacre a refugee camp, he blows up half of them before being killed himself. I don't really understand why Yuri brought Vitaly with him. It's already established that he is an unpredictable, loose-cannon. He spends much of the film addicted to cocaine. What good could he do?

Also a quick shout-out to Eamonn Walker who was great as the villainous Andre Baptiste. It's difficult to believe this was the same actor who played Kareem Said on HBO's prison-drama Oz.

I thoroughly enjoyed Lord of War. It had a delightful energy, mainly due to Nicolas Cage's great performance. Jared Leto wasn't as good, but, nevertheless, Lord of War brilliantly exposed the horrific nature of arms trafficking. It is a difficult topic that more people should know about. And the ending was the icing on the cake. We are told that rather than independent traffickers, the biggest arms traffickers are the US, the UK, Russia, France and China - the five permanent members of the UN's security council.

The Breakfast Club review

 Number 376 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Hughes' coming-of-age comedy-drama 'The Breakfast Club.'

The Breakfast Club tells the story of five high school students from different cliques spending one Saturday in detention. Claire Standish (Molly Ringwald) is the popular, spoiled princess, Brian Johnson (Anthony Michael Hall) is an over-worked nerd, Andrew (Emilio Estevez) is an athlete and wrestler, Alison Reynolds (Ally Sheedy) is a quiet outsider and John Bender (Judd Nelson) is the rebellious delinquent. Over the Saturday, the five teenagers realise they have more in common then they first realised.

It's safe to say that the Breakfast Club has become a cult classic. A favourite of eighties' kids, I was expecting a lot, but I was left cold. It's labelled as a comedy, but it didn't make me laugh very much. In fact, it was fifteen minutes before I even cracked a smile. Perhaps that's because the beginning was slow. We're introduced to our main characters as they take their places for detention. Hardly riveting stuff. And the lack of background music made things even duller.

The cast themselves were boring. I understand that each character was supposed to resemble a different high school stereotype - the cheerleader, the nerd, the jock, the goth and the bad boy, and then as the story progresses, we see that they're more than the labels that society has imposed onto them. But it didn't help they were all so insipid  to begin with. The only interesting character was the delinquent John Bender whose behaviour is attributed to his abusive home life, which helped to give his character a bit of depth. And Judd Nelson did inject some much-needed life and energy into proceedings.

He is an agent of chaos throughout the film, harassing Claire, fighting with Andrew and convincing an unwilling Brian to smuggle in his weed. All of this culminates in an overly-sentimental conclusion where the characters reflect on how they've become such good friends in the space of a day. And as the movie ends, Allison and Andrew get together as do Claire and John, which seemed like a weird, contrived way to pair everybody off.

Is the Breakfast Club a bad film? No. But is it the 376th best of all time? I'm not so sure about that.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower review

 Number 237 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2012 coming-of-age drama - The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is a socially awkward high school student struggling to fit in. He is soon befriended by the gregarious Patrick (Ezra Miller) his vivacious stepsister Sam (Emma Watson) and the rest of their friend group. But Charlie starts becoming attracted to Sam which threatens to tear the group apart.

Let's face it. This was very much the Ezra Miller show. He brought a flamboyance and energy to the role, which may have bordered on over-the-top at times. But he also injected a shot of life into what could have been just another teen-drama. And Charlie was very much another generic teen protagonist. His character wasn't anywhere near as interesting or engaging as Patrick.

Part of this was down to Logan Lerman's uncharismatic portrayal, but also the character himself. Charlie is supposed to be quiet and introverted, but neither of these qualities made him particularly interesting. True, his awkwardness is down to his troubled backstory - he suffers PTSD from *spoilers* having been molested by his aunt as a child. However, he was still eclipsed by Patrick.

Patrick is openly gay and is secretly dating Brad (Johnny Simmon) the high school quarterback. It is a secret as Brad is still closeted for fear of repercussions from his homophobic father and friends. This drama felt far more immediate and engaging than Charlie's storyline.

As for Emma Watson, her portrayal of Sam was so tepid and generic, that she was quite a boring character. And it's strange, as I generally think that Emma Watson is quite melodramatic. But I'm probably biased as I don't like her that much.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower isn't an inherently bad film. It is funny, touching and balances relatable themes with deep-rooted issues. However, Logan Lerman was overshadowed by Ezra Miller who stole the show.

End of Watch review

 Number 633 on the top 1000 films of all time is the crime drama 'End of Watch.'

Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena) are best friends and LAPD officers. Shot documentary style, the film follows their relationship as they stumble upon a massive drug-running and people trafficking organisation and soon become targets of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Since starting this challenge, I've watched my fair share of cop dramas from Crash to Training Day. And they're often felt unrealistic. Either they've been over-the-top or too understated. But End of Watch had a lovely authenticity flowing through it. Part of that was down to its cinematography.

As previously stated, this was shot as a documentary. This is worked into the story. Brian is doing a film class and so he's filming all his police work on a hand-held camcorder. What he misses is picked up by dashcam and bodycam footage. Some critics maligned this as being unnecessary and confusing. Yes, at times, especially during the gunfights, it did become chaotic. But that's exactly what it would be like in real life. And the camera work adds another layer of realism. It shows these cops at their most relaxed, there is no fake facade or veneer. These are your police, like them or not. 

Rather than being unnecessary, it made everything feel so much more real. What I will concede is that it was strange seeing the Mexican gangbangers film themselves with camcorders too. Surely, they're smart enough to realise that they're incriminating themselves. This didn't make any sense.

Another reason End of Watch felt so real was because of the chemistry of the two leads - Gyllenhaal and Pena. Reportedly, the two didn't connect at first, but over time they became good friends. And this came across in the final project. A lot of the banter between them was completely improvised making their relationship all the more genuine. You got a real sense of the camaraderie that exists within the police force.

If there was anything I didn't like, it was the ending. *Spoiler alert* The cartel tracks down Taylor and Zavala - shooting both of them. Taylor survives and Zavala doesn't.  It would have been better if this was the other way around. Taylor is reckless and impulsive, often dragging his friend into danger - he's the one who initially incurs the cartel's wrath. It would make sense that his rashness would get him killed. But then again, it's all too common for the more rational characters like Zavala to die because of the impulsiveness of people like Taylor.

Granted, the film is a little cheesy in places - I could have done without Taylor's opening monologue, where he espouses about what it means to be a police officer. However, I do think that this type of cultural identity definitely exists within the LAPD.

This is a gritty police drama that neither exaggerates what being a police officer is like nor does it romanticise it. Rather it creates an authentic reality that lets the viewer make up their own mind.

Dawn of the Dead review

 Number 402 on the top 1000 films of all time is George A. Romero's 1978 zombie horror 'Dawn of the Dead.'

Peter Washington (Ken Foree) and Roger Demarco (Scott Reiniger) are two police SWAT officers who forsake their posts, after seeing how the true horror of their situation. They join journalists Fran (Gaylen Ross) and Stephen (David Emge) in escaping the carnage. The four soon take shelter in a well-stocked shopping mall, but their problems are far from over.

Dawn of the Dead is generally regarded as a pioneer of the zombie horror genre. It's safe to say that it's had an influence of every single piece of zombie media that's come out in the last forty years. Yes, things have been streamlined and upgraded, but everything leads back to George A. Romero's classic. However, I think I have been spoiled by modern zombie horror. Maybe if I was watching this in 1978, having not seen The Walking Dead or 28 Days Later or Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead, I would have really loved this film. But I didn't enjoy it all that much.

First and foremost, the zombies were so non-threatening. They hobble and limp towards our heroes giving them plenty of time to get away. Even when the characters fall over, drop their weapons or are completely surrounded by the zombies, they still escape unscathed. They never felt like they were in real danger and that really killed any narrative tension. Narrative tension is a point we'll be returning to a while. Anyway, I can totally see why Danny Boyle had his zombies run in 28 Days Later. They were much scarier villains. And yes, I know technically they're not zombies, but you know what I mean. 

And, I know that this is one of the first proper zombie films and the characters don't know all the rules and zombielore, but they were all still so annoying. In a news broadcast, it is specified that you have to destroy the brain to kill the zombie, but the characters waste so many bullets by firing into the zombie's torso. And even when the undead are close enough to nullify a gun, the characters just run instead of pistol-whipping their skulls. Say what you will about the recent narrative direction of the Walking Dead, but the characters there at least know how to kill zombies. 

This is one of those films where a lot of conflict could have been avoided if the characters didn't make such silly decisions. Roger starts to lose his mind and takes unnecessary risks in an operation to barricade the shopping centre from any zombie superhordes. Similarly, Stephen wages a one-man war against the looters who come to ransack the shopping centre where he should have just stayed quiet and let them get on with it. As Peter identifies, the looters don't know they're there and would have easily left them alone. Roger and Stephen's recklessness gets them both killed. I get that being in a zombie apocalypse stops people from acting rationally, but it is a bit annoying when a character's stupidity is what pushes a story forward.

I also did take major issue with the shopping centre being fully stocked. That's completely unbelievable. Just take a look at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As soon as shit hit the fan, people were emptying supermarkets and fighting over toilet paper. And we're supposed to believe that this shopping centre has just remained untouched? Okay, so the film is supposed to be a comment on the selfish capitalism that is so pervasive of our culture, which only adds credence to the idea that the shopping mall would have been looted in the first instance. It also killed off a lot of dramatic tension. We're not seeing our characters struggling to find water or food as it's all readily available to them.

Speaking of narrative tension, the film suffers badly from sagging-middle syndrome. After the characters have barricaded themselves into the mall and have all the supplies they need, the narrative kind of stagnates. Peter, Stephen and Fran soon go mad out of boredom and realise they have locked themselves in a prison. The boredom was translated through the television screen as I found myself losing interest. It was just lucky there was the gang of marauders to inject a bit of adrenaline into things.

 Although that did lead to one of the most puzzling parts of the film. After the marauders force their way into the mall, leading the way for a super horde of zombies, Fran wants to escape using the helicopter but Peter has lost hope and decides to stay behind. Only he changes his mind at the last minute and joins Fran on the helicopter. This seemed very out of character. He leads the survivors and always keeps them optimistic and on the right path. And yet we're supposed to believe that he just gives up at the end?

And, of course, the special effects weren't brilliant. Dawn of the Dead was made on a tiny budget and it showed. The fake blood looked closer to its constituent ingredients of corn flour and red food colouring than actual blood. It looked fake and tacky. But I guess, this was the 70's. And I have been spoiled by all the fantastic special effects and make-up that went into The Walking Dead  and 28 Days Later.

I do think that at the time this film would have been groundbreaking. But I'm not sure it holds up forty years later. Yes, it created a great precedent, but it's just been bettered and surpassed.

The Way Way back review

 Number 856 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2013 coming-of-age drama 'The Way Way back.'

Duncan (Liam James) is an introverted fourteen-year-old who is holidaying in Massachussetts with his mother Pam (Toni Collette) and her boyfriend Trent (Steve Carrell.) In a water park, he meets the fun-loving, hedonistic Owen (Sam Rockwell) who encourages Duncan to come out of his shell.

I think it was Sam Rockwell that gave this film its place on the best 1000 films of all time. It was a good film, but without Rockwell I think it wouldn't have been anything particularly memorable. He provided a shot of adrenaline with a chaotic energy. But it was that chaotic energy that made him so great to watch. Unlike many of the other characters, he was authentic and genuine. There was no facade and no lies. 

This is in contrast to the lying cheat who was Trent. Despite pretending otherwise, Trent obviously had no interest in Duncan as a stepson - the film opens with Trent rating his confidence as 3/10. And he spends much of the film belittling Duncan while spoiling his own daughter Steph (Zoe Levin.) But, most importantly, he is also cheating on Pam with his friend Joan (Amanda Peet.) It was interesting to see Carrell in a villainous role as usually he plays the comic lead. But I think he did well in the part. He certainly encapsulated the disinterested, suburban father burdened with a son from another marriage. 

Considering his background, it's no wonder that Duncan has retreated so much into himself. I think Liam James was good in his role. Characters like Duncan run the risk of being portrayed as either the weird kid or as a petulant brat, but Liam brought the role to life. He made Duncan a sympathetic character and seeing his journey from a shy, retiring teenager to a young man able to stand up to Trent was entertaining to watch. A lot of that was down to Owen's influence. Unlike Trent, he is the father that Duncan never had. He helps Duncan to grow and mature. And a quick shoutout to Jim Rash who played Owen's neurotic colleague Lewis. He was one of the funniest actors in this film, perhaps even funnier than Owen himself.

All in all, I did enjoy this coming-of-age drama. The water park was a great setting. And Rockwell gave a great performance, but Liam James was brilliant as well. It was entertaining watching Duncan's journey, but I particularly liked Steve Carrell's turn as a villain.

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War Review

 Number 185 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Korean war film, Tae Guk Gi: the Brotherhood of War.

Set during the Korean War, Tae Guk Gi focusses on brothers Lee Jin-Tae (Jan Dong-Gun) and Lee Jin-Soek (Won Bin.) The naive and innocent Jin-Doek is drafted into the army. To protect his younger brother, Jin-Tae also enrols. But the war soon changes both brothers beyond comprehension.

Since I started this challenge, I've watched a lot of war films and I've found the best films are the ones that refuse to shy away from the true horrors of war. Tae Guk Gi did exactly that. This was a relentless, non-stop, two and a half hour lesson in the brutality of man. As this is a South Korean film, you might expect them to be portrayed as the heroes and the North Koreans as the villains. But war is rarely that simple. We see both sides commit atrocities.

Jin-Tae discovers that if he earns the Tae Guk Cordon of the Order of Military Merit - the highest military model possible, he would have the power to send his brother home. He volunteers for progressively riskier missions and slowly transforms into a cold-blooded killer.

Upon running into a childhood friend who has been drafted for the North, Jin-Tae is prepared to slaughter him until his younger brother intervenes. Later on, Jin-Tae arranges for the POWs to fight for his own amusement. The North is just as bad. They massacre whole villages and booby-trap the dead bodies. War is never as simple as "he is good and he is bad." There is always a lot of morally grey. This is demonstrated in the supporting cast from the man whose whole family was massacred by the communists and now wants to kill them all to the young Song-Yong, who like Jin-Soek, doesn't want to kill anybody.

Granted the whole brothers/friends gong to war as comrades and slowly becoming enemies is not the most original of ideas, but Tae Guk Gi did it well. In the initial fifteen minutes, we have a clear idea of who the brothers are - Jin-Doek is young and naive with aspirations of college. Jin-Tae is street-smart and confident - he shines shoes to earn enough money to send his younger brother to college. But the brothers are very loyal to each other which is what makes their gradual separation even the more painful.

When Jin-Tae and Jin-Soek return to their home town, Jin-Tae's fiance, Young-Shin, is accused of being a communist and is taken to be shot. Despite the brother's best efforts to save her, she is still executed and the brothers are arrested for trying to save her with Jin-Soek supposedly dying when his prison is burnt down. He survives and later finds out that Jin-Tae has defected to the North Koreans and is now one of their elite commanders. Jin-Soek goes to rescue him, but it appears that Jin-Tae is too far gone. When a battle breaks out and it looks like all hope is lost, Jin-Tae recognises his brother and sacrifices himself so he can escape. And this was a nice way to round out their story arcs. They began as brothers, turned to enemies and finished as brothers again.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, I think it would be for its choppy editing. Some of the battle scenes went on for too long and some of the peace scenes were cut too short. At times it did make for a confusing watch. And I also wonder whether the film over did the action scenes. Yes, I know, war is confusing and chaotic, but the frenetic camerawork and constant explosions did become a little tiresome after a while.

Overall this was a great film and will join the likes of Saving Private Ryan, The Deer Hunter and Full Metal Jacket as one of the best war films of all time.

Paths of Glory Review

Number 56 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's powerful anti-war film Paths of Glory starring Kirk Douglas.

Paths of Glory is set in WW1 France.  General Mireau-a General Haigesque character, who lacks in any type of military strategy decides that the best way to take a German anthill is to throw waves of men at it.  When machine-gun fire stops their advance and they begin to retreat, General Mireau (George Macready) orders for his own artillery to open fire on them to stop them from retreating.  Thankfully, the artillery commander staunchly refuses to in the first of many acts of bravery.  To disguise his own incompetence, he puts three innocent soldiers on trial for cowardice to disguise his own in competence.  In their trial, their commander Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) fights to acquit them of the accusations.

Cowardice is the central theme of this film. Kubrick's exploration of this theme is the key reason why this film works so well.  Paths of Glory engages sensitively with the condition known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Shellshock.  During WW1, it was not recognised as a medical condition and those soldiers who suffered from it were accused of cowardice.  Some were tried and executed.  Unfortunately, the same thing happens in this film.  When General Mireau inspects the men, one of them breaks down upon realising that he he may never see his wife again.  Mireau immediately demands that this coward be removed from his army.  This was a subtle, but powerful way of engaging with a controversial subject.

Out of all the characters, Colonel Dax is undoubtedly the bravest.  He is most privy to General Mireau's incompetence.  When the three soldiers are on trial for cowardice, Dax fights tooth and nail to have them acquitted, despite the obvious bias of the court.  Douglas' passionate portrayal of Dax contrasted well with Macready's malevolent portrayal of Mireau.  It also showed that in war, there are always heroes and villains on both sides.  One man's good is another man's evil.

The film builds towards a bittersweet conclusion.  Due to the corrupt nature of the court, the three men are sentenced to execution.  Firstly, seeing the three men's reaction their fate was very interesting.  One of them breaks down in tears, another faces it stoically and the third takes his frustration out on the reverend who has come to read them their last rites.  These images are made all of the more powerful, due to how unjust they are.  None of them are cowards.  They just have the misfortune to serve under a general who would rather execute his own men than admit that he is wrong.  And this is exactly what happens.  I was half-expecting some deux ex machina to save all three men, but I'm glad it didn't.  It made their deaths all the more tragic.

The film's most poignant image comes at its ending.  The night before Lax's company are due to go back to the front, they are all gathered in a tavern laughing, drinking and watching a stand-up comedian.  The comedian brings out a pretty German girl leading to heckling, cat-calls and jeering.  For a second, I was scared that the girl would be taken advantage off.  However, what actually happened was far more powerful.  The girl started singing a German ballad and one by one the soldiers start singing with her.  This is the strongest example of the collective identity that soldiers share, as well as the loyalty that have towards each other.

All in all, this is a powerful film that is told succinctly.  It is understated, but heavy-hitting. It engages well with extremely sensitive subjects.  However, most importantly, it explore the separation  that exists between a man's courage and his cowardice.