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.

How to Train your Dragon review

 Number 168 on top 1000 films of all time is the animated film How to Train your Dragon.

  Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is not your typical Viking. Scrawny and small, he is next to useless at defending his village from dragon attacks. His father Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler) has all but given up hope. Determined to prove him and everybody else wrong, Hiccup erupts in dragon-slaying classes but when he meets a Night Fury dragon that he names Toothless, he soon discovers that everything he knew about dragons was wrong.

This film franchise has always passed me by and if it hadn't been for this challenge, I probably wouldn't have watched it. Having seen it, I can understand why. It was released in 2010, so perhaps if I had seen it when I was sixteen instead of twenty-six, I would have liked it more.

That's not to say the animation wasn't cute and the design of the dragons creative, but the film did leave a lot to be desired. For one, the storyline was very predictable. It was obvious that Hiccup would go from the scrawny runt to the unlikely hero who saves the day, which is exactly what happened. All because he has been the first character ever to have taken the time to understand the dragons.

It was also obvious that Stoick would go from the badass warrior dragon-slayer determined to wipe out every single dragon to the soft-hearted father who saves Toothless' life. Both were predictable character arcs.

Apart from Hiccup, the characters were all very vaguely drawn. Hiccup trains with a supporting cast who were all generic and blended into one another. Although voiced by famous comedy actors like Jonah Hill, T.J Miller, Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Kristen Wiig, this did not make the characters anymore distinctive.

Even Hiccup's supposed love interest Astrid (America Ferrera) was more of an archetype, dare I say, cliche of the strong, independent woman with a softer side, than an actual character. The humour was also very immature and juvenile with an over-reliance on fart jokes that did little to make me laugh. And I was very confused by the weird mixture of Scottish and American accents. All of the adults were Scottish and the teenagers American. Why not make them all Scottish or all American?

For kids, I can definitely see why this movie would appeal but to a grumpy old-fogey like me, it was nothing special.