A Few Good men review

 Number 682 on the top 1000 films of all time is Rob Reiner's 1992 legal drama 'A Few Good Men.'

At the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba, Private William Santiago, a US marine, dies in mysterious circumstances. Soon afterwards, Lance Corporal Harold Dawson (Wolfgang Bodison) and Private Louden Downey (James Marshall) are charged with his murder. Upstart lawyer Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Lieutenant Commander Joanne Galloway (Demi Moore) are assigned as their defence. But Galloway soon suspects a cover-up that goes all the way up to Colonel Nathan Jessop (Jack Nicholson.)

Before Tom Cruise became a larger-than-life character better known for his action-hero roles and dodgy connections to scientology, he wasn't a bad actor. It's something you wouldn't think of now, but it's true.

Daniel Kaffee is a great example of this. Cruise took him from an arrogant, obnoxious jerk into a likeable lawyer with a lot to prove. It was a good story-arc and Cruise played the different elements of Kaffee's character well. He was such an arsehole before that I didn't think I would ever come to like him, but I did.

But the true arsehole was Colonel Jessop played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson. Jessop is a man who takes his job seriously. So seriously that he is willing to bend or even break the rules to get the job done. His final speech where he argues that men like him are needed to do everybody else's dirty work struck home, thanks to Nicholson's excellent performance. 

In some ways, it is difficult to believe this is the same Rob Reiner who also directed the Princess Bride or the the Bucket List. While 'a Few Good Men' had a few funny parts, it was mostly a serious affair, but also very entertaining. Considering the film's explosive conclusion occurs in a courtroom, Reiner kept the tension and suspense high. Courtroom dramas can get bogged-down in an overly-dramatised, legalese affair, but that wasn't the case here. Of course, it helped you had Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson giving great performances.

But there's more to this film than its men. I also enjoyed Demi Moore acting as the strait-laced Galloway - very much the complete opposite of Keffler. I was also relieved to see that their relationship was kept platonic. Both Reiner and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin were under pressure from studio executives to have Keffler and Galloway hook up, they refused saying it would have been little else but a cheap thriller. I couldn't have agreed more.

A Few Good Men had the potential to be a boring courtroom drama, but it was a thoroughly entertaining affair. 

The Last Samurai review

 Number 576 on the top 1000 films of all time is Edward Zwick's period-war drama 'The Last Samurai.'

Captain Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) is a celebrated American civil-war hero. While his exploits of killing native-Americans has earned him a fiercesome reputation, it has also left him with severe PTSD. Sensing the prospect of future trade deals with Japan, his superiors send him to Japan to train Emperor Meji's (Shichinosuke Nakamara) army, so they can defend themselves against the rebellions led by the eponymous last samurai: Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) and his men. Billy Connelly, Timothy Spall and Hiroyuki Sanada co-star.

The Last Samurai strongly reminded me of Kevin Costner's 'Dances with Wolves.' Both films star an American protagonist befriending and fighting alongside the enemy they're supposed to be fighting. Both films have the protagonists keep diaries as a narrative device. The difference is that the Last Samurai didn't bore me to the core. It was everything Dances with Wolves should have been.

It helped that the Last Samurai was directed by Edward Zwick who also brought the brilliant film Glory to life. Yes, he did use too much slow-motion at times, but he also presented an entertaining, watchable film that portrayed a country at war with itself. Should Japan modernise with Western traditions, clothing and, most importantly, guns, or should they stay true with their own tradition of the samurai. This is the question Zwick answers. 

It was also refreshing to see Tom Cruise in a different type of role. Yes, this isn't a million miles away from Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible, but Nathan Algren had more depth than some of Cruise's more action-oriented roles. He is a man looking for redemption. And Cruise brought this tortured soul to life.

But the true star was Ken Watanabe. He received his only Oscar nod for this role. It was well-deserved. I thought he was brilliant as the samurai so desperately clinging onto the honour and tradition that he holds so dear. At times, it was a subtle, delicate performance, at others it was explosive, but it was always entertaining.

The cinematography and world-building was also well-textured and detailed. New Zealand stood in for Japan which explained the gorgeous cinematography.

My main gripe was with Billy Connelly who was doing some weird accent that was a hybrid between Irish and his native Scottish. It was like if they had asked Sean Connery to act with an Irish accent.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed the Last Samurai. Along with Glory, I can count it as another Edward Zwick success.

Michael Clayton review

 Number 977 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal thriller 'Michael Clayton.'

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is the fixer for a prestigious New York law film who is representing the agricultural conglomerate U-North amid a massive scandal. However, when the firm's lead litigator Arthur (Tom Wilkinson) has a massive breakdown, it's up to Michael to clean up the mess. However, he soon discovers his firm is at the centre of a huge cover-up. Sydney Pollack and Tilda Swinton co-star.

Michael Clayton was nominated for no less than seven Oscars including best acting, writing and film. While it wasn't a bad film, it certainly wasn't Oscar-worthy. Nor was it worth a place on this list.

It was an underwhelming affair, replete in dramatic tension, suspense and any concrete detail that would have made it an entertaining thriller. The narrative focusses on U-North as it weathers allegations on whether it knew that its carcinogenic weedkiller would lead to hundreds of deaths. Sounds like a horrific scandal, right?

But the details of this were kept surprisingly vague. It was treated very clinically. Perhaps because we were seeing everything through the eyes of lawyers who were more interested in the legal nitty gritty rather than the actual victims of the scandal. This film was definitely missing a lot of heart.

And while I don't want to diminish any of the immense acting talent on display, I don't think George Clooney or Tom Wilkinson deserved Oscar nods and I don't think Tilda Swinton deserved her Best Supporting Actress win. I don't think I can pin-point an exact moment where I thought, "wow, that's why she won the Oscar." Furthermore, all three of their characters remained very under-developed.

Michael Clayton is a little more than your standard male lead who has an acrimonious relationship with his wife and son. And while Arthur's meltdown catalysed the film, we never really explored the reasons or causes of it. Tilda Swinton's character was similarly under-developed.

I'm really not sure how Michael Clayton made it onto this list. It certainly was not one of the best films of all time. 

Minority Report review

 Number 639 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's 2002 science-fiction action film Minority Report.

Set in 2054, the Precrime police programme has virtually eliminated all pre-meditated murders in Washington DC. Three clairvoyant humans named 'precogs' including Agatha (Samantha Morton) receive psychic impressions of homicides and are able to alert the police who can stop the crimes before they even happen. One of these police is the Precrime police department chief John Anderton (Tom Cruise,) whose six-year-old son was abducted and never found. When DOJ agent Danny Witwur (Colin Farrell) audits the system, Anderton receives the disturbing news that he is about to kill Leo Crow - a man that he has never met. He quickly goes on the run, as the system he has fought to up-hold slowly turns against him.

Generally, I'm not a fan of science-fiction films. I find that they can be overly-intellectual and pretentious, with their writers being more concerned with showing off how clever they are rather than writing a comprehensible film. However, I think Minority Report struck the balance between intelligent social-commentary and thrilling action. It definitely helped that it had Stephen Spielberg directing it. Minority Report had all the excitement of his most famous blockbusters like Jaws, Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones, but also the thoughtfulness like some of his quieter works such as the Colour Purple.

Perhaps it helped that Minority Report spanned multiple genres. It wasn't just science-fiction, but also a psychological thriller. Sometimes science-fiction can be insufferably dull, slow and boring *cough cough* the remake of Solaris, but the chase element kept this film moving along nicely. John Anderton is against the clock to solve the predicted murder of Leo Crow, before the authorities find and punish him. 

Tom Cruise is well-known for his action-roles which made him the perfect fit for John Anderton. Anderton is your cut-and-dry hero - he is a handsome, law-abiding man accused of a crime that he hasn't committed yet. It isn't the most original of characters, but it didn't have to be. And Cruise did it well.

But no actor is a vacuum and Cruise did have a strong supporting cast. You had Farrell as the slimy villain-turned-unlikely ally Danny Witwur, but also Samantha Morton as the lead precog Agatha. As we learn more about her, we learn all about her tragic past and Morton did well in bringing this tragedy to life. Max Von Sydow was particularly menacing as the precrime director Lamar Burgess and Peter Stormare brought a wonderfully chaotic energy to the sleazy Dr. Solomon Eddie.

Minority Report was certainly an entertaining film. I enjoyed watching it as it perfectly balanced the big questions of science-fiction with the edge-of-the-seat action of a psychological thriller.   

Collateral review

 Number 723 on the top 1000 films of all time is Michael Mann's 2004 neo-noir crime thriller 'Collateral.'

Max (Jamie Foxx) is an LA taxi driver with a simple dream of owning a limousine business. But his life spirals out of control when he accepts Vincent's (Tom Cruise) fare. For Vincent is a hitman who is a hitman with a number of contracts to complete.

Collateral was certainly an entertaining thriller if entirely unbelievable. Despite being a contract killer, Vincent is very careless. He exposes himself when he shoots his first victim leading to him falling out of a window onto Max's cab, partially destroying it. But surely a contract killer would be more careful than this. Vincent has hired Max to drive him around for the whole night. How is he supposed to do that when his windscreen has been near-shattered?  And they go on to put the victim's body in the trunk of the car. And they drive it around the whole night. Surely, this would attract unwanted police attention which later does happen. And Vincent even tells Max off about the dangers of unwanted attention. 

And when it comes to Vincent's final target, he (spoilers) hesitates long enough for Max to come and save a day. One, a contract killer would never hesitate like this. Two, we've seen Vincent kill remorselessly before. It made no sense for Vincent to hesitate now. Finally, he is very blaise about Max knowing his true identity. Surely, it would be in his own best interests to keep this a secret. There is less chance of Max panicking and doing something stupid. But I guess this wouldn't have made a very interesting film.

Despite these plot chasms, I did enjoy Collateral. At first, I wasn't convinced by Tom Cruise. I'm so used to seeing him as a hero that it was difficult seeing him as villain, but he was pretty damn good. Jamie Foxx was also great as Max. Max is your everyman whose whole life was turned upside down. And he goes through a very satisfying character arc from burned-out taxi driver to an unlikely hero. Foxx earned his Best Supporting Actor nomination.

Sure Collateral is unbelievable rubbish, but a film doesn't always have to be 100% believable to be entertaining.

Philadelphia review

 Number 611 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal drama 'Philadelphia.'

Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) is an up-and-coming lawyer in Philadelphia. He is dismissed from his law firm. When it is revealed that he is gay and has aids, he is fired from his law firm. Believing he has been the victim of anti-gay discrimination, he sues his previous employer enlisting the help of fellow lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington.)

This was a brave film about, even now, a sensitive subject matter. In the 90's, there was a huge stigma around being gay and an even bigger one around aids. Homosexual discrimination, like what Beckett suffers from, was never far away.

Tom Hanks played the part well. He treated it with the utmost sensitivity. He also acknowledged that in today's world, he as a straight man would never be cast in such a role, but he still did it justice. He was well-deserving of his Oscar win. And that's saying something as he was up against Daniel Day-Lewis in Name of the Father and Liam Neeson in Schindler's List. Beckett's humanity is most evident when he is seen enjoying his famous opera - a scene so touching that it makes Miller question his own prejudices.

Miller freely admits that he doesn't like gay people, but he slowly realises that he shouldn't be so quick to judge people. Denzel Washington played the conflicted Miller well. This type of deep character work is what Washington does best like in Glory. He's far better here than in any big blockbuster.

Ultimately, the legal scenes is what let the film down. And this was strange considering it is a legal drama. But many of the courtroom scenes, particularly near the end, felt rushed and under-developed.

That notwithstanding, I did very much enjoy Philadelphia. It was a brave film with great performances from its two leads.

Les Miserables review

 Number 474 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tom Hooper's 2012 epic, period musical 'Les Miserables.'

Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is a French former convict who has just been paroled after nineteen years in prison. His crime? Stealing a loaf of bread. But policeman Javert (Russell Crowe) refuses to believe he has changed and is determined to send him back to prison. Meanwhile. Valjean reforms and becomes a factor worker. When one of his workers Fantine (Anne Hathaway) dies, Valjean declares to take care of her impoverished daughter Cosette.

Les Mis is what's known as a sung-through musical. Unlike other musicals, which alternate between music and narrative, Les Mis is all but music. It's a bit like Sweeney Todd. And I've learned that I do not care for sung-through musicals. Watching them are a tedious affair. I know now that music is essential to a sung-through musical, but it was overwhelming. There was far too much singing.

I say singing...they were basically singing lines of dialogue. It hardly made for memorable songs. Obviously you have Anne Hathaway's famous I Dreamed a Dream, but the only other notable song was Look Down, which was sang by the convicts at the start of the film, before being later taken up as a protest song.

The film is also over 2 and a half hours long. It could have been far shorter if a lot of the musical numbers had been trimmed. in many cases, the songs became like exposition telling the viewer what was happening instead of showing them. When Javert and Valjean's paths cross after many years, Javert sings 'a thought stirs in my mind,' which was a rather ham-fisted line of dialogue. I also did not need a whole song where Eponine (Samantha Barks) declares her unrequited love for student revolutionary Marius Pontmercy (Eddie Redmayne.) This much was obvious through her longing looks. We did not need a whole song.

As for the performances, they were as good as you would expect from such a star-studded cast, which also included the likes of Amanda Seyfried, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen. Anne Hathaway deservingly won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar despite having a minimal amount of screentime.

I really did not like this film. It was a melodramatic, over-dramatic affair. And I know it was a sung-through musical, but there was far too much singing.

Catch me if you Can review

 Number 371 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's biographical comedy-drama 'Catch me if you Can.'

Based on a true story, Frank Abagnale Jr (Leonardo Dicaprio) was one of the most successful con-men and check forgers in history. All before his 19th birthday, he claimed to pose as a Pan-Am pilot, a doctor and a lawyer. Tom Hanks plays Carl Hanratty - the FBI agent tasked with tracking him down. Christopher Walken plays Frank Abagnale Sr and Amy Adams stars as Frank's girlfriend and later wife Brenda Strong.

This is a film that left very little impression on me. And that's surprising considering that it has serious star power. For one it's directed by Steven Spielberg. But it also stars Leonardo Dicaprio and Tom Hanks. By 2002, Spielberg had already built up a pretty impressive resume with hard-hitting dramas like Schindler's List or the Color Purple, but arguably he was best known for his blockbusters like Jaws, Indiana Jones or Jurassic Park. And in comparison, Catch me if you Can just fell flat. There was never the same sense of dramatic tension or immediacy. 

Perhaps that's through the way the story was structured. The film opens with Carl Hanratty arriving in a Marseille prison to collect Frank Abagnale Jr in order to extradite him back to the US to face punishment. I guess anybody who knows the true story would already know how everything ends, but for viewers like me, it felt like they were unnecessarily giving the game away. Any narrative tension had immediately dissipated, because we know that somewhere down the line Carl does catch Frank. Considering how brash and brazen Frank's schemes become, it only makes sense that he would be caught, but it would have been more exciting if there was a possibility that Frank might escape. I know that the thrill is in the chase and not the capture, but the chase wasn't that thrilling.

And none of the lead cast were that electrifying either. Dicaprio, Walken and Tom Hanks have four acting Oscars between them. Amy Adams has been nominated for six Oscars. We all know that they're great actors, but I wouldn't say any of them particularly shone. It just seemed like they were all just turning up, even Dicaprio wasn't as good as I thought he would be.

Catch me if you Can is by no means a bad film or one of the worst films I've seen on this list, but it wasn't nearly as memorable as I thought it would be. 

The Impossible review

 Number 689 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2012 disaster film 'The Impossible.'

Based on the true story of Spanish doctor Maria Belon and her family, The Impossible details how she and her family survived the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami that devastated South-East Asia. In the film, the family are British and their surname is Bennet. They consist of Maria (Naomi Watts,) husband Henry (Ewan Mcgregor,) oldest son Lucas (Tom Holland) in his debut role, and younger sons Thomas (Samuel Joslin) and Simon (Oaklee Pendergast.)

I was very conflicted by this film. It began brilliantly, but quickly descended into contrivances and melo-drama. The first fifteen-twenty minutes was edge-of-the-seat stuff. We are given a nice introduction to the Bennet family - they are a family like any other. Henry is worried about losing his job, Maria is wondering whether she should return to work and the three boys squabble with each other like brothers tend to do. But as they arrive at their Thai resort, they think they're in for the holiday of a lifetime.

And then the tsunami hits. And this looked spectacular. Spanish director J.A Bayona made the decision to use real waves instead of CGI. To maintain realism, he also had Naomi Watts and Tom Holland spend five gruelling weeks filming in a water tank. And it totally paid off. My heart was in my mouth the whole time. The action was immediate and the tension was high. And then it all goes downhill.

In the aftermath of the tsunami while being caught in the rushing water and battered with debris, Maria and Lucas find each other. Maria is badly injured. And they also find another little boy before they were rescued by Thai villagers and taken to hospital. Meanwhile, Henry finds his sons and sends them away to a refugee camp while he searches for Maria and Lucas in the different hospitals. And eventually the family reunite. Everything seemed too easy. I thought the characters would struggle to find one another. I thought they would be battling against the elements trying to survive. But the film skipped over all this. And that killed the narrative momentum.

I am not familiar with the real-life story, so I can only assume that this did happen in real life. But I do wonder if Bayona exaggerated or changed things for dramatic effect. Perhaps I'm just in disbelief that an entire family could survive such a devastating event. It killed over 200,000 people. But I guess that's why the film is called the Impossible.

The action was on-point. For a debut role, Tom Holland was brilliant. He was only fourteen, playing a twelve-year-old, but he acted with the maturity of somebody twice his age. After Maria is taken to hospital, Lucas gets to work helping to reunite other lost families. Maybe he acts unrealistically mature. I certainly was not as mature as him at his age. And I would not be as mature as that in his situation. But then again, I would have been dead within the first few minutes.

Naomi Watts rightfully earned a Best Actress Oscar nomination and Ewan Macgregor was great as well. A particularly touching moment sees him break down after he calls his father-in-law at home. He is lent a phone by a kindly German man Karl (Sonke Mohring) who is also trying to find his family. It was a lovely emotional beat.

Overall, I was left a little disappointed by the Impossible. It had brilliant acting and the production value, but the writing did let it down.

Black Hawk Down review

 Number 571 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ridley Scott's 2001 war film 'Black Hawk Down.'

Based on true events, Black Hawk Down is set during the Somalian civil war. A group of American soldiers are sent to extract the top lieutenants of the Somalian dictator Mohamed Farrah Aidad from the capital Mogadishu. But the extraction goes wrong and the soldiers are left fighting for their lives. The massive ensemble cast includes Josh Hartnett, Ewan Macgregor, Ewen Bremner, Eric Bana, Ioan Gruffard, Orlando Bloom and Tom Hardy.

The problem with war films is that the characters always look the same. It is so difficult to tell them apart. Obviously, that comes with the territory, but other films and directors have done a much better job in distinguishing them than Ridley Scott does. True, he did choose to write the character's names on their helmets, but it was still difficult to tell who was who. Part of that was down to the sprawling cast, but also a lack of a clear protagonist.

Josh Hartnett received star billing, so I guess he was the main character, but there were so many other characters with so many storylines that they were all overshadowed by one another. They were all fighting to be noticed, but they all failed dreadfully. And that led to an overlong, bloated film which lost narrative direction. At times, it seemed like Ridley completely forgot about some of his characters and plot points.

Orlando Bloom plays raw recruit Todd Blackburn who is desperate to start fighting. He is due to drop into the city, but when his helicopter has to dodge an RPG, he tumbles to the ground below. A massive effort is made to rescue him, but what happens after isn't focussed on at all. Another soldier Michael Durant (Ron Eldard) is captured by the Somalians. Yet we only find out through a line of exposition at the film's end that he was released after ten days. Hell, the whole point of the mission was to capture Aidad's lieutenants and bring them out safely. But even this central plot point was left by the wayside. Ridley Scott set up so many storylines, but he forgot to finish them satisfactorily.

Instead any storyline takes a backseat to the action. Due to the army's mantra of leaving no man behind, the soldiers aim to rescue every single one of their fallen comrades (except for Durant who was mostly forgotten about) this includes the troopers inside the Black Hawk helicopters which are downed by RPGs. Yet the rescue effort goes awry as the soldiers quickly find themselves overnumbered. Cue endless gunfights and explosions. The action is fast, frenetic and chaotic. It doesn't let you catch your breath, so you're left blankly watching the screen asking 'what the hell is going on?' Ridley Scott was obsessed in creating a spectacle, he forgot to include any story.

Black Hawk Down was also criticised for its portrayal of the Somalian population. I would echo this criticism. The Somalians were generic, two-dimensional villains with no depth or clear motivations. I'm sure if Ridley wasn't so concerned with the gunfights he could have created a memorable villain, but he didn't.

*Spoilers* the film ends with a group of a soldiers running to safety from the crash site to a safe zone - something that has retrospectively been called the Mogadishu mile. They all make it safely. I know this was based on real life, but I found it hard to believe that the Somalians allowed them to do this in peace.

It's hard to believe this is the same man who created Alien - a masterpiece of horror and science-fiction. But Black Hawk Down was certainly no masterpiece. It was an overlong, monotonous affair with too many characters and paper-thin villains.

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.

A Single man review

 Number 725 on the top 1000 films of all time is the period romantic drama 'A Single Man.'

Colin Firth stars as George Falconer, a gay, English academic in 1960's Los Angeles. He is left suicidally depressed after his lover Jim (Matthew Goode) is killed in a car accident. But through his interactions with his best friend - fellow English expat Charley (Julianne Moore) and student Kenny Potter (Nicholas Hoult) he begins to re-evaluate his attitude to life.

A Single Man was directed by fashion designer and perfume-maker Tom Ford in his directorial debut. And it definitely felt like it was directed by a fashion designer. At times it seemed like an extended perfume advert. You do get some perfume adverts that look stunning like K by Dolce & Gabbana or Chanel no. 5. Other perfume adverts are ridiculous and over-the-top. But whatever camp they fall into, perfume adverts are generally style-over-substance. I would argue the same here.

The art direction consisted of sepia and monochrome filters, gratuitous slow-motion, multiple sequences set to grandiose classical scores and strange shots of men swimming in water tanks. At times it worked - I loved the shot of George crying in Charley's arms after learning of Jim's death - the sequence was set to music, so you heard none of Firth's crying. But mostly, the art direction was self-indulgent, pretentious and it bloated up the film. A Single Man is a relatively short film clocking in at roughly 100 minutes, but it seemed like much longer.

As well as a perfume advert, A Single man reminded me of one of the old, dusty books that I studied in university. Some type of academic, overly-intellectualised text where nothing happens except for in the character's heads. This did lead to a dull and boring film. Obviously you don't need gun fights and explosions, but you need some type of drama or tension.

Charley and George do have one fight which did provide an edge that the film was dearly missing. Otherwise, everything was so monotone. The mood never changed. Throughout it was downbeat, slow and introspective.

I also hated the ending. The whole film is about George overcoming his suicidal thoughts and coming to terms with his grief. Just when it looks like he has done so he *spoiler alert* suffers a heart attack and dies. At best this is a copout and at worst this is lazy writing. I guess it's easier to kill a character rather than have them trying to process and live with this guilt and sorrow.

This was all a shame as the narrative itself wasn't inherently bad. Sure it's simplistic, but it had the potential to be a really interesting character study. Instead, this was all lost in overly-flashy visuals.

The King's Speech review

Number 232 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tom Hooper's 2010 biopic 'The King's Speech.'

Based on the real life story, the King's Speech follows the future King George VI trying to overcome his speech impediment. To assist him, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) enlists the help of Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush.) Small note, George VI was only a regnal name. George VI's real name was Albert or "Bertie."

Released to critical acclaim, the King's Speech received twelve Oscar nominations and won four including best film and best actor. It is easy to see why. Hooper tackled a sensitive topic with tact and discretion. I think it would have been all too easy to victimise Bertie rather than make him a character to root for. But he wasn't a pitiful protagonist, but an endearing one. His family have no patience for his stammer. His older brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) teases him constantly while his father George V (Michael Gambon) thinks he can bully the stammer away.

Colin Firth very much earned his best acting Oscar. Again, it would have been very easy to portray Bertie as a victim. And while he was a victim of his circumstances, he was also a fiercely brave man. Rather than submitting to his stammer, he constantly fights against it and seeks help. Firth brought a real vulnerability and humanity to the role. When Edward VIII abdicates and George VI is thrust into his new position as king, he breaks down proclaiming that he hasn't a king. This was one of my favourite moments of the film.

It did puzzle me a little that the film didn't focus that much on the social context of Edward VIII's abdication. Surely events like these would have impacted greatly on George's character, but then again, these probably weren't relevant enough to include.

Overall this was a great film with Colin Firth earning his best Actor Oscar.