The Last Picture Show review

 Number 236 on the top 1000 films of all time is Peter Bogdanvoich's 1971 coming-of-age drama: 'The Last Picture Show.'

Sonny Crawford (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane Jackson (Jeff Bridges) are two high-school seniors in the sleepy Texan oil-town of Anarene where nothing ever happens. They try to find some meaning in this meaningless place. The film is set in the 50's and co-stars Ellen Burstyn and Ben Johnson.

Christ, it was boring writing that summary. But it's difficult to make such a boring film sound interesting. The Last Picture Show takes place in a stagnant town that is slowly dying both culturally and financially. I would argue the film itself was dying a slow death, if it was even alive in the first place. And that's debatable.

When I think of Coming-of-Age dramas, I think of the adventure you find in Mud or the sheer loss of innocence of Stand By Me. Hell, I hated the Goonies, but at least that tried, and failed, to be fun. Yet there was nothing fun, memorable or adventurous in this dull film.

It reminded me of La Dolce Vita or even George Lucas' American Graffiti where a group of bored kids are running around getting into trouble, as they have little else to do. Duane, Sonny and the rest of their friends take their mentally slow friend to lose his virginity with a sex worker. Duane's girlfriend Jacy attends a skinny-dipping party where she strips naked and has to be reassured by the host that his little brother isn't a sex pest. it was all just weird. And it wasn't enjoyable either.

There is some considerable acting talent in this film. It starred future Oscar winner Jeff Bridges and future Triple Crown of Acting winner Ellen Burstyn, yet there isn't a memorable performance to speak of. All the characters, both male and female, blended into one.

Perhaps the only good thing I can say is about the film's black and white colour processing. Monochrome in film can look aesthetically pleasing even if it fails to add much.

This was such a boring film that I would we start getting tumbleweed rolling past at one point. I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep writing this review.

Midnight Cowboy review

 Number 350 on top 1000 films of all time is John Schlesinger's 1969 drama 'Midnight Cowboy.'

Jon Buck (John Voight) is a Texan cowboy who goes to New York to seek his fortune. As part of his hustle, he starts prostituting himself. He also strikes up an unlikely friendship with con man Enrico "Ratzo" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman.)

This film surprised me in many ways. At times, it was bold, and stylistically flashy, but at others, it was understated, subtle and quietly powerful. At its heart was the relationship between Buck and Ratso. Both are hustlers with Ratso very much being a mentor to the naive, starry-eyed Buck. When Ratso becomes sick, Buck starts to take care off him. As Hoffman is a method actor, I wouldn't be surprised if he went out and caught pneumonia for real.

But Dustin Hoffman and John Voight's relationship under-pinned the whole film. They had great chemistry. I enjoyed seeing them share the screen together. And it was great seeing them become closer and closer, as their fortunes worsened. That all built toward a suitably tragic ending. I won't go into spoilers, but I did like its under-stated nature. It was quiet and simple, which was all it needed to be.

All the louder, more dramatic moments were saved for the flashbacks that showcased the dark past Buck was running from. These were also shown in black-and-white making them all the more sombre. They were hard to watch, but well-shot all the same. This shouldn't be a surprise really. Midnight Cowboy went onto win three Oscars: Best Director, Picture and Adapted Screenplay.

Midnight Cowboy definitely surprised me. I wasn't sure what I was expecting, but an unlikely friendship between a cowboy sex worker and a sick con-man was definitely not it. 

The Life of David Gale review

 Number 801 on the top 1000 films of all time is the psychological thriller 'The Life of David Gale.'

David Gale (Kevin Spacey) and his colleague Constance Harraway (Laura Linney) are two of the biggest anti-death penalty activists in the US. However, when David is found guilty of Constance's murder, he is sentenced to death. Maintaining he has been framed, he asks journalist Bitsy Bloom (Kate Winslet) to prove his innocence.

The Life of David Gale presents a fascinating premise: what happens when the biggest anti-death penalty activist is sentenced to death? It was also a divisive film with audiences loving it, hence its inclusion in this list, but many critics thought it was too clever for its own good.

I am firmly in the audience's camp. I thought it was a clever yet sensitive way of addressing a difficult topic. Many critics took issue with the final twist, but I thought it made perfect sense. Don't worry. I won't spoil it here.

Kevin Spacey and Laura Linney gave great performances. David Gale is objectively a flawed man. He is arrogant and overly-prideful. Not to mention, he thinks with his dick, landing him in big trouble. But he is also a tragic character who is the victim of his own circumstances, which again ties in well with the final twist.

Linney was also impressive. In comparison, Constance is a far more tragic character, and Linney played the role with a great sensitivity. Like Gale, Harraway is firmly principled, but, unlike Gale, she never allows her emotions to cloud her judgement. And all credit for Linney filming her death scene herself, and not using a body double. I won't go into detail, but she declared it was one of the most difficult things she ever had to film. I have no doubt about that.

I also have to shout out Melissa McCarthy who shone in the small supporting role, as Nico - the irreverent goth who gives tours around the scene of Harraway's murders.

I was less convinced by Kate Winslet who was quite melodramatic especially as the film built towards its inevitable conclusion. I was also confused by the inclusion of Dusty Wright (Matt Craven) a former colleague of Gale, as well as a former lover of Harraway.

He is seen aggressively stalking Bloom, but nothing comes from this except for a specific scene, which would spoil the film if I go into it. But if that's the case, then just have that scene, rather than all the shots of him watching Bloom from afar. It was a bit like the film was setting him up as the big, bad villain only to pull the rug from underneath our feet. In that regard, I would agree with the critics that the film was being too clever for its own good.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy the Life of David Gale. It was an interesting and thought-provoking thriller that brilliantly addressed a sensitive topic. 

Paris, Texas review

 Number 240 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1984 road film 'Paris, Texas.'

After spending four years roaming the Mojave desert, aimless drifter Travis Henderson (Harry Dean Stanton) is found in Texas. His brother Walt (Dean Stockwell) takes him home to Los Angeles where he and his French wife Anne (Aurore Clement) have been raising Travis' son Hunter (Hunter Carson.) Travis and Hunter then set out on a road trip to find Jane (Nastassja Kinski,) Travis' wife and Hunter's mother.

I have to admit that this film surprised me. I initially thought it would be pretentious and overly-intellectual a la Ingmar Bergman. But despite its arthouse nature, it was very engaging. It was so bright and vibrant with some gorgeous cinematography. I loved all the sweeping shots of the great American landscape. All the colours popped off of the screen. Speaking of colour, red featured very prominently. Why? I'll leave that to the film majors to answer.

True, at two and a half hours, the film is probably longer than it needs to be. There are a lot of silences and forlorn gazing into the desert. Not all of this held my interest. Yet it was always steered back by Harry Dean Stanton's excellent performance. Travis, being initially mute, would not have been an easy character to play. He is a man rendered virtually catatonic by some unexplained trauma. But Stanton slowly transforms him from a vague, lifeless sketch into a living breathing person.

I also very much enjoyed the score. It was sparing and economical with every piece of music playing at the right moment. Perhaps if there had been more music instead of silences, especially with the pivotal conversations toward the end, I may have been more engaged throughout.

I talked about Stanton earlier, but I don't think there was a weak link among the cast. Dean Stockwell plays Travis' sympathetic, but increasingly frustrated brother. And Aurore Clement was equally good as his wife Anne. It's difficult not to feel sorry for the two as Travis and Hunter without telling them. And, finally, Nastassja Kinski was great as Jane. The final reunion between her and Travis was touching and poignant to watch.

Generally, I'm not a fan of arthouse films. They're the territory of cinophiles and film majors, but Paris, Texas surprised me. It's not a very loud film, but it made a hell of a lot of noise.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre review

 Number 813 on the top 1000 films of all time is the horror classic 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'

Five  beatnik, hippie friends Sally (Marilyn Burns,) Jerry (Allen Danziger) Franklin (Paul A. Partain) Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn) are on a road trip through the rural US. But their dream trip turns into a nightmare where they run into a family of cannibals led by the formidable Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen.)

I'm certainly no horror aficionado, but I have noticed that modern horror films do not hold a candle to their predecessors of the seventies and eighties. Modern horror leans far too heavily into excess. There is too much of everything. Too much gore, too much tacky CGI, too many jump cuts. It's just all blood and guts. The aim is to gross-out the viewer instead of scaring them through a slow build-up and a strong atmosphere. This is where the Texas Chainsaw Massacre excelled. It was a terrifying film because of its subtlety and understated nature.

Being made on a tiny budget, there was no money for tacky special effects or an excess of gore. In fact, the most graphic image comes right at the start. We see a grave-robber tie rotting corpses onto wooden stakes for the whole town to see. But rather than leaning into grossing-out the viewer, director Tobe Hooper patiently built up the creepiest of atmospheres. He was brilliantly selective in what he chose to show the viewer and what he with-held. We're immediately introduced to his disconcerting world when the five friends pick up a deranged hitchhiker played delightfully Edwin Neal. He had this chaotic energy that made him terrifying but compelling to watch.

Later on when the five friends unknowingly arrive at Leatherface's house, we get little snippets of what is to come. Kirk finds a human tooth that he uses to scare Pam with before he is jumped by Leatherface who appears out of nowhere. When Pam goes to investigate his disappearance, she stumbles into a room littered with animal and human remains. Leatherface then discovers her, impales her on a meathook and dismembers Kirk in front of her eyes. Yet we see precious little of the dismemberment and we don't need to. The imagery of the hidden teeth and human remains is all we need to see.

And because Hooper was so selective in what he showed us, this made his use of jump-scares all that more effective. Come evening time with all their friends go missing, Sally and Franklin, against their better judgement, start looking for them in the dark forests. Leatherface appears out of nowhere and kills Franklin with the chainsaw. This was enough to make me jump out of my seat. And this also left Sally as the final girl.  I always thought Halloween was the first horror movie to employ the final girl trope, but it looks that honour actually goes to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 

However, unlike Halloween, I genuinely did not see any way for Sally to survive. I certainly didn't think there would be any deux ex machina. Instead, she is able to run away when the cannibals start squabbling amongst each other. But this tension, as to how or even if she could survive helped keep me on the edge of my seat.

Sure, you could argue that this narrative was propelled by stupid characters making stupid decisions. We all know now that you should never pick up hitchhikers. And our heroes are literally warned away from visiting Leatherface's house. And surely if you find a human tooth on the front porch of a house then that's a good reason not to go any further. But this was the seventies after all. Just emerging out of the era of free peace and love, stranger danger wasn't a thing yet and everybody was overall more trusting of each other.

While I am not a big horror movie fan, I can certainly appreciate why this is considered a goliath of a genre. It was subtle, understated, but with powerful and terrifying performances. And it is probably the best PSA for why you should never pick up a hitch-hiker.