This is England review

 Number 599 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shane Meadows' 2006 British drama 'This is England.'

Shaun (Thomas Thurgoose) is a troubled twelve-year-old boy whose father has recently been killed in the Falklands' War. Bullied at school, he is taken in by a gang of skinheads led by Woody (Joe Gilgun) and his girlfriend Lol (Vicky McClure.) However, everything changes when the gang's volatile and racist member Combo (Stephen Graham) returns from prison.

Directors like Shane Meadows always have difficult jobs when it comes to films like 'This is England.' They can't be seen either out-right condemning or approving of their content; they have to portray an objective reality allowing the viewer to make their own decisions. And that's where Meadows succeeded. Without ever becoming too preachy, he provides a fascinating snapshot into skinhead culture.

But he cannot take all the credit. Much of that should be bestowed on the brilliant Stephen Graham. Before he became a household name, he was playing characters who were espousing the same nationalistic, jingoism that was just as relevant now as it was back in the eighties. And he did it with such nuance. It would be all too easy to play the role as a romping - stomping, red-faced gammon shouting at the top of his lungs, but Graham was smarter than that. He brought many layers to Combo showing his vulnerability. While never condoning them, you understand his actions.

All this was seen through the perspective of twelve-year-old Shaun. This was a clever decision, as it was a stark warning of how easy somebody can be brainwashed by ideology. Thomas Thurgoose was very good in his debut role. While many of his co-stars like Joe Gilgun and Vicky McClure have gone onto bigger and better roles, I can't say the same for Thurgoose, but I'm sure his time will come soon.

Granted, you could argue that there isn't much in the way of plot, but I don't think it was necessary in a slice-of-life film like this. It was a simple snapshot of skinhead culture. And that's all it needed to be. Plus it had the brilliant Stephen Graham as the lead. What more do you want? Just be warned, this is England is way too depressing to watch more than once.

The Adventures of Tintin review

 Number 925 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stephen Spielberg's 2011 computer-animated adventure film 'The Adventures of Tintin.'

Based on the Belgian comic of the same name, the Adventures of Tintin follows the titular detective as he solves crimes. Tintin (Jamie Bell) buys a model ship to later discover a clue hidden inside. An interpol agent comes to investigate and later ends up dead. This is when Tintin realises he has stumbled upon a bigger mystery. With the help of drunken ship Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis,) Tintin aims to solve the mystery before the villainous Sakharine (Daniel Craig.) 

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It had all the adventure, whimsy and action that you would expect from a Stephen Spielberg film mixed in with some gorgeous animation. The animation was so life-like; it looked lovely. And the script had enough humour in it to stop things from becoming too serious. Although this was of no surprise, as Stephen Moffat, Joe Cornish and Edgar Wright penned the script. Edgar Wright also wrote the Cornetto trilogy which are very funny films.

Speaking of the Cornetto trilogy, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost offered some great comic relief in their roles as bumbling police officers Thompson and Thomson. Andy Serkis was enjoyable as well, but he is always good in animated or motion-capture roles.

I have to admit that I was a little disappointed with Daniel Craig. As James Bond, he has huge charisma, but this charisma didn't come through the medium of animation. Or maybe Sakharine wasn't a particularly memorable villain. Regardless of the reason, this wasn't one of Daniel Craig's most memorable performances.

Nonetheless, I thought this film was great fun. Although a sequel has been announced, it has been stuck in development hell for years. Hopefully, it will reach the big screen soon.

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.

It review (1990 mini-series)

Review for It

SPOILER ALERT

We’ve come to another adaptation of Stephen King’s work.  As I’ve read ‘It’ and I've heard that the adaptation is supposed to be great, I thought I would it a go.

‘It’ is set in mostly Derry, Maine and in two different timelines, one in 1957 and the other in 1984.  The 1957 timeline follows the protagonists’ narrative as children.  There are seven protagonists: Bill Denborough (Richard Thomas,) the stuttering leader of the group, the fat but good-hearted Ben Hanscom (John Ritter,) the asthmatic Eddie Kasbarak (Dennis Christopher), the wisecracking smartarse Richie Tozier (Harry Anderson,) the sceptical and rational Stan Uris (Richard Masur), the only girl in the group Beverly Marsh (Annette O'Toole) and the only black member of the group Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid).  

These seven children do battle with the child-eating, inter-dimensional monster known as Pennywise the Clown or It (Tim Curry).  When they fail to kill Pennywise in 1957, they return in 1984 to do battle once again.  One prominent subplot also sees them facing off any times with the neighbourhood bully Henry Bowers.  Henry serves as a human and therefore more relatable, but no less psychotic antagonist.

‘It’ was released as a two-part TV movie, each part being 90 mins long.  Seeing as the book is over 1000 pages long, I would argue that this is a reasonable length for a film, which they achieved by cutting out some unnecessary secondary characters and some lengthy character development.  I’m glad they did this, as I thought the book had far too much backstory for its characters and I got very bored reading through parts of it.  The film also worked well as a horror.  It did well in, rather than showing the murders themselves, it showed the effects on those left behind.  Pennywise has the powers to shapeshift into a character’s biggest fear or make them see what they fear most.     The film depicted these different images very well, which all added to the scariness of it.  I also quite liked the child cast, although it was weird seeing Seth Green, who played the young Richie Tozier, as a sixteen year old.

However, the film missed out a couple of important scenes that featured in the book.  The first focuses on Beverly in the 1984 timeline.  In this timeline, she is married to the abusive and possessive Tom Hagen.  When she tells Tom, she wants to return to Maine, they get into a bloody and physical fight with Beverly being the victor.  In the film, this is mostly omitted, which I didn’t like, as in the book we see Beverly’s inner strength and power as a character, which isn’t conveyed in the same way within the film.  

The second scene focuses on Mike Hanlon’s past in 1957.  Within this scene, Mike’s father tells him how he and some of his friends created a club that was originally just for black people, but soon expanded to encompass all races, but the club was burnt down by white supremacists.  I felt that this really highlighted the racial prejudice that black people experienced at the time and by omitting this scene, I felt that the film glossed over this issue.  

Tim Curry was also good as Pennywise the Clown. Sure, you could argue he was a little over-the-top, but it worked. There's a reason why Pennywise is considered one of the scariest film villains ever.

And the less said about Bill Denborough's ponytail, the better. 

Overall, this was an enjoyable film.  It was certainly very creepy and horrific and for the most part, it was a faithful adaption of the book it was based on.  However, I felt that the filmmakers could have been a little wiser in the scenes that they omitted. That notwithstanding this film brought us one of the scariest villains of the 1990's.