Cell 211 Review

 Number 622 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Spanish prison film Cell 211.

Juan 'Calzones' Oliver (Alberto Ammann) is a prison guard beginning work on the day a riot breaks out led by fearsome prisoner Malamadre (Luis Tosar.) To survive, Juan pretends he is one of the prisoners.

Cell 211 stormed the 2010 Goya Awards (Spain's version of the Oscars.) It was nominated for fifteen awards and won eight including Best Film, Actor for Luis Tosar and Best New Actor for Alberrto Ammann.

It was a good film although I'm not sure it was Best Film material. It wasn't the most subtle of films nor was it the most realistic. Obviously I've never been to prison before; my knowledge of it is based on what I've seen on TV and in the films, so it might not be the most accurate. From what I've seen, prison has always appeared to be a tribal place. There are different gangs of different ethnicities. Thus I found it unbelievable that a whole prison would unite behind the one leader of Malamadre. Rather it would be different factions who would work together under different leaders.

All the prisoners under Malamadre got on too well to be entirely realistic either. They're united in their opposition toward the prison system - however, in reality, I think there would be a lot more petty squabbling between the prisoners.

The nature of prison dramas means that the prisoners can sometimes be a bit one-note. Sure Malamadre was scary, brutal and charismatic, but that's all he was. He was missing the necessary depth to make Luis Tosar be truly deserving of the Best Actor Goya.

I was far more impressed with Alberto Ammann who really ran the whole gamut of emotion which made his character more believable. No wonder he won the Best Newcomer Goya award and then went onto to wow international audiences as the charismatic and terrifying narco-trafficker Pacho in Narcos.

Cell 211 wasn't a bad film. It also wasn't particularly believable or deep either. 

A Prophet review

 Number 389 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2009 French prison-drama 'A Prophet.'

Malik El Djebena (Tahir Rahim) is a French-Algerian petty criminal who is sentenced to six years in jail. Naive and alone, he soon falls under the sway of the ruling Corsican gang led by Cesar Luciani (Niels Arestrup.) At first Luciani and the others look at him as nothing less than an annoying bug, but Djebena soon rises to the top of the prison hierarchy.

A Prophet was a brutal and unflinching look into French prisons. I always say that you can't shy away from difficult subject matter like this - you either have to go hard or go home and A Prophet definitely goes hard. It's no surprise that it was nominated for the Best International Film Oscar. While it ultimately lost to the the Secret in their Eyes, it won the equivalent Bafta, the Best Film Cesar as well as further awards at Cannes. In many ways it reminded me of the equally brutal Midnight Express.

Sure, you can argue that petty criminal Malik El Djebena isn't the most likable of protagonists - he's in prison for a reason and once there he commits further crimes like murdering the other inmates, but Tahir Rahim moulded him into a very interesting character. In some ways, he is reminiscent of Michael Corleone from the Godfather films - he begins the film as an outsider to the criminal world, but finishes as its uncontested king. 

Tahir Rahim has the same acting talent as Al Pacino, as he won the Cesar award for Best Actor. Rahim took Djebena on a fascinating arc from a teenage boy haunted by his past crimes, including murder, to the kingpin of the prison.

Every bit his equal was Niels Arestrup as Cesar Luciani - the hitherto king of the criminal underworld. He strongly reminded me of actor Brian Cox bringing the same level of grounded intensity. Luciani was an unpredictable character - in a second he can go to sharing a joke with you to digging a spoon into your eye, as Djebena found out first hand - it was this unpredictability that made him so frightening. Arestrup helped to keep this villain scary without turning him into a cartoon.

If I were to criticise this film for anything it would be its title of "A prophet." Sure Djebena does demonstrate some prophetic tendencies like helping to avert the car he's in from crashing into a deer, this doesn't happen until midway through the film. This idea of him being a prophet didn't seem relevant enough to justify titling the film, but this is a minor criticism.

A Prophet was an uncomfortable but thrilling movie with great performances from its lead actors. Also, can we just talk about how interesting the Corsican language is? A language, similar to the Tuscan-dialect of Italian, being spoken on a French island? Amazing.

Felon review

 Number 780 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2008 prison drama 'Felon.'

Wade Porter (Stephen Dorff) is a family man who accidentally kills a burglar fleeing from his house. He is sent to prison for involuntary manslaughter. Once there, he befriends fellow inmate, enigmatic loner, John Smith (Val Kilmer,) and he is subjected to the brutal regime of corrupt head prison guard Lieutenant Jackson (Harold Perrineau.)

Coming out in 2008, Felon is relatively late to the prison drama scene. In 1994, we had the magnificent Shawshank Redemption. A few years later, HBO released the TV series 'Oz,' which also starred Harold Perrineau, but as a prisoner. You could argue that Felon added nothing new to the genre. We've seen these characters and tropes before, but it was still a damn entertaining film.

Wade is an instantly likeable protagonist. He did what any man would have done in his situation - protect his family. Unfortunately for him, it wasn't in self-defence, hence why he had to be imprisoned. We empathise with his struggles to survive. For Jackson's own twisted enjoyment, he makes the inmates fight during their yard time. It is a stark depiction of prison life and that's without all the rape you see on Oz.

As can often be the case with male-led narratives, there is the tendency to only focus on the male story - if he does have a wife or a girlfriend, her only role is to support his story. However, what director Ric Roman Waugh did so well was focus on the struggles of Wade's wife Laura. With him in jail, she is fighting to pay the bills as well as take care of their young son. All credit to actress Marisol Nichols for bringing Laura to life. We really felt her anguish.

Although he was cartoonish at times, Harold Perrineau was very good as well. Lieutenant Jackson has been a prison guard for fifteen years. Five years ago, a prisoner threw cocktail of human bodily fluids into his face. He subsequently caught Hep A, which he passed onto his wife and child. He is only too representative of the thousands of prison guards whose initial optimism has been replaced by a world-worn cynicism. One such officer is raw recruit James Collins (Nate Parker) who is initially eager to serve, but is quickly ground down by Jackson's authoritarian regime. Collins provided a great antithesis to his superior officer.

Val Kilmer was also very good even if his character was over-the-top. I understand you do get these philosopher-cum-psychopaths who justify everything they do with a profound thought, because they think they're such independent free-thinkers. But after a while, his constant philosophising became a little tiresome.

I did enjoy Felon though. It didn't add anything to the prison-drama genre, but it was a damn good prison-drama film.

Midnight Express review

 Number 644 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1978 prison-drama film 'Midnight Express.'

Based on the memoir of the same name, Midnight Express follows Billy Hayes (Brad Davis.) He is an American college student who is caught trying to smuggle drugs from Turkey back to the US. He is sent to the notorious Sagmalcilar prison where he and his fellow prisoners are routinely beaten and mistreated. Realising that he will die if he stays there, he and fellow prisoners hot-headed Jimmy Booth (Randy Quaid) and quieter Max (John Hurt) plot to try and escape a.k.a catching the Midnight Express.

My biggest problem with this film was with the protagonist of Billy Hayes. Initially, he didn't seem very likeable or sympathetic. He willingly tries to smuggle drugs; it isn't like he is forced or coerced into it. He breaks the law and he is punished for it. And we're supposed to empathise with him? It was a very strange character to have as a protagonist. It might have made more sense if he were forced into the role or if like the Shawshank Redemption, he was frame and imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. This would have certainly made him more of a likeable character.

Putting this aside, this was still a thrilling and enjoyable film, despite the odd loose end and plot hole. It was a story of redemption. There is unflinching brutality but also moments of true tenderness. I guess Billy goes through a hero-arc of sorts, yet some of the other characters are tossed aside. For example, Jimmy Booth is quickly introduced as Billy's hot-headed cellmate. After an escape route goes wrong, Jimmy is taken away to never be seen again. Although I only realised this after the film had finished. It is never explicitly stated in the film. I found it odd how we never even had one line of exposition addressing that. He was an important character.

Initially, Billy is only sentenced to three years, but fifty-three days before his release, the prosecutor successfully has his sentence extended to life. Brad goes on an impassioned rant in the courtroom where he insults everybody in sight. Surely, no judge would stand for something like that. He would have been held in contempt for court and thrown out. 

What I enjoyed most about this film was the relationship between Billy Hayes and Max. John Hurt is always wonderful in everything he's in, but he was especially good as Max. I can totally understand why he was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He brought a quietness and a tenderness to the role. It made for a refreshing change to the ongoing violence. And he and Billy become very close friends. When Billy eventually escapes, he swears to come back for Max. We don't see it on-screen, but I hope he did.

This film wasn't for me. Yes, it was powerful and touching in its own way. But too many loose ends and an unlikeable protagonist made me wish I could catch the Midnight Express out of the cinema!

The Experiment review

 Number 487 on the top 1000 films of all time is the thriller the Experiment.

An American remake of the German 'Das Experiment' and based on the real-life Stanford Prison Experiment, the Experiment sees two men try to survive in a brutal scientific study. Travic Cacksmackberg (Adrien Brody) is a pacifist hippie who gets laid off from his job. He needs money to travel to India with his hippy girlfriend Bay (Maggie Grace) so he takes part in his experiment. He and twelve other men become prisoners in a specially designed prison. Six other volunteers become guards. They have to survive two weeks while maintaining order and following the rules. But things quickly go wrong when the guards led by Michael Barris (Forest Whitaker) become power-mad.

If you haven't heard about the Stanford Prison Experiment, I would highly recommend looking into it. It was a fascinating if unethical study into authority and power dynamics. This film highly exaggerates the events of the study, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Much of that is down to the storyarc of the two leads. Travis is a moral compass. It's established early on that he deeply cares about social issues when he attends an anti-war rally. It is only believable that he galvanises the prisoners into standing up to the tyrannical guards. Conversely Michael Barris is a mild-mannered forty-two year old man who still lives with his domineering mother. Egged on by the more sadistic guards, the power goes to his head. Outside of the prison, he is nobody. But in prison he is the boss. And Whitaker's performance was menacing.

However, the Experiment was deeply let down by its ending. The Experiment is stopped on the sixth day after a full-on riot breaks out; the prisoners and the guards begin fighting with another. The catalyst? Travis demands to be let out, having grown tired to the abuse from the guards. Barris forcibly restrains him and a scuffle breaks out. When another prisoner intervenes on Travis' behalf, Barris kills him. Yet everybody is allowed to go back to their old lives. Nobody faces any legal or even moral ramifications for their actions within the prison. 

One particularly sadistic guard attempts to rape a prisoner, but he faces no consequences. Travis almost beats Barris to death, but in the next shot we see him in India with Bay. On a side note, Bay was a poorly-drawn female character. She was little more than a sex object.

And despite Barris killing a prisoner, he still receives his full payment as does everybody else. It was so strange that an experiment that focussed on respecting authority would reward disloyalty and disobedience. The most we get is the experiment's lead researcher being arrested for manslaughter, but this is too rushed to have any impact. 

Having said that, the real life researcher, Philip Zimbardo, faced severe criticism about the ethical nature of his study and he did pay his subjects properly, so the film was being true to life.

This did have the potential to be an interesting film about the nature of obedience and the power of roles, but it was severely let down by its rushed ending and its poorly written female character *cough cough* sex object.

Papillon review

 Number 275 on the top 1000 films of all time is the historical drama epic prison film 'Papillon.'

Henri 'Papillon' Charierre (Steve Mcqueen) is a famed safecracker who is sent to prison after being wrongly convicted for the murder of a pimp. He is sentenced to life imprisonment in the penal system of French Guiana in a supposedly inescapable prison. Within the prison, he meets famed counterfeiter Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman) and the two become fast friends as they scheme to escape the prison together.

This was the 350th film that I have watched since I've started slogging through this list. And I've come to the conclusion that two hours is my cut off point. If a film is over two hours there has to be a very good reason. The Godfather, the Green Mile and Braveheart are all notable exceptions, but then you get films like the Last of the Mohicans, Gone with the Wind or, indeed, Papillon that just go on and on and on. You think you've reached the ending, but then there's another ending and another and another. This isn't to say that they are necessarily bad films, but they're all much longer than they need to be. Papillon is no exception to this rule.

Similarly to the Last of the Mohicans, it was very bloated. There was a lot of slow-motion and grandiose music that made the film half an hour longer than it needed to be. And then we come to the various endings. We see Papillon, Degas and orderly Maturette (Robert Deman) escape the prison and wash up on Honduras. We could have ended the film there, but then we see Papillon being taken in by a native tribe, in probably one of the slowest portions of the film, before being recaptured and taken back to the prison. 

Again, it could have ended there, but Papillon is moved to the remote Devil's island where he re-unites with Degas who has since lost his marbles. Papillon then tries another escape attempt by diving into the sea. We could have ended things here, but we get a voiceover telling us that he survives and finally the film ends. These constants endings really killed the tension. It would have been nice if things were left up to the viewer, but any ambiguity was completely dispelled. 

Also the sound mixing wasn't very good either. There were multiple scenes especially when Papillon and Degas are being brought by boat to the prison, where it was difficult to hear the characters speaking over the sound of the waves. I'm sure I missed many important details there.

The film wasn't all bad though. Steve McQueen was great as the formidable Papillon. He is sent there after coming to Degas' aid by attacking a guard. Degas returns the favour by sneaking him food in solitary confinement and Papillon never gives up his friend. Papillon almost loses his mind in solitary as the guards starve him and leave him in darkness. It is difficult to believe that anybody could survive torture like that. And the scene where we see a prisoner being guillotined, as a warning, was disturbing to watch.

It is a shame about the bloating and the slow motion and the multiple endings, because it did have the potential to be a great film.