Showing posts with label taylor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taylor. Show all posts

Saturday, 2 May 2026

Shine film

 Number 593 on the top 1000 films of all time is the musical biopic 'Shine.'

Shine ells the true-life story of famed Australian pianist David Helfgott from his childhood to the start of his career, where he was played by Noah Taylor, to his eventual mental breakdown where Geoffrey Rush took over the mantle.

Shine is perhaps best-known for its success at the 69th Academy awards where it generated seven nominations and one win. Armin Mueller-Stahl was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for playing David's tyrannical father Peter. For playing David, Geoffrey Rush took home the Best Actor gong.

Sure Rush was great, but did he shine enough to merit an Oscar? I'm not so sure. And I think that's more because he wasn't given a chance to shine. He shared the role of David with Noah Taylor and I'd argue that Taylor dominated the role. He had the more interesting parts. We see the fledgling beginnings of David's career, his tempestuous relationship with his father - more on that later - and the beginnings of David's breakdown. Rush takes over the latter half of the film, as we see David's life post-breakdown. It wasn't as interesting. Noah Taylor was more deserving of the Oscar nod, not because of the difference in acting quality, but in screen-time ratio.

However, Armin Mueller-Stahl was well-deserving of his Best Supporting Actor nomination. He cut a well-intentioned if misguided father figure trying to live out his failed dreams through his children. A toxic parent, but a great performance. Ultimately, Mueller-Stahl lost to Cuba Gooding Jr in Jerry Maguire, but this was still a memorable performance.

In some ways, Shine reminded me of Ron Howard's later film 'A Beautiful Mind,' which explored similar tortured genius mathematician John Nash. Although David was a more likable character and the plus side of having two actors portray him was that we got a well-rounded, three-dimensional character.

I'm not sure if Shine shone bright enough to be truly Oscar-worthy, but it was a good film nonetheless.


Thursday, 21 March 2024

The Legend of 1900 review

 Number 221 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama 'the Legend of 1900.'

Max Tooney (Pruitt Taylor Vince) is a trumpeter in early 20th century New York. When he tries selling his trumpet to make ends meet, he starts recounting the Legend of 1900 - 1900 was a baby found in a crate of fruit D. Lemon 1900 on the ship SS Virginian. 1900 (Tim Roth) grows up to be a virtuoso on the piano, and the best friend of Max Tooney.

Tim Roth and Pruitt Taylor Vince was the pairing I never knew I needed. I've seen Tim Roth in a few Tarantino films where he plays morally grey characters whereas Pruitt Taylor Vince has appeared in a number of TV shows like Deadwood, House and the Walking Dead. I never imagined I would see the two together especially with Roth being English and Vince American, yet they were great. They had an excellent chemistry. Considering their relationship was at the heart of this film, this was only the more important. They worked brilliantly together. The characters couldn't have been played by anybody else.

Without these two actors, the Legend of 1900 could have been a very different film. It's a story of friendship, music and two men becoming friends through their shared love of music. Without Roth or Vince, it could have completely descended into tedium or melodrama, but it remained incredibly watchable. Vince very much remains the straight man helping to navigate Roth's musical genius. 1900 spends the whole film on the ship where he was born. He is too hesitant to step into the outside world believing it to be too big for him.

Later on, Vince returns to the ship, that has since been decommissioned and has been scheduled to be destroyed, as he believes 1900 is still hiding away somewhere on it. He attempts to convince him to leave, but to no avail. Pruitt showed off his acting chops, as we see his heart break. This was a touching moment that underlined the relationship between he and 1900. 

I may argue that the film was longer than it needed to be, with some of the pacing being quite slow. At times, it was a little overly-sentimental, but overall, I did enjoy the Legend of 1900. It really took me by surprise. And it had brilliantly cast two lead actors that I never would have imagined together: Tim Roth and Pruitt Taylor Vince

Thursday, 29 June 2023

The Birds review

 Number 510 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 horror-thriller 'The Birds.'

Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hendren) is a socialite who meets lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) in a San Francisco bird shop. later, she drives to his home in Bodega Bay where she, him, and the towns people start being attacked by the local bird population.

What struck me most about this film was one of Hitchcock's most intentional decisions. He chose to direct the film without a conventional film score. And with next-to-none incidental music. And this worked brilliantly. It made a scary film even scarier. And this was a scary film. The lack of music made the tension go through the roof. The seeming lack of motive behind the birds' attacks made them even more terrifying.

However, I think the bird attacks being so random- they indiscriminately attack anybody regardless of time or location - proved to be the film's biggest shortcoming. as there is no discernible reason for why they could be attacking although a drunk bargoer speculates it is the end of the world, there is also no strategy for how to defeat them. When the townspeople do meet to discuss the issue, a birdwatcher is sceptical of the attacks, and even more sceptical of any preventative measures. But this lack of plan leads to a sagging of the narrative that culminates in an anti-climatic conclusion. *Spoilers* Melanie, Mitch and his family, drive away into an uncertain future. As nothing is resolved, it's all very unsatisfactory.

The character of Melanie was also unsatisfactory. She was just so useless. the Birds was released in 1963. but Melanie had none of the agency I might expect from the female characters of the time. When she foolishly goes off on her own to investigate strange noises, she discovers a whole room of birds. They attack her, and she doesn't even call for help. How Mitch ever knew she was in there to rescue her was the film's biggest mystery. But I also knew that Hitchcock and Hendren had a less than harmonious relationship behind the scenes, so maybe that was a contributing factor to Melanie's poor writing.

This notwithstanding 'The Birds' is still a very scary horror film. And Hitchcock is damn good at horror films.

Thursday, 25 May 2023

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof review

 Number 235 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Brook's drama 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.'

Based on Tennessee Williams' play of the same name, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof focusses on the dynamics of the self-destructive Pollitt family in Eastern Mississippi. Brick (Paul Newman) is a drunk, former high-school athlete who hurts himself trying to recapture his glory days. His long-suffering wife is Maggie (Elizabeth Taylor) who is still deeply in love with him, but there is still plenty of tension between the pair. There is also Harvey "Big Daddy" who is the ageing patriarch of the family. In ill-health, his other son Cooper "Gooper" (Jack Carson) and his wife Mae "Sister Woman" (Madelaine Sherwood) are desperate to be written into his will.

I am not particularly familiar with Tennessee Williams' source material. but I am given to understand that Brooks did not make a faithful adaptation. Within the original play, there was a strong homosexual subtext including an implied romantic attraction between Brick and his unseen friend Skipper who committed suicide a few years before. Due to production codes, this was largely admitted. And by production codes, I, of course, mean institutionalised homophobia. And that's ironic as that subtext was supposed to be a critique of homophobia.

But I do think that the film suffered from the omission of this subtext. Without it, everything felt very superficial and bland. And it wasn't just this subtext, but it felt like there was little behind the curtain. Being based on a stage-play, it is a small and intimate film. There is a tiny cast, although with two massive names - Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman - and the film is largely limited to the one set of the Pollitt family mansion. Obviously, I wasn't expecting a major spectacle or massive explosions, but everything still felt very lacking.

Much of the play was everybody shouting at each other, which all became rather tedious after a while. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which also starred Elizabeth Taylor, was similar, yet it still had an apparent but subtle subtext. And so there was a point to all the yelling. But there was no discernible point here. It's a shame, because it sounds like Tennessee Williams was making a great point about the homophobia of the time, yet Richard Brooks wasn't able to convey the same ideas in his adaptation, whatever the reason might be. And this ultimately diluted the potency of the film.

I can only speculate that the fault of this film lies with the actual studio or film industry itself rather than with the film makers and actors - Paul Newman was brilliant as was Taylor - perhaps if they were given a chance, they could have made a very faithful adaptation of the American classic that is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Friday, 3 February 2023

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf review

 Number 194 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama, based on the play of the same name, 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?'

George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) are two squabbling, middle-aged academics stuck in a loveless, hateful marriage. After returning home from a late-night soiree, they are joined by two of their juniors Nick (George Segal) and Honey (Sandy Dennis.) But as the alcohol begins to pour, lies become unravelled and secrets are revealed.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? I am, George. I am. No, I'm not just quoting the film's famous ending lines, but I'm referring to my own time spent in academia. At university, I studied both To The Lighthouse and Mrs Dalloway. And that's enough Virginia Woolf to last a lifetime. In some ways, this film is reminiscent of a Woolf book - low on spectacle and high on subtext.

As previously mentioned, this film is based on a play and it's easy to imagine it on the stage - there are two or three sets and only four principle parts. The action doesn't happen on-screen, but rather in the actor's dialogue. Rather than being a high-octane thriller, this is a toned-down character study. And with simple character studies, you need the best actors available. In this case, we have Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Can you believe that in all these years this is the first Dick and Liz film that I've seen?

But both these actors did the roles justice. They're both more than bitter, old academics. While there is a lot of yelling, they say far more in their silences. Both characters are hiding a big secret which becomes apparent in the film's final act. The tension is palpable throughout the film - with the junior academics as uncomfortable as any audience is sure to be. Burton gave a particularly captivating performance especially his monologue where he recounts a story of his childhood where a boy he knew accidentally killed his father in a car crash - heavily implied to be about George himself.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf isn't the easiest film to follow. It is deeply uncomfortable and demands all your attention, but its subtle script and lead performances truly earn it a place on this list.