True Grit 1969 Review

 Number 885 on the top 1000 films of all time is Henry Hathaway's 1969 Western 'True Grit.'

Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) is a teenage girl living in Yell County, Arkansas when her father is unjustly killed by outlaw Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey,) she enlists federal marshals Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) and La Boeuf (Glen Campbell) to bring him to justice. Accompanying them on their mission, Mattie soon forms a close relationship with Rooster and La Boeuf.

For a Western film, I quite enjoyed True Grit. This goes for both the original and the 2010 remake. Generally, I find cowboy films tedious and overly-long *cough cough* Sergio Leone, but True Grit was thoroughly watchable.

One reason was because of Mattie Ross. Just like in the remake, she was far from the typical damsel-in-distress cliche that many women of her era were relegated to, so it was very refreshing to have a character with as much agency and pep as Mattie did. She was a feisty female before that was even a thing. I do think it's a shame they gave her a tomboyish appearance though. She's a woman. Let her look like a woman. The Coen Brothers let Hailee Steinfield look feminine. Why not the same for Kim Darby?

True neither John Wayne or Henry Hathaway thought much about Darby's acting abilities, but I think that was more down to her dialogue. Her lines were so verbose and clunky, it was like she was in My Fair lady having elocution lessons with Rex Harrison. Her actions were also rash and impulsive and drove a lot of the film's conflict, but again that's more her writing than Darby's acting.

John Wayne gave a good spin as the irrascible Rooster Cogburn. It was good that he won the Best Actor Oscar. And I did enjoy his performance. He was a very likeable cinnamon swirl. Robert Duvall was also great as minor villain Ned Pepper. If anything he was better than Jeff Corey's rather simplistic performance as Tom Chaney.

Overall, I enjoyed True Grit more than I thought I would. It had John Wayne giving a great lead performance, a fresh spin on the standard female character and had that glorious cinematography that you would expect from a cowboy film.

True Grit (2010) review

 Number 594 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen brothers' Western 'True Grit.'

Based on the book of the same name and a remake of the 1969 film, 'True Grit' follows the unlikely relationship between a teenage girl and a federal marshal in 19th century Arkansas. When the father of 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is killed by hired hand Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) she hires federal marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track him down and bring him to justice. Also searching for Chaney is Texas ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon.)

As you may have gathered from my High Noon review, I am not the biggest fan of Westerns. They're not a genre of film that has ever engaged me. However, I was pleasantly surprised by True Grit. A lot of that was down to Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. Unlike the female characters of the old spaghetti Westerns, she has a lot of agency. It is her pluckiness, determination and refusal to take no for an answer that kicks off the whole storyline. Granted, she is rash and impulsive which does lead her to make silly decisions for no other reasons than to advance the storyline, but it was refreshing to see a female character with ... well grit. Steinfeld played the part well. It was bizarre that she was only nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar when she was the leading lady, but don't ask me how the Academy works.

Jeff Bridges was also great as the male lead Rooster Cogburn. He is initially dismissive of Mattie, but the two progressively become closer even forming a father-daughter relationship. It was quite touching and formed the backbone of the film. To some extent, it reminded me of Leon: the Professional with Cogburn training Mattie to help him catch Chaney. Throw in Matt Damon as Labeouf and you have the archetypal odd throuple. The three leads were very funny together and the humour helped to offset the dark tone.

Another reason that the film surprised me is that I'm generally not a fan of the Coen Brothers. As a whole, their films are too weird for me. Yet True Grit was very straightforward. There was none of their off-the-wall surrealist humour that dominates their other pictures. And unlike other Western directors *cough cough* Leone, there isn't endless tension-building that slows up the storyline. The pacing was fast and slow as was needed.

For a Western and a Coen Brother's film, I thoroughly enjoyed True Grit.

Monster review

 Number 998 on the top 1000 films of all time is the true crime biopic Monster.

Based on the shocking true story, Monster focusses on Eileen Warnoss (Charlize Theron.) She is a prostitute in Daytona Beach, Florida, who begins a killing spree after her 'John' Vincent Corey (Lee Tergesen) rapes and tries to kill hjer. Warnoss also forms a toxic relationship with the young Selby (Christina Ricci,) a young, gay woman living in a repressive, Christian household.

True Crime is a genre that has always been popular. Over a century later, we are still speculating over the true identity of Jack the Ripper, the movie 'Zodiac' immortalises the Zodiac Killer's crimes and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was inspired by the crimes of murderer and grave-robber, Ed Gein. However, it is also a genre that's come under a lot of scrutiny. The recent Netflix show about Jeffrey Dahmer was criticised for its romanticisation of Dahmer and for how it retraumatised the families of his victims.

You can argue that, to some extent, Monster romanticises Warnosses' crimes. It initially portrays her as a victim who is taking back her power by killing the man who assaults and rapes her. But, conversely, there is nothing romantic about this tale. In fact, it portrays a brutal and gritty perspective into the reality that many prostitutes face every day. Prostitution is largely illegal in the US and it is theoretically legal in the UK - the act itself is legal, but many of its associated acts are not. Neither brothels nor street side solicitation are legal.

Many prostitutes are desperate - coming from broken households or have addiction issues or a greedy pimp to pay. They have little choice, but to follow their Johns and be driven to a remote area where they could be raped and killed - as is the sad reality for some sex workers. The aforementioned Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes, as did Peter Sutcliffe. Perhaps if prostitution was fully legalised and regulated, there wouldn't be so many young, lost women losing their lives.

Charlize Theron was outstanding in the role. She won the best Actress Oscar and I completely understand why. I'm inclined to agree with film critic Roger Ebert's assessment of it being one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. She absolutely embodied Warnoss, portraying the neuroticism and the agitation to a Tee. Warnoss has always maintained that all of her victims tried to help her and she acted in self-defence. Theron brought a lot more nuance than that to the role. She portrays Warnoss as neither a helpless victim or a cold-blooded killer, but a psychologically damaged young woman in desperate search for human connection. She attempts to go legitimate, but due to her past reputation, she's laughed out of every job she applies for. Perhaps if there wasn't such a stigma behind prostitution, Eileen Warnoss' killing spree might have been avoided.

Of course, I'm not justifying Warnoss' actions, but highlighting the morally grey that Theron exhibited. She kills her first John in self-defence, but her last murder was completely unprovoked. Her last victim did not deserve to die. And this raises more moral questions. Do we ever have the right to take the law into our own hands? Warnoss thinks we do. And Theron just disappeared into the character. She was unrecognisable.

Christina Ricci was great as well. She is best-known for playing kooky, off-the-wall characters, like Wednesday Adams, so it was great to see her play a more human role. Like Eileen, she comes from a troubled background. In search of a strong, adult, role model, she latches herself onto Warnoss. The two of them form a toxic, co-dependant relationship. Selby's life is turned upside down by Warnoss' erratic behaviour. And I think you can argue that Warnoss should have taken more personal accountability and stayed away from Selby. As Selby rightly says, she is being used by Warnoss. Certainly, no romanticisation there.

But this was a great film. It is doomy, hard-going, often traumatic, but with an outstanding, Oscar-worthy performance from Charlize Theron. 

Zwartboek (Black Book) review

 Number 435 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Paul Verhoeven's Dutch WW2 film Zwartboek which translates as Black Book.

Rachel Stein (Carice Van Houten) is a famed Jewish singer during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. When her hiding place is destroyed and her family are murdered by the SS, she joins the Dutch resistance. She is tasked by high-ranking resistance member Hans Akkermans (Thom Hoffman) to seduce the Gestapo leader Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch.) This was all based on a true story.

In war films, it is all too easy to say that these are the good characters and these are the bad characters. but the reality is never that black and white. And that was all part of Verhoeven's vision. He definitely succeeded. We'll take glamorous heroine Rachel Stein as an example. Victim of Nazi persecution, she makes an obvious hero. However, she then falls in love with the Nazi official that she's seducing. The Nazi official Muntze quickly realises she is a Jew, but he has also fallen in love with her. And he is much fairer than his brutal deputy Gunther Franken (Waldermar Kobus.) Realising the war is lost, Muntze secretly negotiates a ceasefire with the Dutch resistance.

*spoiler alert*

When the Netherlands is liberated at the end of the war, Muntze is executed for his crimes and Rachel is locked up as a supposed Nazi collaborator. Her fellow Dutch compatriots treat her and the other supposed collaborators deplorably: humiliating them by forcing them to strip naked. But then Akkermans, now an army colonel, breaks things up and declares them no better than the Nazis. And this scene is not difficult to imagine happening in real life. The Dutch are angry at their treatment and want to take out their anger on anything they can.

As the two leads, Van Houten and Koch gave a lot of nuance to character who ran the risk of being flatly good and bad.  But it was these fundamental flaws that made all these characters so human and relatable. even the burtal Franken is a keen singer/ballroom dancer. To have characters be simply good or simply bad would be far too two-dimensional and cliche.  And Hoffman shone as the true villain of the piece. 

*more spoilers*

Hans Akkerman, despite being a high-level member of the resistance, is actually a secret Nazi collaborator.  Rachel Stein and her family try escaping to safety by boarding a boat that will carry them down the river. They are discovered by the SS and Rachel is the only one who escapes with her life. It is later revealed that Hans set this up, so he could steal whatever money the refugees had. This is entirely believable as well. Everybody becomes desperate in war. And loyalties can change at the drop of the hat.

Van Herhoeven perfectly captured the brutality of war: from the SS gunning down escaping Jews to them torturing one of the captured resistance fighters. He certainly pulled no punches. He succeeded in creating a harrowing tale of human morality and I'll end this review on his assessment of Zwartboek: "in this movie everything has a shade of grey. There are no people who are completely good no people who are completely bad. It's like life. It's not very Hollywoodian."

True Romance review

 Number 344 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tony Scott's romantic crime drama True Romance.

I am watching this film out of order as I recently saw it in the roof-top cinema in Peckham, South London.

Penned by Quentin Tarantino, True Romance tells the romance of Clarence and Alabama. Clarence (Christian Slater,) a comic book store worker is unknowingly set up with call girl Alabama (Patricia Arquette.) A whirlwind romance and shotgun marriage later. Clarence confronts Alabama's pimp, Drexel (Gary Oldman) and unwittingly steals 500k of Drexel's coke. However, the coke actually belong to the mob. And they want it back. Val Kilmer, Christopher Walken, Brad Pitt, Samuel L. Jackson and James Gandolfini round out the supporting cast.

    Released in 1993, this was one of Tarantino's earliest ventures and, arguably, one of his most original. I've been critical of Tarantino's latest film - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for being more of a homage than an actual movie - a similar criticism I also reserved for Kill Bill Volume 1. Yet that wasn't the case here. A quick pace and plenty of plot twists keep this film hurtling toward its thrilling conclusion.

    One such plot twist is Samuel L' Jackson's quick demise. Upon meeting Drexel, he mocks him relentlessly before Drexel blows him away. Plus a pre-Soprano James Gandolfini was utterly menacing as mobster Virgil. Sure you could argue that the fight scene with Alabama burdened on the ridiculous, but it was also great to see such a brilliant performance from Gandolfini.

Tarantino and Tony Scott also paced this film well. There aren't any too many dialogue scenes and there are plenty of comedic scenes the keep the content light. most of these were due to Brad Pitt's character of stoner Floyd. Reportedly, he improvised most of his dialogue which worked to great effect. Especially when he is interrogated by the ominous Gandolfini.

   This film climaxes in classic Tarantino fashion. Clarence meets a hot-shot movie exec to offload the coke in the hopes of fleeing the country with Alabama. However, the dead broker has flipped and is wearing a wire. On top of that, the mobsters have tracked down Clarence. Cue a massive shootout between the cops, the mobsters and the exec's security guards. Cue blood, bullets and everybody dying except for our heroes Clarence and Alabama. Although Clarence does dance with death for a second.

Reportedly Tarantino originally wanted to kill Clarence but Tony Scott convinced him otherwise. I think that's the better decision. The film is called True Romance and in a very twisted way it is a romance - the two loves Clarence and Alabama will do anything for each other - even kill. Seeing them walk into the sunset was more effective than seeing Alabama cry over Clarence's gravestone.

Again you can argue that the violent conclusion is gratuitous which is is. But by the same admission, it's also classic Tarantino. if you're not into that then you shouldn't be watching a Tarantino film. Especially this one. But if you want to watch Tarantino at his best, True Romance is the film for you.