Flipped review

 Number 577 on the top 1000 films of all time is Rob Reiner's 2010 coming of age romantic drama Flipped.

Flipped tells the story of Bryce Loski (Callan Mcauliffe) and Juli Baker (Madeline Carroll) Upon meeting as kids, she falls in love with him. We see their love to and froe as they grow until adulthood where Juli is just about to give up when...

Rob Reiner's murder at the hands of his son is a tragedy. He will be best remembered for directing great films like The Princess Bride and Misery. Will he be remembered for directing Flipped? Nope. It was a very meh film and not particularly memorable. In terms of coming of age dramas, it was definitely no Stand By Me.

Much of this was down to the two lead characters and their rather insipid romance. Bryce is a major bonehead so much so that you do wonder why Juli was attracted to him in the first place. I guess love is both blind and deaf and dumb.

Callan Mcauliffe played Bryce At 15. He hasn't gone onto the most illustrious of careers other than a supporting role in the latter seasons of the Walking dead. He wasn't anything special as the bland protagonist. And wasn't particulary endearing either. The same can be said for Juli who was equally bland as Juli. I wasn't particularly interested in learning if the two get together or not.

Sure you could argue their messy love story is reflective of love stories everywhere but that didn't make it anymore interesting. It didn't help there wasn't much conflict keeping them apart except for their own pride and hubris. It was very much a case of stupid characters making stupid choices for no reason but to push the plot forward. Sure Bryce's father thinks Juli's family is beneath them but this felt more like an after thought.

Rob Reiner was a fine director who will be remembered for a great many films. However, Flipped is a film best forgotten.

Love Me if you Dare review

 Number 535 on the top 1000 films of all time is the French romantic-comedy Jeux D'enfants or Love me if you Dare.

Eight year old Julien Janvier's (Thibault Verhaeghe) mother is dying of cancer. He finds solace in his neighbour Sophie Kawalsky (Josephine Lebas-Joly) a girl bullied because of her Polish heritage. The two of them fall in love over a series of dares they ask each other to do. These dares continue into adulthood and threaten to rip their lives apart. Guillame Canet plays the adult Julien and Marion Cotillard the adult Sophie.

This film had the artistic style of a Wes Anderson film a la Moonrise Kingdom but it had none of the heart. It had a unique colour palate and quirky cinematography but really annoying characters.

I didn'[t like either Julien or Sophie, either apart or together. As this is a rom-com, I'm expected to root for the two to get together, but I found no reason to do this. This was down to the central story of them playing childish pranks on each other. These start out as harmless, but turn into cruel especially when they affect innocent bystanders.

One prank sees them bully a classmate, another sees the destruction of Julien's wedding and humiliation of his would-be bride. It was reminiscent of Youtube pranksters causing trouble and then going "it's just a prank bro."

I also didn't understand what was keeping Julien and Sophie apart. Why couldn't they be together? They both liked each other - the actors had both on and off-screen chemistry evidenced by how they later went onto have a long-term relationship. Julien's dad never liked Sophie and thinks she is a bad influence on his son, yet he doesn't do much to stop them from being together.

Finally, can we talk about that ending? Spoilers

As the ultimate dare to prove their love to each other, Julien and Sophie voluntarily decide to be encased together in a block of concrete. Yes, you read that correctly. They chose to be buried alive in concrete. How was this romantic? This is something you would see in a horror movie. Not a romance.

I really didn't like Love me if you Dare. Tonally it was all wrong. And it was all style over substance.

Days of Heaven review

 Number 317 on the top 1000 films of all time is Terrence Malik's 1978 romantic period-drama film 'Days of Heaven.'

Richard Gere and Brooke Adams play Bill and Abby - two lovers in 1916 Chicago. After Bill kills his employer, he and Abby flee to find work at a Texan farm. There they concoct a plan for Abby to marry the dying farm-owner, played by Sam Shepard, with the idea of inheriting his money after he dies, but then she falls in love with him.

After the Thin Red Line, this is the second Terrence Malik film that I've seen. I am swiftly realising that I do not like Terrence Malik films. They are tedious, pretentious and over-long. Yes, Days of Heaven, was only ninety-five minutes, but that's still too long for what was ultimately a boring film.

There were too many weird close-ups of insects and animals and not enough of things actually happening. Much like, the Thin Red Line, and that was a war film. Yet all we got was endless philosophising rather than exciting war scenes.

I was bored of Days of Heaven within the first five minutes which naturally meant I missed all the film's set-up and introduction. But even if I hadn't I don't think I would have missed much. The performances were just as bland as the script which was a surprise as you have good actors like Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and Sam Shepard. Yet the weird love triangle felt unconvincing due to the lacklustre acting. Even writing this now, I am struggling to remember the character's names.

If I were to compliment the film on anything, it would be its cinematography particularly the climatic sequence with the farm being set on fire. There was a reason why it won the Best Cinematography Oscar.

Otherwise, this was a bland, boring and tedious film. Par for the course for Terrence Malik.

Harold and Maude review

Number 255 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1971 black romantic-comedy 'Harold and Maude.'

Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is a young man who has a morbid fascination with death. He regularly enjoys staging his own suicide much to the dislike of his mother who is worried about her social status. But Harold then meets the carefree seventy-nine year old Maude (Ruth Gordon.) The two form an unlikely relationship.

I didn't care for this film at all. I did not like Harold's character. It would be fair to describe him as a nihilist. He is spiritually deadened and struggles to find any meaning in life. it can be difficult to write these characters so they're not annoying, spoiled or entitles, which is exactly how I would define Harold.

It didn't help that he had no discernible reason for his nihilism. You can argue that his relative affluence and wealth has left him spiritually deadened. The disconnected relationship with his shallow mother has probably done little to help matters. But I can't pinpoint a specific catalyst. Harold didn't have any defined reason for being so dead. Bud Cort also played the role with a smugness that made him irritating.

I also didn't like the film's depiction of suicide. It was gratuitous. Harold stages his suicide in multiple ways from immolation, to blowing his brains out to hanging and even slitting his wrists in a vivid display of red. It was all horribly romanticised. This is even more so considering how the only meaning he finds in his life is through death. His mother constantly dismisses his behaviours too; true she sends him to a shrink, but he is equally dismissive.

I would say that this film's redeeming feature is Ruth Gordon as Maude. She was enjoyable as a hedonistic, ageing hippy who gives no second though to breaking the rules. Despite how charming she was, it is difficult to deny that her relationship with Harold was weird. Director Hal Ashby always insisted that there was nothing untoward about it, but I don't agree. She's sixty years older than him. Flip the genders and see whether it's still the same.

I didn't care for Harold and Maude. Ruth Gordon was a delight, but Hal Ashby's treatment of suicide was off-putting.

Before Midnight review

 Number 245 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Lintlaker's 2013 conclusion to his 'Before Trilogy' - 'Before Midnight.'

Nine years on from when we saw them last in Paris, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delphy) are married with twin girls holidaying in Greece. However, Jesse also has a fractious relationship with his son Hank from a previous marriage. It doesn't help that his ex-wife hates both him and Celine.

What do you think of when you hear perfect film trilogies? Lord of the Rings? Back to the Future? The Dollars trilogy? The Dark Knight? I would add the Before Trilogy to that illustrious list. While it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it is a highly satisfactory end to Lintlaker's Before trilogy.

In many ways, Before Midnight is the biggest film of the three. The cast is thoroughly expanded as Celine and Jesse are holidaying with some friends. The film loses some of its intimate feel as we see the cast having extended conversations with each other, and the character dynamics and relationships take precedence over a stripped-back plot. But when you have characters and dialogue as real as you have here, this is no criticism at all.

With this installment, we see that Jesse and Celine have the most to lose. They have long left behind the honeymoon phase and are now married trying to navigate the complexities of life - least of all Jesse's estranged relationship with his ex-wife and son. Having lived in Paris for the last nine years, Celine is unwilling to give up her life to move to New York especially since Jesse's ex-wife hates her so much.

Yet such an important plot-point like this is very much left up to the viewer's imagination. The less-is-more approach has always been this trilogy's strength - it has always been light on plot, spectacle and budget, but this was too crucial of a detail to be relegated to mere exposition. The same can be said for Jesse's son Hank who, despite appearing at the beginning, never felt like anything more than a plot device.

I was also unsure about the ending. Just when it seems that Jesse and Celine's relationship might be torn apart after a terrible fight, they reconcile with Jesse making an impassioned plea that he isn't perfect and neither is their relationship, but that's just the way life works out sometimes. Considering how the trilogy has always been so big on authenticity, I was expecting something more bittersweet, but having couples make up after bad fights is just as realistic as having couples who don't.

These criticisms don't take away from what was a great conclusion to one of my new favourite film trilogies. Before Midnight was a great exploration of how the way we love can change with age. The script was as natural as ever with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy having as much chemistry as always. I was surprised to find out that there was no improvisation on set - the script was followed verbatim. Everything felt so real that I sometimes thought I was watching a documentary rather than a film.

Chungking Express review

 Number 234 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hong Kong art house romantic-drama Chungking Express.

Chungking Express tells two separate love stories which only interconnect where one ends and the other begins. The first sees a Hong Kong police officer He Qiwu (Takeshi Kaneshiro) trying to come to terms with the ending of a relationship, while growing closer to a mysterious, unnamed woman in a blonde wig (Brigitte Lin) who is trying to survive in a dark, criminal underworld. The second story sees another policeman only known by his serial number 663 (Tony Leung) as he grows closer to the cafe waitress Faye (Faye Wong) after another failed relationship.

Of the two stories, I much preferred the second one. I found the first to be more of a loose sketch rather than an actual story. He Qiwu was such a wet blanket of a character. I get it. I've been him, moping around after a bad break-up. I'm sure I was an absolute misery to be around. What fun is somebody who is always feeling sorry for themselves? While it was realistic, it didn't make for a very compelling protagonist.

His female co-star had a more interesting story, but she wasn't afforded enough time to tell it. We see that she has been wronged in this criminal underworld and she is trying to take revenge on everybody who screwed her over. Yet her story was left incredibly vague and unexplained. Her actions certainly didn't have a lot of clarity. Although maybe this was because of the intentional motion blur that director Wong Kar-Wait used. And who knew there was such a big Indian minority in Hong Kong? Evidently not me who didn't realise the real Chungking estate does indeed host a whole bunch of Nepalese and South Asian immigrants.

Overall, the first story took itself too seriously. Not so for the second which was more light-hearted. It helped you had the comic relief character of the cafe manager played by Chan Kam-Cheun. He was constantly pushing 663 to move on. And it also helped that Tony Leung's character had more backbone than the other copper. Rather than moping around in self-despair, he's trying to get on with his life - if not actively moving on.

One way he's doing this is by frequenting a cafe where he starts getting friendly with the waitress Faye - who plays California Dreamin' by the Mamas and Papas on repeat. She is immediately smitten with him and her attempts to get closer to him - like cleaning and organising his flat when he isn't there - usually leading to some comic moments. It's quite a charming little story.

And Chungking Express is a charming enough film. It's actually two films in one with the second story being a lot better than the first. 

Heathers review

 Number 932 on the top 1000 films of all time is the teen black-comedy 'Heathers.'

Veronika (Winona Ryder) is part of a high-school clique consisting of three girls all called Heather: Heather Duke (Shannon Doherty,) Heather McNamara (Lisanne Falk) and Heather Chandler (Kim Walker.) The same time she realises that her friends are ruthless bullies, she falls in love with the mysterious outsider JD (Christian Slater0 who has a plot to kill all the popular kids in school.

How to describe this film? Natural Born Killers set in a high school. But instead of the psychopathic Mickey and Mallory Knox, we have JD and the naive Veronika who he manipulates into being his unwitting accomplice.

In creating this film, director Michael Lehmann wanted to portray a darker side to high-school by turning the standard coming-of-age drama on its head. He certainly succeeded there. JD is a long way from Ferris Bueller. He is a damn sight creepier too although I'm not sure whether that was the character or Christian Slater. Seriously. JD is what I would imagine Klebold or Harris being like...

Although I think a more accurate comparison could be the Moors Murderers or Paul Bernado and Karla Homolka. However, the key difference is that Veronika quickly wisens up to JD's true agenda and decides to confront him.

In Heathers, Winona Rider was urr riding her success in Beetlejuice - a wave she continued riding throughout the nineties. She was good as Veronika who was perhaps the most self-aware character and perhaps the only character who wasn't some distorted stereotype. Christian Slater leaned too heavily into the moody outsider while the football players were overly-simplistic as well as the group of nerds they bullied. Yet, the Heathers knew exactly what they were doing, but they still weren't much more than your standard mean girls.

Heathers is also clever in its dissection of contemporary society - particularly with the romanticisation of suicide. Suicide is a recurring theme and we see how it affects different people in different ways. In some ways, Lehmann satirises this dark theme through his comical approach to it. But despite this satire, it is still treated with the respect it deserves.

Heathers was certainly an effective way to deconstruct the coming-of-age films that directors like Justin James Hughes made famous. It's just a shame that Christian Slater was so damn creepy.

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. 

Freaks review

 Number 377 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1932 pre-code horror film Freaks.

Freaks takes place in a travelling circus show where trapeze artist Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) and strongman Hercules (Henry Victor) plot to murder dwarf Hans (Harry Earles) and steal his money.

I do think that this film could have been a lot better than what we saw on screen. That was because it was slow. It took too long to get to the point. Test screenings went horrifically badly with many of the audience disgusted what they saw, so MGM executives edited the 90-minute film into the 64-minute cut we know today.

The executive did this without the director's knowledge, so perhaps the fault of the film should be put down to studio interference. Freaks was only 64 minutes long. It didn't have time to waste extensively setting up the plot or introducing us to the many romantic subplots- most which were irrelevant to the main plot, but that's what happened.

Things only really got going near the film's climax, where things were at their most horrific and frightening, but also rushed. Freaks definitely earned its stripes as a horror film.

Freaks also received much attention for casting real-life sideshow performers with disabilities like dwarfism, sacral agenesis and microcephaly. Most importantly, none of the eponymous freaks were reduced to jokes or sideshow attractions or villains. Instead, the villains were the able-bodied performers. In fact, the supposed "Freaks" were treated with humanity and respect.

Freaks should have been a better film, but it was mired by unnecessary studio interference.

Doctor Zhivago review

 Number 316 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lean's epic historical-romance 'Doctor Zhivago.'

Doctor Zhivago (Omar Sharif) is a physician during the Russian revolution. Although he is married to Tonya ( Geraldine Chaplin,) he soon falls in love with Lara (Julie Christie.) When the civil war tears them apart, fate throws them back together again.

We have returned to my favourite genre of film: period/historical dramas. That was sarcasm. As you know well by now, I hate period dramas. They're just so boring.

Doctor Zhivago wasn't quite in the top ten films to put you to sleep - that honour goes to Gone with the Wind or even David Lean's other historical epic 'Lawrence of Arabia - but it was still pretty close. Biopics or character dramas like Doctor Zhivago tend to be vague and unfocussed. They tell far too much story in far too much time.

Doctor Zhivago was no exception tot his. It introduces Doctor Zhivago and we follow him through his life until *spoilers* his death. Surely, some of this could have been edited out. Then the film wouldn't have been over three hours long. It had no business being that long. Never mind bloated, this film was so pregnant, it was about to give birth.

Having said that, Omar Sharif was very good as our titular protagonist especially when the Communist protestors are massacred by the mounted Cossacks. He can only watch in horror, as his people are mown down.

Doctor Zhivago also won five Oscars including best cinematography, art direction and costume design. These were well-earned as the cinematography was brilliant especially all the desolate, Russian landscapes. The costumes were also brilliant. You can see how hard they tried to get everything right.

That notwithstanding, I didn't enjoy Doctor Zhivago. It was a bloated, over-long affair.

Manhattan review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bringing up Baby review

 Number 214 on the top 1000 films of all time is Howard Hawks' 1938 screwball comedy 'Bringing up Baby.'

David Huxley (Cary Grant) is a palaeontologist who is aiming to get a million dollar donation for his museum from wealthy benefactor Elizabeth Ransom (May Robson.) He is also shortly due to be married. However, he then meets the scatter-brained heiress Susan Vance (Katherine Hepburn.) Shenanigans and hi-jinks ensue.

Bringing Up Baby was a box-office bomb upon release. It was so bad that it virtually killed off Hepburn's career before she later rebounded. Nonetheless, critics received it for its absurdist humour and bizarre situations. However, I thought it was all a bit ridiculous and not in a good way either. While it started well, it slowly descending into incredulity, as things become more and more outlandish. The "baby" in the title refers to a leopard that was a gift for Elizabeth. Baby escapes and Huxley and Vance have to track it down. Naturally another leopard has escaped from the nearby circus.

Before Susan's dog steals and buries an important bone that Huxley needs to complete his brontosaurus skeleton. They then have to dig holes all over Susan's garden to find the bones. When Huxley and Vance's antics land them in jail, Huxley realises his cell door has been left unlocked, which he soon points out to the police who promptly lock him up again. It's all a bit silly really. And not very funny either.

The same can't be said for Cary Grant. He put his background in Vaudeville to good use, as he shows off his great physical comedy skills. His jumping in the air declaring that he was feeling gay was complete improvisation.

However, I wasn't as convinced by Katherine Hepburn. It was difficult to believe this was the same actress who had won a record four acting Oscars. But she didn't fared so well in the comedy department. Reportedly, she majorly struggled because she was trying too hard to be funny. It didn't help that Vance was a frustrating character. She wasn't a character that matched up with Hepburn's famous strong feminist character. I think she was miscast.

If anything, the air-headed, man-obsessed, scatter-brained Susan Vance would have been a better fit for the other famous Hepburn - Audrey. Susan Vance was not unlike Holly Golightly. Having said that, her imitation of a gangster at the film's conclusion was very well done.

Cary Grant was a comedic talent and Katherine Hepburn was a great actress in her own right, but I don't think this film did either of them justice. 

3-Iron review

 Number 229 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Korean/Japanese romantic drama '3-Iron.'

Tae-Suk (Jae-Hee) is a lonely drifter who spends his days breaking into people's homes when they're away, eating their food, washing their clothes, fixing their appliances and sleeping in their beds. One day he breaks into the home of Sun-hwa (Lee Seung-Yeon) - a house wife who is being abused by her husband Min-Gyu (Kwon Hyuk-ho.) After Tae-Suk witnesses this abuse in secret, he proceeds to buffet Min-Gyu with golf balls before leaving with his wife who soon joins him on his escapades.

In 3-Iron, I've seen one of the strangest, most intriguing yet subtly powerful films about human connection and communication. What makes the theme of communication even stranger is how there is so little verbal communication between Tae-Suk and Sun-hwa. Despite having minimal dialogue, the two soon start to fall in love. This use of silence was completely intentional by director Kim Ki-duk who wanted the audience to focus on the relationship of the characters without being distracted by dialogue. There is so much more in what we don't say rather than what we do. Ki-Duk captures this idea perfectly. 

It's a great concept. So much of human communication is more than the words we speak. There is our body language, our facial expressions - all those little sub-communications that nobody ever thinks about, but make up so much of how we convey meaning to one another.

However, I wonder if Ki-Duk could have pushed this idea even further. The film is only short at eighty-eight minutes. That's not even an hour-and-a-half. Its short runtime meant that some of the plot-points were rushed and contrived so they could fit in the big thematic ideas within ninety minutes. Let's take the first meeting of Tae-Suk and Sun-Hwa. Tae-Suk breaks into Sun-Hwa's home not realising that she is there too. He starts washing her clothes and fixing her bathroom scale. Meanwhile, she has spotted him there and, rather than confronting him or running and screaming for help, she watches him curiously.

After Tae-Suk beats Min-Gyu, Sun-Hwa leaves with him, no questions asked. Obviously she has to go with him for the plot to work, but it all happened too easily. I am no expert, but in many abusive relationships there is an element of Stockholm Syndrome. Despite being horrifically abused, the abusee still deeply loves their abuser. I thought Sun-Hwa would express distress at her husband being attacked or maybe she would try to stop Tae-Suk. At the very least, I thought she would be hesitant about leaving him, but that wasn't the case at all.

There are other plot points that were completely skipped over. When playing golf on a street corner, Tae-Suk inadvertently hits the golf ball into the head of a random passer-by. We see one shot of him wracked with guilt and then it's quickly onto the next plot point. Tae-Suk and Sun-Hwa are caught in the bed of one of the homeowners they've invaded. What happens next? Nothing negative, as we're rushing along. These could have been great moments of conflict and tension, but they weren't explored properly.

I did enjoy 3-Iron. It was intriguing and very creative, but it definitely needed longer than ninety minutes to explore its big thematic ideas.

In The Mood for Love review

 Number 216 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Chinese romance-drama 'In the Mood for Love.'

Mr Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs Chan (Maggie Cheung) are two neighbours who have just moved into a Hong Kong apartment block. Suspecting their respective spouses of cheating on them, the two start becoming attracted to each other. Will they be like their spouses and have an affair too?

Never mind love, I'm in the mood for an entertaining film, because this was film was dull. Insufferably dull. Boring. Tedious. Monotonous. Insert any other synonym for boring. It's a drama. Where was the drama? The tension?

It's quickly established that Mr Chow and Mrs Chan are lonely; their spouses work long hours and are inattentive. Although we never see this on-screen. Plus it isn't like the two would-be lovers are social pariahs. Mrs Chan's neighbours are constantly inviting her in for dinner, but she always refuses. If you actually had dinner with your neighbours, you wouldn't be so lonely. At a certain point, you're just being a victim.

And there's nothing stopping Mr Chow and Mrs Chan from having an affair if they really wanted. Their neglectful spouses are nowhere to be seen. They have no rivals for each other's interests. We, the audience, can see how lonely they are, so we're willing for them to get together. Where's the tension? It's virtually non-existent. In fact, the first moment of tension doesn't occur until the hour mark, where the would-be lovers realise they can't be together.

The film isn't particularly long; only one hundred minutes, but that's ten minutes too long. The film ends with Mr Chan in Angkor Wat whispering into the hole of a temple wall before stuffing it with moss. This references an earlier section where he says that in the olden times people would go up a mountain, whisper their secrets into a hole of a tree before filling it with moss. I get the visual metaphor, but why have it in Angkor Wat and not a tree on a mountain? And why we did then pan around Angkor Wat for five minutes?

One positive was that the original score was very good - it was mysterious and compelling, but it was only used sparingly. Much of the rest of the film had no incidental music, which only made it all the more boring.

And boring is the perfect way of summarising this film. Not enough tension. Annoying characters doing annoying things and too many lingering shots of characters sitting in empty rooms deep in thought.

House of Flying Daggers review

 Number 748 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Wuxia romance film 'House of Flying Daggers.'

At the end of China's Tang Dynasty, there is a power vacuum. Within that vacuum, multiple groups are vying for power. One of these is the House of Flying Daggers who are battling against the corrupt Fengtian government. Leo (Andy Lau) and Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro) are tasked with finding and killing the mysterious leader of this group. To aid him, Jin pretends to befriend Mei (Zhang Ziyi,) the blind daughter of the leader, to gain her trust, all while being pursued by government forces. But then the two fall in love and everything changes.

There is no denying that House of Flying Daggers is a technically beautiful film. From the cinematography to the choreography to the colour palate to the gorgeous original score, it was a sensory feast. Yes, the martial art sequences do push your suspension of disbelief, but that's all part of the fun. Considering it was directed by Zhang Yimou who also directed Hero, this should come as no surprise. Hero was also a visually stunning film. 

Of course it helped when you have an actress as talented as Zhang Ziyi. As well as acting she is an accomplished singer and dancer which helped her execute a brilliant dance sequence at the film's beginning.

It's just a shame that the actual storyline couldn't match the technical heights. House of Flying Daggers was intended to be more of a romance than a wuxia film, but it failed in both regards. It doesn't count as a romance and it shouldn't have been marketed as such. By convention, romances should end with the love interests having a happy ever after or a happy for now. *Spoiler alert* That doesn't happen at all. 

And as it was a romance, you would expect it to be interesting, but the love story was so dull. Rather than solely being between Mei and Jin, Leo is also involved. He was previously engaged with Leo and has loved her for years. But when she falls in love with Jin after only three days, Leo becomes dangerously jealous. Cue a rather tepid love-triangle that culminates in a cheesy, unsatisfying conclusion. 

*More spoilers* 

It is later revealed that Mei was only pretending to be blind. But this also subplot confused me, as it was frustratingly inconsistent. At times Mei seemed to have perfect eyesight, but at others she was stumbling and fumbling around. It's implied that she has extra-sharp, super-human senses, hence why she can survive elaborate fight scenes without drawing blood. Having said that, most of the characters had some very strong plot-armour. And that added to the dullness. There was no tension or stakes as these characters seemed virtually indestructible. 

I would have much preferred to have watched a film about the different factions warring for power in the Tsang dynasty. Hell, I would have enjoyed watching the House of Flying Daggers battling against the corrupt government. Instead, I got a boring, tepid love story set against a visually stunning backdrop.

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon review

 Number 401 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ang Lee's 2000 wuxia film 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.'

Set in Qing Dynasty China, Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun-Fat) is a renowned swordsman who owns the legendary 'Green Destiny' sword. One of his closest friends Yu Shu Lien(Michelle Yeoh) is a similarly talented warrior who is tasked with delivering the sword to Li's benefactor Sir Te. But the sword is stolen in the night by a masked thief. Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu work to recover the sword while working through their previously unrealised feelings for each other.

I found 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' to be a confused film uncertain of its own identity. At times, it seemed like it wanted to be a classic wuxia film with physics-breaking, brilliantly-choregraphed martial art sequences. But at others it tried to be a Western love story focussing on Mu-Bai and Shu-Lien. Shu-Lien was previously engaged to Mu-Bai's friend Meng Sizhao before his untimely death. Out of respect, the two hide their feelings for one another.

This film was made specifically for a Western audience, so perhaps that was the reason for the cloying love story that was never ever fully realised. If it had been made with an Eastern audience in mind, then I think this love story could have been better portrayed. Instead, we were left with great martial art sequences punctuated with verbose, hammy dialogue. I watched this film with subtitles, so I can't even say this was a bad translations, as Ang Lee oversaw the subtitling himself, as he wanted to get the most accurate interpretation possible.

Also, the identity of the masked thief was obvious from the start. If you didn't figure it out in the first five minutes, I won't spoil it here, but that definitely hurt the dramatic tension.

Reportedly, Ang Lee described the film as Sense & Sensibility with martial arts. He also directed this film, which may explain why I wasn't a fan of either.

Brokeback Mountain review

 Number 585 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ang Lee's neo-western romantic drama 'Brokeback Mountain.' 

Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis La Mer (Heath Ledger) are two cowboys working up a mountain. After spending one fateful night together, the two fall madly in love. They spend the next twenty years seeing each other in secret, while trying to live 'normal' lives with their families and jobs. Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway co-star as Ennis' and Jack's wives respectively.

At the 78th Academy Awards, Brokeback Mountain controversially lost Best Picture Oscar to Crash. Many thought Brokeback Mountain was a highly superior film. Having seen both, I absolutely agree with this sentiment. Whereas Crash was contrived and half-arsed, Brokeback Mountain was wonderfully understated, but also very moving.

Great romance stories always hinge on the two leads. If they didn't have chemistry, the film would have fallen flat. But I thought both Ledger and Gyllenhaal were great together. They were very believable in the roles of the emotionally conflicted cowboys. Both of them are living double lives; trying to maintain their stoic cowboy image, while seeing each other in secret.

Heath Ledger was hesitant about taking the role, as he didn't think he would be able to do it justice. These fears were unfounded, as he was brilliant. Granted, he sometimes spoke with a gruff, mumbling diction that made him difficult to understand, but he was still superb. He gave a compassionate and layered performance. Gyllenhaal was equally good. Both actors played off of each other well.

The cinematography was also spectacular. Wide panning and master shots emphasised the sheer vastness and splendour of the landscape. It was reminiscent of the old spaghetti Westerns. 

I've spoken a lot about the male actors, but the female leads were just as good. Granted Anne Hathaway was under-utilised, both she and Michelle Williams were very good, as Alma and Lureen - two wives trying and failing to understand their husbands.

I thoroughly enjoyed Brokeback Mountain. It was subtle, nuanced and powerful with some great performances. And it certainly deserved to win Best Film Oscar.

Legends of the Fall review

 Number 846 on the top 1000 films of all time is the epic Western drama 'Legends of the Fall.'

Colonel William Ludlow (Anthony Hopkins) is a former army veteran who retires to a ranch in Montana. When his wife Isabelle leaves, he raises his three sons alone: the oldest Alfred (Aidan Quinn,) the middle son Tristan (Brad Pitt) and the youngest and most naive Samuel (Henry Thomas.) Also, on the ranch if William's Cree friend One Stab (Gordon Tootoosis,) as well as ranch hand Decker (Paul Desmon,) his Cree wife Pet and their daughter Isabelle Two.

Legends of the Fall is a sprawling narrative that encompasses a huge time period from the early twentieth century to World War One to prohibition and even the 1960's. Edward Zwick takes us through each era well. Although at times it felt very disparate which we will come to later.

When WW1 breaks out, Samuel and Alfred volunteer to fight. Trist also reluctantly volunteers. He has promised Samuel's fiancé Susannah (Julia Ormond) that he would keep him safe from harm. The war scenes were effective and well-shot. And Brad Pitt proved he's more than capable of doing quieter, character roles, as well as bigger, block-buster, action roles. Anthony Hopkins was also great. As the stresses of his life become too much, William suffers from a stroke, rendering him virtually mute and immobile. But Hopkins still generates a lot of sympathy for the character.

However, while the male stars and characters were great, I feel like the female characters were short-changed. Susannah didn't have much of a role beyond being the object of affection for all three brothers. Although she is initially Samuel's fiancé, when he *spoilers*

is killed in the war, she hooks up with Tristan, all while Alfred looks on in desire. When Tristan goes AWOL for years, Susannah marries Alfred. It was less than the most satisfying of characters.

When Tristan returns to the ranch, he finds that Isabelle Two has all grown-up. And the two promptly marry and start a family. Even putting the age difference aside, the brothers were all adults while Isabelle Two was still a little girl. I saw very little reason why she and Tristan would marry each other except they're both young and hot. At least you had Alfred acknowledging the oddity of the situation.

But returning to my point about the disparateness, while Legends of the Fall worked in little parts, the parts didn't coalesce well together. it was a massive film set across an expansive time period which encompassed a lot of genres. It began as a Western, flirted as a romance, turned into a War film and later on, during the Prohibition era, it even became a gangster flick. It seemed overly-ambitious. And I don't think it worked. Fewer elements explored in more detail would have been better.

Ultimately, I still enjoyed this film. The female characters weren't great, and it was overly-ambitious, but Pitt and Hopkins shone.

Before Sunrise review

 Number 239 on the top 1000 films of all time is the romantic drama 'Before Sunrise.'

Jesse (Ethan Hawke) is a young, American man backpacking through Europe. On a train from Vienna, he meets the French lady Celine (Julie Delphy) and the two instantly hit it off. They spontaneously decide to spend the night together in Vienna, knowing that at sunrise, they will go their separate ways, unlikely to ever see each other again.

Generally, I'm not a fan of romance films. They can be either overly-sentimental or overly depressing. But Before Sunrise pleasantly surprised me. It was funny, uplifting and wonderfully understated. As can be expected with romances, a lot of the film hinges on the leading couple. If the actors don't have chemistry together, this will visibly translate to the screen. But I thought that Hawke and Delphy were great together. I've seen Hawke in Training Day and Lord of War, so I know he is a credible action star. But he was also likable and charismatic as Jesse. Julie Delphy was also charming as Celine. She brought a hopeful optimism to Jesse's cold cynicism.

I also thoroughly enjoyed Richard Lintlaker's subtle direction. It is left up to the audience to decide whether Jesse and Celine sleep together or not. This is never depicted on-screen. But in so many other films, it seems like a pre-requisite to have a gratuitous graphic sex scene that does nothing for the plot. You might expect this in romances, but not in dramas. Yet it happens almost all the time. Lintlaker's decision to let the audience make up their own minds was a refreshing take and added well to the fairytale aspect of the film.

And, in many ways, this is a fairytale. It is embedded in a the fantasy of a holiday, whirlwind romance. this can be reality for some people, but, at times, it leant into incredulity. I haven't been to Vienna, so I don't know whether this is the case, but are there really beatniks smoking by the river in the dead of night ready to write poetry for whoever is ready to pay them?

*Spoiler alert* And the film ends on a lovely, uplifting note. When it comes time for Jesse and Celine to say goodbye in the train station where Celine is going home to Paris, they vow not to write or call each other, but to meet at the station in six months time. As it is a romance, you would expect a happily ever after, but it was difficult to see how this could transpire. I was expecting a final twist in the tail that would spoil things.

Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed Before Sunrise. It lacked the sentimentality you would expect from many romances. And Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy were great together.

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.