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.

Man on Fire review

 Number 546 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tony Scott's action thriller Man on Fire.

John Creasy (Denzel Washington) is an alcoholic former CIA officer with PTSD. When his friend Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken) convinces him to become a bodyguard for the Ramos family in Mexico, he is initially reluctant. However, he soon forms a close relationship with Lupita 'Pita' Ramos, (Dakoto Fanning) daughter of the Ramos.' When she is abducted by a kidnapping gang, Creasy promises to rain down hell on her kidnappers.

By their very nature, action films tend to be cliched and formulaic. You get the handsome, physically fit hero with a troubled past and plot armour, lots of explosions and guns, gratuitous violence and a simplistic plotline. Man on Fire had all of this in spades. The only thing was missing was an attractive female lead whose only function would be as a sex object for our rugged protagonist. Man on Fire was pretty cliched as far as action films go. Creasy is haunted by an unexplained past which is never really fleshed out. And that certainly didn't make him anymore three dimensional. 

Upon finding out information about Pita's kidnappers, he resorts to violently torturing members of the gang. And some of his methods were so violent that they bordered on silly. He sticks an explosive up a corrupt policeman's rear and detonates it when he has the information he needs. His plot armour was ridiculously thick. How many gunshot wounds does he survive? 

I also think the villain of the film was cliched. Roberto Sosa plays Daniel Sanchez who is otherwise regarded as 'the Voice.' But we don't see enough of 'the Voice' or his motivations to really make him a threatening enough villain. He's the one giving the orders but he doesn't have enough screen time to make him particularly scary. And there was also too much slow-motion and in really strange places too. Why did we need to see Creasy help Pita out of the pool in slow-motion? 

Lastly, Radha Mitchell plays Pita's mother and while she was good enough her accent was not. Radha is Australian and her character was supposed to be Texan. However, Radha's accent was very inconsistent. At time it sounded Texan and at others it just sounded generic American.

Despite all that, it was still an entertaining and, most importantly, a thrilling film. Washington and Fanning had a great chemistry and it was lovely seeing their relationship develop. Creasy starts off as morose and grumpy, but Pita helps to bring him out of his shell. They were very cute together. And I also enjoyed the gritty, visual style. Apparently it was a homage to the brilliant film City of God. The two films also shared a similar cast. 

I'm not sure whether I would count this as one of the top 1000 films of all time. But as an action-thriller film, I think it was very good.