Army of Darkness review

 Number 666 on the top 1000 films of all time is the dark-fantasy comedy film: Army of Darkness.

Army of Darkness is the third film in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead franchise. Picking up from the sequel's ending, Army of Darkness follows Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell) as he is sent back in time to the middle ages and unknowingly unleashes a demonic army into the nearby city. He becomes an unlikely and reluctant saviour.

Army of Darkness is supposed to be a comedy. It's supposed to be silly. You're not supposed to take it seriously. I had a feeling it was supposed to be one of those so-bad-it's-good films. Yet Army of Darkness, much like its sequel was just so bad it's bad. I had no idea why it featured on this list. I don't know why it's regarded as a comedy. There was nothing comedic about it. Not to mention, it was also repetitive - recycling the storyline of the second film, just with a different storyline. Everything was the same, even the protagonist and acting.

Bruce Campbell was ridiculously over-the-top and the script was littered with cheesy one-liner after cheesy one-liner. Again, I know this was entirely intentional but that didn't make it anymore enjoyable. My face wasn't hurting from laughing, so much as my eyes were aching from rolling back into my head so many times. It was just as ludicrous as the original story. Ash wasn't anymore likeable. He was plain annoying and I didn't particularly buy into or care about his reluctant hero storyline.

From a production standpoint, it also looked awful. The CGI was just awful. And don't give me any of this 'it was only the nineties blah-blah-blah' when Army of Darkness' contemporaries like Star Wars and Star Trek both had much better CGI. 

I know that Army Of Darkness was intended to be one of those so bad-it's-good films, but was the intention for it to be so-bad-it's-bad? Honestly, it reeked of an eighties B-movie. Maybe good as far as B-movies go. But we're talking about the top 1000 films of all time? Why are we letting B-movies anywhere near this list?

Control review

 Number 523 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 biopic 'Control.'

Control focusses on the true-life story of Ian Curtis (Sam Riley) the troubled lead singer of the English post-punk band Joy Division. Control explores his relationship with his bandmates, his record label and his wife Debbie (Samantha Morton.)

As you will be very familiar with by now, I am not a fan of biopics. Nor am I familiar with Joy Division or Ian Curtis. But as somebody who couldn't even name a Joy Division song, I found Control entertaining and watchable. It was accessible even for a non-existent fan like me.

Filmed in colour and then rendered to black-and-white, Control hearkened back to a 1970's Cheshire. Everything was stark and bare, which gave the film great atmosphere. There was some great use of shadows and lighting especially the shots where we see the silhouetted Ian Curtis.

 Sam Riley brought Ian Curtis to life in his debut role. I did enjoy his performance. It was nuanced with plenty of gravitas. Anybody else thinks he really looked like Rami Malek? I had to keep doing double-takes, because the resemblance was so striking. I wasn't as keen on Riley's singing voice, but he was doing an imitation of Curtis, and I guess I'm not keen on post-punk music.

But Samantha Morton was every bit his equal. Dare I say she was better than Riley. She certainly proved why she has no less than two Oscar nominations. Their marriage was every bit as disturbed as Curtis, but Morton was a powerhouse. She spends much of the film with tears in her eyes. It is difficult not to feel sorry for her, after everything Curtis puts her through.

While Riley and Morton were good separately, they weren't so good together, but that was more down to the writing. It was obvious from the start that their marriage would not be a happy one, least of all to those who know the story. When the two started arguing, it was no surprise to me.

But they seemed to spend most of the film arguing. So much so, you wonder why they were so attracted to each other in the first place. We definitely needed to see more of the good before we saw the bad. Their relationship was rushed.

In fact most of the more tender moments seemed to be reserved for Ian and his Belgian mistress Annik (Alexandra Maria Lara.) They got on much more than he and Debbie ever did. This tenderness was missing from their marriage.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy Control. I'm not sure I'm going to become a Joy Division acolyte, but even to a non-existent fan like me, it was an entertaining and accessible watch. 

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.

The Way Way back review

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Killing Fields review

 Number 382 on the top 1000 films of all time is a biographical drama 'The Killing Fields.'

Set during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, the Killing Fields details the relationship of two journalists during the Cambodian genocide. One journalist is the American 'Sydney Schanberg' (Sam Waterston) and the other is Sydney's Cambodian interpreter Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor.) John Malkovich co-stars as Sydney's photographer Al Rockoff.

Whenever I watch films about subjects like war or genocide. I am always of the mantra or go hard or go home. The Holocaust film 'The Pianist' goes hard and it's all the better for it. However, I cam coming to believe that this doesn't always need to be the way. the Killing Fields is subtle and understated. This isn't to say it shies away from the horrors of the genocide, but it far more selective in what it chooses to show.

We see the build-up of prisoners being executed, but we never see these executions first hand. So when we do see scenes like Pran escaping his internment camp to find himself tumbling into a pit of skeletons, the impact is all the stronger. The fact these skeletons are the remains of the executed prisoners makes the image even scarier.

A recurring issue I find with films about world historical events told from a Western lens is that there is the tendency to wrongly focus on the Western character. I wouldn't go far to say there was a white saviour narrative. Sydney is no hero and definitely no saviour. When he and the other Western journalists are being evacuated home, they do all they can to take Pran with them - even going so far to making him a fake passport. When this fails, they have no choice, but to leave them behind.

Sydney later acknowledges had a chance to leave long ago, but Sydney convinced him to stay. Back in the US, Sydney uses every contact he has to find Pran, but it is Pran who escapes and find a Red Cross refugee camp near the border with Thailand. Obviously growing up in the Western world, I view things through a Western lens. And so narratives like Sydney's are very familiar to me. Overly-familiar I would say. It wasn't until halfway when the film switched to Pran in the internment camp did I start taking serious interest. Pran was an infinitely more interesting character and I was rooting for him to escape. He was also a very clever man, playing dumb when interred, as he knows he'll be killed otherwise. If he is even suspected of being a working professional then the regime would kill him.

And all due credit to Haing Ngor. Having survived three stints in Cambodian prison camps, he went onto win an acting Oscar for this role, despite having no previous acting experience. He is the only Asian actor to win an Oscar and he very much deserved it. It is so sad his life was cut short when he was killed in a 1996 robbery.

Please give this film a watch. Albeit, it is very traumatic, but it makes for absolutely essential viewing.