Lars and the Real Girl review

 Number 927 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 comedy-drama 'Lars and the Real Girl.'

Lars Lindstrom (Ryan Gosling) is a socially awkward, but kind-hearted man in a small American town. He lives in the garage of the house owned by his brother Gus (Paul Sneider) and his wife Karin (Emily Mortimer.) The intensely lonely Lars then starts a romantic, but asexual relationship with a sex doll called Bianca.

This was one of the kookiest films I've seen in a while. On paper, it certainly sounds dubious. A socially awkward single man has a relationship with a sex doll. He has to be some type of pervert, right? This film is just going to be an exercise in cruelty mocking him. 

Yet it was a charming and strangely touching affair. In some ways it reminded me of Spike Jonze's Her which also explored similar themes of human connection. It certainly helped that you had Ryan Gosling in the lead role. He was charismatic enough to make Lars an intensely likeable character. The whole town rallies around him and his relationship with Bianca. I guess it helped they cast a dreamboat like Ryan Gosling. If they had cast somebody like Danny Devito it would have been a very different film. Sorry, Danny, but it's true.

However, Ryan has much more to offer than his good looks. He is also incredibly funny which helped to add some much-needed whimsy into this affair. But he cannot take all the credit. Both Paul Sneider and Emily Mortimer were good as Lars' family who while thoroughly confused by Lars' actions are determined to help support him however they can. Mortimer certainly showed a lot more charisma here than in Match Point.

Patricia Clarkson also shines in supporting role as she plays a doctor who gives regular treatments to Bianca, but who is secretly diagnosing and analysing Lars. She played a compassionate and caring character. These are the best types of doctors to have.

Everything culminates in a bittersweet conclusion which I won't spoil here, but we see Lars go through some real character growth. It was a satisfactory arc and a way to bring the story to a good ending. His emotional journey was correct.

Like I say this is one of the strangest films I've seen in a while, but it definitely worked. It had the correct tone. Instead of being a  gross-out comedy, it was treated with real heart and care. And it was certainly a creative idea. No wonder it received an Oscar nod for Best Original Screenplay. 

The Illusionist review

 Number 657 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2006 romantic mystery film 'The Illusionist.'

Set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, Eisenhelm (Edward Norton) is a well-renowned magician and illusionist who was separated from his love Sophie (Jessica Biel) when they were only teenagers. Now adults, he discovers she is betrothed to Crown-prince Leopold, (Rufus Sewell) heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. He starts plotting to win her back all while he is being pursued by Leopold's chief of police Walter Uhl (Paul Giamatti.)

For a romance film, I thought the romance element was surprisingly weak. Even as teenagers, I don't think Eisenhelm and Sophie had much chemistry. And this was only exemplified when the two grew up. There was a severe lack of chemistry between Norton and Biel. I didn't really believe either of them being together. And considering the film is a romance, that was a major problem. Their performances weren't convincing at all. It was boring to watch. Thankfully, the film didn't linger on the tepid romance.

Instead, it focussed on the cat-and-mouse game between Leopold and Eisenhelm. This was far more interesting. When Leopold hears of Eisenhelm's prowess, he invites him to perform at the royal palace. But when Eisenhelm discovers that the animalistic Leopold is betrothed to Sophie, the illusionist humiliates the crown prince in front of all his peers. This kicks us off a bitter rivalry between the two, as Eisenhelm and Sophie plot to leave the country.

Sewell was convincing as the spoiled, petulant prince who was always determined to have his way. He was a dangerous villain and the perfect foil to Eisenhelm's outspoken arrogance. But I think the best actor was Paul Giamatti in the supporting role of Chief Inspector Walter Uhl. Initially, starting out as an unwitting pawn of Leopold's plans, he finds himself questioning everything as Leopold becomes increasingly more unstable. Giamatti played this fine balancing act with finesse.

Also despite being about magic, I wasn't convinced about any of the magic tricks shown within the film. Compared to other films like the Prestige, the magic wasn't very impressive at all. It certainly wasn't what I would expect from a well-renowned illusionist like Eisenhelm.

Overall, while it had some good performances, the Illusionist was a largely uneven watch with an extremely weak romance. And considering the film IS a romance, that isn't the best.

The Hustler review

 Number 226 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1961 drama 'The Hustler.'

Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) is a small-time pool hustler who wishes to make the big league by challenging legendary pool player Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason.) When Felson is crushed by Fats in a game, Felson vows to beat him the next time they play.

I really did not care for this film at all. If I were to describe it in one word, it would just be boring. Part of that is down to me and my own personal taste, I have never been that interested in pool. Or at least not interested enough to watch a 134 minute film on the subject. But the other main reason would be for the lack of musical score. I find that the music in a film can really make or break it. 

At times it can be far too loud *cough cough Christopher Nolan/Hunger Games,* at other times it can evoke entire eras like how Tarantino uses popular music in his films. And, in rare cases, the lack of incidental music can really up the tension.

This was not one of those cases. The music, or lack thereof, should pair well with what we see on the screen. And that wasn't the case here. Even though much of the on-screen action was nothing to be interested by, it could have been made interesting through the use of incidental music. The fact that there was little of it did next to nothing to help things. 

The Hustler was originally based on a book by Walter Tevis. When adapting this book, director Robert Rossen was keen to focus more on the characters and their relationships with each other rather than on the pool itself. Did he succeed in that? I don't think he did. There was still too much focus on the pool rather than on an actual likeable main character that I wanted to root for. Obviously Felson doesn't need to be likeable to make me curious to see whether he will succeed, but he needed to be interesting, and I didn't find him very interesting at all. He was arrogant and obnoxious.

As the Hustler is number 226 on the list of 1000 films of all time, I'm sure there are lots of people who found it interesting. In fact, it revitalised American interest in pool. However, I did not care for the film at all.

United 93 review

 Number 632 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Greengrass' docudrama 'United 93.'

United 93 is based on the true story of the fourth plane that was hijacked during the 9/11 terror attack. The other three planes found their target. The fourth didn't due to the passengers and crew revolting and attempting to take back control resulting in the plane crash-landing which killed everybody on board.

Firstly, I have to salute the heroism of everybody on board the real-life United 93. They showed a bravery that I never could have done. These were people with lives of their own who had no intention on dying that day. But they died as heroes. You might notice that I'm speaking very generally, and, alas, I have to, as Paul Greengrass was similarly vague in his depiction of the passengers. He made the directorial decision to not reveal any of the names of the passengers. This was because he wanted to elevate the group heroism above any individual heroism. Plus aeroplane passengers wouldn't know each other's names. 

True, it probably wouldn't have been very realistic for Tom Burnett (Christian Clemenson) and Mark Bingham (Cheyenne Jackson) to shake hands and say their names for the audience, but I would have gladly suspended my disbelief. Keeping the passengers' identities deliberately vague kept me at arm's length. I felt somewhat detached from their struggles and problems, because I knew so little about them. And it also did a disservice to the actors playing them. I saw some great acting, but because I didn't know the characters' names, I can't match an actor to the character. I only know Christian Clemenson and Cheyenne Jackson, because I looked them up on Wikipedia, but I'm not entirely sure who Tom Burnett and Mark Bingham were.

Otherwise Paul Greengrass made a great film. It was brilliantly paced with handheld-camera helping to keep the tension at a high. I was already familiar with this story, so I knew how it ended, but even if I didn't, I would have been kept on the edge of my seat. I prayed that there would be a happy ending, although I knew it would be impossible. And that's what made this such a good film. It was horribly doomy, but also powerful and touching.

Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and to all the other crew and passengers of United 93, you never knew and I never knew you, but you all died as heroes.

The Next Three Days review

 Number 936 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Haggis' action thriller 'The Next Three Days.'

John Brennan (Russell Crowe) is a teacher whose wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is sentenced to life in prison for murder. He is only one who believes she is innocent and begins plotting to break her free from prison.

Paul Haggis also directed Crash. I didn't like Crash. I thought it was half-arsed and contrived. I would say the same for the Next Three Days. It doesn't just stretch my suspension of disbelief, it snaps it in half. The whole film is completely implausible.

Let's start with John Brennan who is the unlikeliest hero ever. He's a teacher. You would never believe he could stage a successful prison break. To aid him, he tracks down and consults Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson) a former convict who successfully escaped from prison. Damon Pennington helps him, because of ... reasons, before disappearing and not featuring again. John goes onto learn criminal skills like making bumper keys by watching Youtube skills. Although he has a few initial mishaps, he goes onto master these skills. This is ridiculous. You can't just master something by watching Youtube videos. It takes a lot of practice. I realise they don't have the time to show this, but they could have tried at least.

And it's unbelievable that John Brennan, a teacher who is naive enough to ask a street dealer about forging passports, and then goes onto be robbed by him, to be able to pull off a prison break. It might have been a bit more believable if Damon had physically helped him instead of offering information. I also think Russell Crowe was miscast. True his American accent was better than expected, but he wasn't believable in the role. He's an action-star who has played cops and robbers alike. He wasn't suitable as some naive teacher venturing into the world of crime.

I also thought that we were sorely missing Lara's perspective on things. One reason, I enjoyed prison drama Felon was that it focussed on the husband's life within prison and the wife's life outside of it. But this film was all John Brennan with only snippets of Lara's life. If we were going to care about her escaping, we should have seen more of her in prison. She tries to commit suicide, but we only hear about it, instead of seeing it. This scene was far more important than one of the silly, over-long musical sequences.

Also, after John breaks Lara free, he starts to be pursued by cops Lieutenant Nabulsi (Lennie James) and Sergeant Harris (Allan Steele.) Yet they only appear nearing the end of the film, as if they were an afterthought thrown in by Paul Haggis. It's very strange, as John was initially investigated by the cops who quickly dismiss him as a nutcase.

Why does Paul Haggis or his films feature on this list? Neither Crash or the Next Three Days deserves to be included in the top 1000 films of all time.

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.

Road to Perdition review

 Number 544 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sam Mendes' 2002 crime drama 'Road to Perdition.'

Tom Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a hitman working for Irish-American mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) in 1930's Illinois. When Sullivan is out on a hit with Rooney's son, Connor (Daniel Craig,) Sullivan's own son witnesses the killing. Fearing the boy will talk, Connor kills Michael's wife and his own son. Hellbent on revenge, Hanks will stop at nothing to kill Connor. Meanwhile, a silent assassin Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) is tracking down Michael Sullivan.

What I liked most about this film was its understated nature. For a gangster film, it was subtle and quiet. While there were big acts of violence, as we would expect, it was never gratuitous. This was a film that prided itself on its nuanced performances rather than its grandiose spectacles. And there were some great performances.

Tom Hanks always knocks it out of the park. From Saving Private Ryan  to Captain Philips, he has proven time and time again that he is a well-deserving two-time Oscar winner. This was also Paul Newman's last live-action role before his death a few years later. I remember him well from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. And he brought the same gruff charisma to this role. His character is one of conflict. As well as being Connor's father, he is also Michael's spiritual father. He is a man caught between two sons and two worlds and Newman played the role well.

I was less convinced by Law and Craig, but I feel that's more due to their writing rather than their performances. Law's character was too mysterious and under-developed to be of any circumstance. And after making a powerful impact in the film's first half, Craig then completely disappears in the second half. Supposedly, his character goes into hiding, but considering the film is building towards a showdown between he and Michael Sullivan, it was a let-down to not see this showdown playout.

Nonetheless, this was an enjoyable and effective gangster thriller. And I certainly think that Newman went out on a high.

Crash review

 Number 383 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Haggis' crime drama film 'Crash.'

Crash follows a group of intersecting characters and how they interact with each other across Los Angeles. Some of these characters include LA District Attorney Rick Cabot (Brendan Fraser,) his wife Jean (Sandra Bullock) a collection of police officers including Graham Waters (Don Cheadle,) Sergeant John Ryan (Matt Dillon) and Officer Tom Hansen (Ryan Philippe,) and film producer Cameron Thayer (Terrence Howard) and his wife Christine (Thandie Newton.)

Crash won the Best film Oscar. This was a controversial decision as many thought that Brokeback Mountain should have won instead. Even director Paul Haggis doesn't think Crash should have won. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain so I can't comment on the first point, but I do agree that Crash wasn't a worthy Best Picture winner. It is an overly-ambitious and rushed film that tries to do too much in too little time. Rather than being a cohesive film, it is more of a collection of vignettes with a very loose story-thread connecting all the moving parts.

This thread is so loose that many of the connections feel contrived. Detective Graham Waters is looking for his errant brother, Peter (Larenz Tate) who just so happens to have been killed and left by the side of the road by Officer Tom Hansen. Not only that but he and his friend Anthony (Ludacris) carjack who else but Rick and Jean Cabot. When Christina is victim to a horrific car crash, who should come and save her but Sergeant John Ryan - a racist cop who sexually assaulted her the night before.

In my summary, I mentioned just a few of the different characters and storylines. There are so many that inevitably some do get overshadowed or short-changed. Despite Sandra Bullock being top-billed, she only appears in a handful of scenes. She initially comes across as a snooty and racially prejudiced woman - she doesn't like the locksmith Daniel (Michael Pena) because he is Hispanic. However, after a fall down the stairs where she is rescued by her Hispanic housekeeper, she has a change of heart. It's not exactly a road to Damascus moment, but we've given to understand that she's learned the error of her ways. At least that was the intention, but we really don't see enough evidence to justify this transformation.

I touched upon Christina's sexual assault earlier. This is played out in a great fashion. She and her husband Cameron are unjustly pulled over by Sergeant John Ryan. Ryan accosts the couple by accusing them of having oral sex while driving. He makes them exit the vehicle and then evasively searches Christine. He threatens to report Cameron's conviction unless he apologises for his supposed misoffence. Cameron does so and the two are let go. Later on, they have a huge fight as Christine is angry that Cameron allowed her to be taken advantage of. 

Skip to the car crash scene and Christine is being rescued by Ryan. This had the potential to be such an interesting plot thread. Christine's life is saved by the police officer who molested her. How does this change her thoughts on the police? How does this change her thoughts on being sexually assaulted? How will this affect her relationship with Cameron? We don't know, because her storyline is barely touched upon again. This isn't to denigrate Newton's acting. She was fantastic - conveying horror, panic and terror all in one, but her material short changed her. 

Speaking of acting, I also think that Terrence Howard was excellent. He is arguably less 'woke' than his wife and far more respectful of the police and white institutions in general. The two have a massive argument where she accuses him of not being as "black" as she. However, as he is slowly confronted with the bigotry all around him, especially in the film world, he becomes a pressure cooker waiting to blow. This happens when Peter and Anthony attempt to carjack him and are then confronted by none other than Tom Hansen. See what I said about contrivances? Anyway, in a sharp contrast to his previous encounter with police, he tearfully confronts the officers, ready to be shot by them. Terrence Howard played this part brilliantly - the indignation, the anger. It was great.

Anthony's storyline was also a little contrived. He is a carjacker, but he is also alert to the social injustice around him. After his failing carjacking of Cameron, the film producer tells him he is an embarrassment. Anthony goes onto carjack a white van which he takes to a fence. But, lo and behold, the fence is full of South-East Asian refugees. Instead of letting a fence buy them to sell them to the highest bidder, he frees them in the city's Chinatown. Again, I don't think there was enough groundwork to justify such a sudden change of heart. Sure, it was nice to see, but I don't think it made a lot of sense.

A separate storyline sees Iranian shop owner Farhad (Shaun Toub) buy a gun to confront the locksmith Daniel who he believes has robbed his shop. When he goes to shoot him, Daniel's daughter jumps in the way. But she is fine, as Farhad had unknowingly loaded his gun with blanks. Farhad shoots the daughter at point-blank range. Even blanks would do some damage at that short of a distance. This felt like another contrivance. Farhad is a tragic character - a man who has tried his best to realise the American Dream and cannot understand why he has not been more successful. He isn't an inherently bad man, but one who feels let down by the system. I guess if he had killed Daniel's daughter than his whole tragic backstory would be negated. It makes sense, but I wish they could have done this in a less contrived way. It was point-blank range. 

Crash was a good film. It was gripping, tense with good performances especially from Howard and Newton. But it needed to be longer so many of its storylines could be properly fleshed out. And I certainly don't think it deserved the Best Film Oscar.

Running Scared review

 Number 849 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir crime thriller 'Running Scared.'

Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker) is a low-level mafioso present at a drug-deal gone wrong. A group of masked, dirty cops turn up and a shoot-out happens. Gazelle and his other mobsters shoot dead all the cops. Gazelle is then tasked with hiding the gun. He takes it home and hides it in the basement. It is later discovered by his son Nicky (Alex Neuberger) and his son's best friend Oleg Yugorsky (Cameron Bright.) Oleg steals the gun and uses it to shoot his abusive, Russian mobster stepfather Anzor Yugorsky (Karel Roden.) Gazelle is in a race against time to find Oleg and the gun before his mob, the Russian mob and the corrupt coppers.

Who decided this should be on the top 1000 films of all time? Was it a group of twelve-year-old boys? Because it looked like it had been written, filmed, edited and directed by a group of twelve-year-old boys. It was all so immature and juvenile. I'm talking gratuitous violence, cliched characters, absurd plot developments, ridiculous action scenes, terrible dialogue, objectified women - Joey's wife Teresa (Vera Farmiga) spent much of the film with her thong poking out of her jeans - and the effects, filters and grainy colour scheme that look like they're out of a 90's rap video.

Let's break these down in more detail. The film starts badly with the drug-deal going wrong. The corrupt coppers turn up and the violence ramps up. Gangsters and ex-coppers are flying across the screen in slow-motion. We see bloody mists and weird filters. It all just looked ridiculous. But this was nothing compared to the final sequence where Gazelle confronts the Russian and Italian mob at an ice-hockey stadium. The Russians hold him down on the rink and have one of their players shoot pucks at his face until he tells them what he wants to know. It was all just so laughable. And of course there was another of these stupid filters - this time, a blue-light filter. Eventually this breaks down into another chaotic shoot-out where you have no idea what's happening and don't know who is shooting who.

I did criticise Teresa's character, but that's not a criticism of Farmiga, but rather her writing. She is immediately portrayed as a sex object. Her introduction is her rubbing up against Gazelle on the washing machine with her senile father in the living room and son in her basement. And as previously stated, she then spends the rest of the film with her thong sticking out of jeans. It didn't seem like a very empowering role for Farmiga, but I think she did the best she could. 

In fairness, she did have some agency. It's just a shame it happened with such a crazy plot development. When Oleg is on the run after having shot by his stepfather, he is kidnapped by these two paedophiles Dez Hansel (Bruce Altman) and Edele Hansel (Elizabeth Burke.) They take him to their flat where they're going to film a snuff film. He is later rescued by Teresa who murders the two paedophiles.  But this was just absurd. It comes out of nowhere and the vivid colour scheme didn't fit into the grainy visuals of the rest of the film. Obviously, I'm sure this stuff does happen, but it just didn't fit into the film. I do wish they had given Farmiga much better material. She was very much a cliche.

But so were the rest of the characters. Gazelle is your standard hot-headed mobster, Chaz Palminteri is your corrupt cop and the Italian and Russian mobsters are complete run-of-the-mill. And there was also the weird side character of Lester-the-Pimp. Oleg stumbles upon the pimp abusing one of his workers. He was just another silly addition to an already bloated cast. The only character I really felt any sympathy for was Oleg's mother Mila (Ivana Milicevic.) Unlike most of the other characters she actually had some depth. She worked as a prostitute in Moscow before her pimp brought her to the United States. After getting pregnant, she is told to abort her child. She refuses and her pimp sends Anzor to kill her. Instead he marries her. Unlike everybody else, I actually felt sorry for her.

The ending was also super cheesy. There is a fake-out death with Joey Gazelle. He and Farmiga share lots of tears, but I didn't feel anything. Both characters were complete cliches and it didn't help that he and Farmiga lacked any real chemistry. Other than them having sex and yelling at each other, you never see any real relationship or any reason why you should root for them.

I've been working through this list for years now and I've seen a lot of films that I can acknowledge as being good films in their own right, but not for me. Running Scared is one of the first films I've watched that I can say was objectively bad.

Little Miss Sunshine review

 Number 414 on the top 1000 films of all time is the tragicomedy road film 'Little Miss Sunshine.'

Olive (Abigail Breslin) is the youngest of the Hoover family - possibly the most dysfunctional family in the US. Her father Richard (Greg Kinnear) is failing motivational speaker, her older brother Dwayne (Paul Dano) is an angsty teenager who has taken a vow of silence. Her uncle Dr Frank Ginsburg (Steve Carell) has recently been released from a mental hospital after trying to commit suicide and Olive's grandfather Edwin (Alan Arkin) snorts heroin and swears every other minute. Rounding them out is Olive's mother Sheryl (Toni Collette) who is on the verge of a breakdown trying to get her crazy family from New Mexico to California so Olive can participate in a child beauty pageant.

Little Miss Sunshine is a brilliant feel-good film. It is hilarious, but heart-breaking. Tragic and touching. It engages with many difficult themes in a sensitive way. Least of all is the idea of body image and self-confidence. Olive is not your typical child beauty queen if there is such a thing. She is worried that she isn't pretty or skinny enough, but her grandfather is the first person to convince her otherwise. Olive and Edwin's relationship is at the heart of the film. Breslin and Arkin had a great chemistry and played well off each other. Arkin won Best Supporting Actor and deservingly so. True, you could argue that he is your stereotypical, grumpy un-PC baby boomer grandpa, but he played the part damn well. And it is his grumpy un-PC ways that provide a lot of the film's humour.

The rest of the supporting cast is just as good. As a comedy actor, I sometimes find that Carell can be quite over-the-top, but he played the role with a lot of restraint, while still being funny. Paul Dano is often cast as a moody outsider sic Prisoners or There Will be Blood. But he gave Dwayne some vulnerability and stopped him from being just another stroppy teenager. Perhaps you could argue the script short-changed Toni Collette as her character doesn't have the same eccentricities as the others, but she still acted as the glue that held the family together.

And I loved how directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris lampooned the grossly exploitative nature of child beauty pageants. This was intentional as writer Michael Ardnt wanted to portray the horribly competitive nature of these contests. They divide little girls into winners and losers often shattering their self-esteem in the process. Except for Abigail Breslin, all of the other contestants were real-life child beauty pageant winners. Or should I say little girls being exploited so their power-hungry parents can gain status.  

But when Olive performs an intentionally risque dance she is almost shut down, but her whole family quickly joins in. The whole notion of beauty pageants boils down to sexualising and disempowering little girls, but when Olive reclaims her power, she is punished. I loved how this hypocrisy was tackled head-on.

I did enjoy this film. There were great gags, but it also had a lot of heart. And Breslin and Arkin were fantastic together.

Captain Phillips review

 Number 302 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biographical action thriller Captain Phillips.

Based on the true story of the Maersk Alabama hijacking, Captain Phillips follows the tale of the eponymous titular character played by Tom Hanks - a merchant sailor whose ship is attacked and captured by Somali pirates led by Abduwali Muse (Barkhad Abdi.) When the plan goes wrong, Muse then takes Captain Phillips hostage.

If I could describe this film in one word? Intense. From the start to the finish, it was edge of the seat stuff. And a lot of that was down to how well Paul Greengrass paced the film. With thrillers, pacing is absolutely everything and some of them fall flat due to bad pacing. There is the tendency to draw out the scene setting or the denouement usually leading to the climax being rushed and unsatisfying. That was not the case here.

The film opens with Captain Phillips speaking with his wife Andrea (Catherine Keener) about their home and family life. They talk about the rapidly changing world and how their children will fit in and that's it. That's all we needed to see. The simple ending was complimented by the simple ending where *spoiler alert* Captain Phillips is rescued by the US navy and breaks down in tears. This left plenty of time for a brilliant rest of the film. 

Captain Phillips and his crew fend off one assault by the Somali pirates only for them to return later and board the ship. Some quick-thinking tactics see the pirates being chased into the lifeboat only for them to kidnap the captain and hold him hostage to safeguard their escape. These peaks and troughs really made the fil nail-bitingly tense. I know this was based on a true story where nobody died, but it was difficult to see how any of Captain Phillips' crew could come out of this alive. 

Least of all, Captain Phillips himself. Tom Hanks gave a magnificent performance which really showcases his talents as an actor. In one scene he is kissing his wife goodbye, in another he is trying to talk down Muse and in another he is breaking down in tears. By the end of the film, both the character and the actor have been put through the ringer. And it was an absolute travesty that he was not nominated for an Oscar. 

Barkhad Abdi was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. This was his first acting role and it was a hell of a debut. Muse is the quiet, but thoughtful leader of the pirates. He is smart enough to lead an attack on the Maersk Alabama, but also unpredictable and scary enough to control the more volatile members of his crew.  He has enough nuance to stop him from being a cliched villain. He justifies himself by saying he is only a fisherman wanting to stay in control of his destiny instead of relying on unwanted help from the Americans. Abdi very much earnt his Oscar nomination. But to not nominate Hanks as well? Terrible.

This really was a great film. It was edge-of-the-seat action, but with real heart. Abdi was fantastic as the villainous Muse, but not nominating Hanks for Best Actor has to be one of the biggest snubs in Oscar history.

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.

There Will Be Blood review

 Number 224 of on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Thomas Anderson's epic period drama There Will be Blood.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a prospector turned ruthless oil tycoon in Southern California. Over the course of three decades, we see the rise and fall of his empire, as well as his tempestuous relationship with local preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano.)

I'll readily admit that I'm not a fan of period dramas. Generally, I find them slow and boring. I'm just not interested enough in their subject matter. And There Will be Blood  was no exception. This is no disrespect to Mr Day-Lewis. There is no doubt that Plainview is a despicable character. After his adopted son is deafened by an explosion, Plainview sends him to a special school to save him the trouble of raising him. He also cheats the Sundays out of their land and refuses to allow Eli to bless his new wells. 

Despite this he is still a very charismatic character to watch. I wouldn't necessarily say I wanted him to achieve his goals, but I was intrigued to see what would happen. And this was down to Day-Lewis' strong portrayal. He gave a character who could have easily been a stereotypical, moustache-twirling panto villain, a humanity and moral greyness.

I just wish Anderson had this in a shorter amount of time. At times, there is a lot of talking and the pacing was slow. I'm not sure we needed to spend as long as we did on Plainview's fake brother Henry (Kevin J O'Connor.) But maybe that ties in well into the central idea behind the film: it doesn't matter how rich you are if you're the only one enjoying the wealth. Plainview turns his son against him and kills the fraudster impersonating his brother. I wasn't entirely clear on the motivations of the fraudster, but presumably it was to steal Plainview's money.

The film climaxes with Plainview's rivalry with Eli bubbling over into a fall-on confrontation. Plainview beats Eli to death and the film ends with Plainview sitting alone in his massive mansion, a somewhat obvious metaphor for how the pursuit of wealth can leave you lonely.

I did want to enjoy this film more than I did. Day-Lewis truly earned his second Oscar win, but the pacing could have been faster with far less shots of the desert landscape. But hey, maybe that's just me. As I've said, I'm just not a fan of period dramas.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Review

 Number 173 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Roy-Hill's 1969 Western, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and Harry 'Sundance' Longabaugh (Robert Redford) based upon the real-life outlaws of the same name, are your two most likable bank and train robbers ever. However, upon robbing one train too many, a bounty is set on their heads. To escape the hunters, the pair flee to Bolivia but their troubles are far from over.

In undertaking this challenge, I have watched a fair few Westerns and I admit that I've never been a big fan. Cowboy films just aren't my thing. Butch Cassidy and Sundance was an exception. And perhaps this is because the film doesn't take itself too seriously. Rather than watching two hours of Clint Eastwood scowling, I was treated to the brilliant on-screen chemistry of Newman and Redford.

Having already seen The Sting, I know how well these two can work together with Newman leading the action and Redford bouncing off of him as his sidekick. And the pair's relationship is obvious right from the start. Cassidy's crew have mutinied against him with Harvey Logan (Ted Cassidy) taking control. Logan challenges Cassidy to a duel but Cassidy fights dirty and quickly wins. All the while, Sundance never doubts his partner.

The two of them are so damn charming that their victims enjoy being robbed by them. Despite how the train guard on the Union Pacific Overland Flyer is so honoured to be robbed by the pair, but has to remain loyal to his company. For his loyalty, he is rewarded with a face full of dynamite. Later on, E.H Harriman, the owner of the Union Pacific, sends a posse of expert trackers and bounty hunters after our heroes. They are cornered to a cliff where Cassidy convinces Sundance to jump into the river below despite Sundance admitting he can't swim.

Having plunged into the waters below, Sundance desperately clings onto Cassidy to try and stay afloat. Their ensuing conversation was funny to hear, but this brings me onto my first issue witht he film. And it's how the E.H Harriman storyline doesn't go anywhere. At first, it's very intense to see our heroes be hunted across rock and sand by a ruthless posse and an expert Indian tracker, but this rising action doesn't culminate in any big climax.

Cassidy and Sundance escape and that's that. I thought that we would be in for a big dramatic gunfight between our heroes and the posse, but it wasn't to be. This tension culminated in a fizzle rather than a bang. Rather, we get our climax with the two hiding in Bolivia. Having tried and failed to go straight, Sundance and Cassidy return to robbing banks, despite their complete lack of Spanish, which leads to the film's funniest scene.

But they soon attract the attention of the Bolivian police and army who pin down our heroes with no means of escape. Again, I expected Harriman to appear, but again I was disappointed. Another thing I didn't like was the use of montage as a pure exposition device to showcase the hero's journey from America to Bolivia. It felt very rushed and I think this could have been explored more.

Lastly, I just want to praise Karathine Ross as Cassidy's love interest - Etta Place. Ross really helped to provide the film some heart. She begrudingly agrees to go to Bolivia with the pair on the one condition that she doesn't watch them die.

And this emotional subplot helped to balance out the comedy, drama and action. All of these elements blended together to make a vastly enjoyable film with great performances from its lead actors.