The Dirty Dozen review

 Number 484 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1967 war film 'The Dirty Dozen.'

In March, 1944, Major John Reisman (Lee Marvin) is ordered to command Project Amnesty - a top secret mission to take twelve convicts, turn them into commandos in an effort to eliminate as many high-ranking Nazis as possible while they wine and dine in a Rennes chateau. Some of the dozen include loud-mouth and hot-headed mobster Victor R. Franko (John Cassavetes,) gentle giant Samson Posey (Clint Walker) the German-speaking Joseph Wladislaw (Charles Bronson,) the black Robert T. Jefferson (Jim Brown,) the psychotic Maggott (Terry Salavas) and Vernon L.Pinkley (Donald Sutherland.)

This was a thoroughly entertaining film and one I enjoyed immensely. It is very much your standard action film with gunfire and explosions galore, but it also had a great and memorable cast of characters. You had the psychopathic Maggott who is disliked and mistrusted by most of the gang and with good reason - he had previously raped and killed a young woman. Terry Salavas created a scary character. I also liked the gentle giant Posey who traumatised by his previous crimes becomes scared of his own strength. Clint Walker really helped to give some humanity to this goliath of a man.

You also had the iconic Charles Bronson and Donald Sutherland - two great actors who share the distinction of never being Oscar-nominated. One of the most striking characters was the rebellious Franko who goes onto becomes one of the gang's loudest voices. Cassavetes received a well-earned Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Tying this all together was Lee Marvin playing the army major forced into an undesirable position, but determined to see his mission through.

Inevitably by having such a large ensemble cast it's natural for some characters to overshadow others. This happened here with big personalities like Maggott, Wladislaw, Franko and Posey dominating screentime over some of the less memorable members of the operation. Nowhere is this more present than Jiminez (Trini Lopez) who, due to Lopez midway leaving production, receives a rather rushed off-screen death. 

No matter, as everything culminates in an exciting conclusion which sees most of our heroes dying (I don't think this is much of a spoiler - this was always going to be a suicide mission) There were plenty great set pieces and special effects.

All in all, I enjoyed the Dirty Dozen. Yes, some of the characters were better characterised than others, but it was still entertaining nonetheless.  

The Chorus review

 Number 415 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2004 German-French-Swiss musical drama 'The Chorus.'

Clement Mathieu (Gerard Jugnot) is a failed musician and teacher starting at the notorious Fond de l'etang French boarding school for delinquent boys. Once there, he is shocked by the headmaster Rachin's (Francois Berleand) tyrannical methods. To instil some discipline and morale, Mathieu decides to turn the delinquent boys into a choir.

If you look past the predictability and cliche, this was an enjoyable enough film.  It's a film that has been done many times before - arguably better too - especially in Dead Poet's Society. Jugnot was no Robin Williams, but he was certainly charming enough as the bumbling, but well-intentioned teacher turned choirmaster. And Rachin was no nurse Ratched but he made for a slimy and scary villain.

Yet it was difficult to look past the cliche. Mathieu is trying to desperately reach his students, so he turns them into a choir. Without too much arguing they quickly and fall into line. I found this all a bit too convenient. I understand the boys do need to agree to be part of the choir for the film to work, but it's difficult to believe they wouldn't have resisted this idea more at first.

The boys themselves were more underdeveloped in comparison to the adult characters. You had Pierre Morhange (Jean-Baptiste Maunier) who despite being one of the best singers is very badly behaved because of a vague troubled homelife, Pepinot (Maxence Perrin) forever waiting for parents who will never come and the hot-headed Mondian (Gregory Gatignol) whose side purpose is to create conflict rather than being a fully-formed character. Most of the boys felt like rough stretches than proper characters.

The film also felt directionless. I couldn't see the end goal for Mathieu's choir. This wasn't like the Blues Brothers when they were trying to stop their childhood orphanage from being closed down. I thought Mathieu would enter the boys in a singing competition or use them to secure more funding, but other than a showing for an investor, there was little else at stake.

The Chorus was certainly an entertaining film, but only entertaining. It was too predictable to be anything more.

Do the Right Thing review

 Number 409 on the top 1000 films of all time is Spike Lee's coming-of-age comedy-drama 'Do the Right Thing.'

Mookie (Spike Lee) is an African-American living in a rough Brooklyn neighbourhood. All he wants from life is to make enough money from his pizza delivery job at Sal's pizzeria so he can support his family. However, on an excruciatingly hot day, racial tensions between Sal (Danny Aiello,) and his sons Pino (John Turturro) and Vito (Richard Edson) and the other African-Americans in the neighbourhood including Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) and Buggin' Out (Giancarlo Esposito) a man who fancies himself the next Malcom X. As a race riot threatens to break out, Mookie is forced to pick a side.

Do the Right Thing is just another film in a long list tackling one of the US' most pertinent issues: race relations. The US is known as the greatest melting pot playing home to people from all over the world. It's only natural that some of those people might not like each other as is the case here.

The deeply racist Vito resent working in an African-American neighbourhood and believes they should be with their own kind. Meanwhile, the African-American community doesn't like that white-owned businesses at the heart of their town. They believe there should be black businesses instead. It's a powder keg waiting to blow.

Another theme that Lee is explores is police brutality - another issue that has plagued the US for decades. Do the Right Thing was dedicated to Eleanor Bumpers, Arthur Miller Jr, Edmund Perry, Yvonne Smallwood, Michael Stewart and Michael Griffith - with the former five having been killed by police and the sixth by a white mob. Only a few years later, Rodney King was beaten and I do not have the necessary computer memory to write the name of every single black person who has been killed by the police in the last twenty-five years, except for one of the most notable: George Floyd.

Spike Lee tackles both of these subjects with his stylistic flair - think bold colours, razor-sharp dialogue and all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Sure you can argue that he was exploring themes too important not to tackle head-on, but this exploration was incredibly on the nose. One scene has the different characters speaking directly to the camera, as they monologue racist insults about different groups of people. Sure this racism might be accurate, but its depiction was heavy-handed.

This isn't to denigrate the acting of those involved - least of all from Spike Lee as the lead Mookie. Giancarlo Esposito was also good as the political cognizant Buggin Out - it was amazing to think this was the same man who wowed audiences in Breaking Bad. But the standout star had to be Danny Aiello who received a well-earned Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Initially, Sal is nothing more than hard-working Italian-American who often plays the mediator between his deeply racist son Pino and the black customers. However, not even the good-natured Sal can only keep his demons at bay for so long before he is driven too far on an excruciatingly hot day. Unlike Pino who overly hates blacks, I think Sal was a lot more level-headed, but, like the other characters, he fell victim to the simmering racial tension.

John Turturro was also very good as Vito. He gave a multi-layered performance, as one of the more openly racist characters of the film. It would have been all too easy to have written/portrayed him as a one-dimensional Italian-American "moolie" hating greaseball, but he was more three-dimensional than his.

But I would like to say one thing quickly. Why in these films do you always have the black characters being racist to the East Asian, or in this case, Korean characters? The local supermarket is ran by a Korean couple who are often the subject of racist taunting by the black characters. It was something similar to Menace II Society. Perhaps it was Lee's commitment to realism, but it didn't make his characters very endearing.

However, 'Do the Right Thing,' was a memorable and stylised, if heavy-handed, exploration of two issues that have plagued American society for decades. What was the right thing that Sal and Mookie should have done? Who knows?  

Head-on Review

 Number 321 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 20024 German-Turkish drama 'Head-On.'

Cahit Tomruk (Birol Unel) is a Turkish-German alcoholic widower. Sibel Guner (Sibel Kekili) is a young Turkish-Germany lady who is desperately trying to escape her controlling, oppressive family. Both characters are severely psychologically damaged, but soon enter a marriage of convenience.

This was an entertaining if uneven film. It all followed a rather predictable plot hitting over-familiar beats. Cahit is your standard cinnamon roll - a suicidally depressed man who is angry at the world around him. While he is hot and fiery on the outside, Sibel soon starts peeling back the layers to find a soft centre. Soon Cahit starts falling in love with her for real. The same goes for Sibel. What initially starts as a sham marriage soon turns into something real.

As the name suggests, Head-On also wasn't afraid to tackle some heavy themes ... well... head-on. Sibel, just like Cahit is suicidally depressed -  the two of them met in a clinic after we see their failed suicide attempts. This is a theme that occurs throughout the film. It certainly makes for some uncomfortable viewing, but it never feels gratuitous.

I did enjoy the ending, as it took me by surprise. *Spoilers*

You might think that Cahit and Sibel would live happily ever after as they realise their true feelings for each other. However, they end up separated. Sibel promises to run away with Cahit, but then stands him up, leaving him all alone. It was a nice way to deviate from the predictable plot.

But there's nothing wrong with predictability if it is done well. And Head-On was done well. It's no surprise that it won the Golden Bear. 

Top ten times the Academy got it wrong

 By now you should that I have some hot takes about the films that appear on IMDB's top 1000 films of all time. You can check out my lists on some of the most overrated films ever.  But the hot takes don't stop there, as I will be counting the top times that the Academy got it wrong whether that's awarding or even nominating a film or an actor or actress. This list is in no order but chronology.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Number 333 on the top 1000 films is Kevin Costner's epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.' Yet that isn't its only accolade for it also won the 1991 Best Film Oscar.

Yes, you read that correctly. It beat the likes of Goodfellas and Awakenings to win the Academy's most prestigious award. How? This three-hour long film is beyond tedious. Costner's wooden performance did nothing to help matters at all. And to all the critics saying it contains a white saviour complex, I challenge you to stay awake long enough to provide evidence of that. If it were up to me, then I would award the Oscar to Awakenings. Both Robert De Niro and Robin Williams excelled in that.

JFK (1991)

Oliver Stone's epic political thriller ranks 306 on the top 1000 films of all time. It focusses on the investigation following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Again, it stars Kevin Costner. Again, it is a three-hour snooze-fest. Thankfully, it didn't receive a Best Picture Oscar, but it was still nominated. Why? It is a bloated, over-long, unfocussed affair that is bursting to the brim with absolutely anything that is related to the Kennedy case. It quite rightly lost to the Silence of the Lambs, but it shouldn't have been in the running in the first place.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Terrence Malik directed this Vietnam war-film to 694th on the top 1000 films and to a Best Picture nomination. But just like JFK, I am puzzled as to why it was nominated.

It is just plain pretentious. Malik seemed more interested in philosophising and arty camerawork than in telling an interesting story. It's a war film, right? So, why don't we see any war happening?

It is also unfocussed with too many cameos and not enough main characters. It ultimately lost to Shakespeare in Love, but I think its fellow nominee Saving Private Ryan explored the theme of war much more effectively.

Crash (2004)

Paul Haggis' Crash ranks 383rd on the top 1000 films.

Crash won the 2005 Best Picture Oscar. And I am definitely not alone in thinking this was the wrong decision. The concept was admirable - an exploration of race relations in Los Angeles, but the execution left a lot to be desired.

Crash was a contrived, convoluted mess that rushed and over-simplified its key themes and ideas. The far simpler Brokeback Mountain should have won instead. But Hollywood just wasn't brave enough to celebrate a film about two gay cowboys.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Michael Clayton ranks low on the top 1000 films at 977th. It stars George Clooney who plays a fixer un-masking a cover-up at his New York law firm.

Michael Clayton received a number of Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor/Actress. I don't think it deserved any of them.

It was a clinically, cold film which is severely lacking any heart. Although that does make sense since it is about lawyers. George Clooney's lacklustre performance did little to help things.

The Fighter (2010)

David O'Russell's biographical sports-drama ranks in as 408th on the top 1000 films.

This film follows the lives of two boxing brothers played by Mark Wahlburg and Christian Bale. Melissa Leo plays their mother and she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Although she was good, I would argue her co-star Amy Adams, who was also nominated, was even better. Amy Adams should have won instead.

She was the one redeeming feature in a film that I didn't care for at all.

Argo (October 2012) 

Ben Affleck's directed this biographical history thriller to the 445th place on the top 1000 films, as well as the Best Film Oscar.

Don't get me wrong. This is a fine film, but is it really Oscar-worthy? Is it better than its fellow nominees like Django Unchained, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook or Zero Dark Thirty. I'm not sure about that. Sure, it's thrilling enough, but then the tension dissipates in an overly-sentimental conclusion.

And while Ben Affleck is a good director, he is a rather wooden actor. Argo definitely would have been better if it had a different performer in the lead role.

Lincoln (November 2012)

Steven Spielberg's biographical drama ranks as 836th on the top 1000 list. It also netted Daniel Day-Lewis his third Best Actor Oscar win.

I haven't seen My Left Foot, but I can attest that he was magnificent in There will be Blood. Does the same magnificence transfer over into Lincoln? I'm not so sure. It certainly doesn't help that the film is 150 minutes long with a massive cast. 

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Abraham Lincoln, but I'm really not sure that his performance was Oscar-worthy. It lacked the same depth that I've seen in his other roles. I would have much rather seen Denzel Washington win his third Oscar for Flight, but we know that the Academy loves a biopic.

Captain Phillips (2013)

Paul Greenglass' Captain Phillips ranks as 302nd on the top 1000 films.

Tom Hanks stars as the eponymous Captain Phillips - a shipping captain taken prisoner by Somali prisoners.

Captain Phillips was nominated for a number of Oscars including Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor, but not Best Actor. It was a brilliant performance, so why wasn't Tom Hanks nominated. This has to be one of the most egregious snubs in Oscar history. In Captain Phillips, Tom Hanks plays an everyman who becomes an unlikely hero. The Academy loves a biopic, so why wasn't Hanks nominated?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Being released in 2022, EEAAO is seven years too late to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time. However, it still swept the Oscars winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screen, Best Editing and Best Supporting Actress.

I take issue with the Best Supporting Actress win. Jamie Lee-Curtis won this Oscar for the role of IRS inspector Deirdre Beaubeidre. While Michelle Yeoh and Key Huy Quan were well-deserving of their Oscar-wins, I can't say the same for Jamie Lee-Curtis. She was good, but definitely not Oscar-worthy. It didn't have the depth I would expect to see from an Oscar performance. I would argue that her co-star Stephanie Hsu, who was also nominated for the same role, should have won the award instead.

Have I missed out anything? Gone with the Wind? Shakespeare in Love? Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive? Don't worry. A second list will be coming soon enough. 

Top ten films too traumatic to watch again

 There are some films that are so bad or boring that you can never face watching them again. You can see my list of those films here. But there are also some films that are so traumatic or depressing or upsetting that it's far too painful to watch them again.

Most of the films I'm about to mention feature on the top 1000 films of all time. I'm watching and reviewing them here. This list is in no particular order.

Requiem for a Dream

This is the only film on this list that I've been brave enough to watch twice. The first time was in 2016. The second time was in 2022. I went six years between the first and second watch. And that was not enough time.

Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, Jennifer Connelly and Ellen Burstyn give brilliant performances as drug addicts in New York. Darren Aronofsky's direction offers a brutal, unflinching look into this dark world. You will not find any happy endings here especially with Ellen Burstyn's character. Her performance was heart-breaking. I would count this film as one of my favourites of all time even if it is too traumatic to watch for a third time.

This is England

British white nationalism is as pervasive and dangerous now as it was back in 1982 where This is England is set. Following a gang of skinheads, we witness a horrific look into how they can brainwash the youth with their propaganda.

But what makes this film so scary is its realism. We're not talking zombies or demonic puppets, but real humans with real hatred in their hearts. Nowhere is that more present than with Stephen Graham who was magnificent as Combo - leader of the skinhead gang. He was so terrifying that he had trouble finding work after the film. I know I will have trouble watching the film again.

Precious

This is a powerful, but stark look into family abuse. It follows Precious (Gabourney Sidibe) a young black woman who was not only raped by her father, but also psychologically abused by her mother (Mon'ique.) Do you see what I mean about it being a rough watch?

Like This is England, it shows its villains as being incredibly cruel, but also incredibly human. It's horrible to watch, but you can't also look away. Mon'ique gave an Oscar-winning performance, but Mariah Carey was also surprisingly good in a supporting role. And, of course, Gabourney Sidibe was the star of the show. 

This is a film I won't be strong enough to watch again anytime soon.

Grave of the Fireflies

When you think of Studio Ghibli, you think of the adorable Totoro or the wonderful world of Spirited Away. You don't think of this heart-breaking tale of World War Two Japan.

Seen through the eyes of sixteen-year-old Seita and his little sister Setsuko, we see how they struggle to survive amidst the twilight years of the war. It is a tragic story that ends predictably tragically, but it is no less gut-wrenching. It made me cry after all.

It is also one of my favourite films of all time, but it is one of the few Studio Ghibli films that I won't be watching over and over again.

Amores Perros

If I were to describe why I wouldn't watch this film again, I would give you one compound word: dog-fighting.

This disgusting practice is central to the film's plot. It plays out in shocking detail. As an animal and dog-lover, this was distressing to watch. It's also difficult to root for characters who willingly enter their dogs into these fights.

Thankfully, Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's later films: 21 Grams and Babel are far easier watches.

Blue Valentine

Although this film isn't traumatic in the sense of depicting violent subject matter, it is still one of the bleakest films I've ever seen.

We follow Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) as their marriage and relationship self-destructs. Cue lots of shouting and tears and very little reason to smile while watching this film. And very little reason why I would want to watch it again.

Manchester by the Sea

Similarly to Blue Valentine, Manchester by the Sea was depression personified. It stars Casey Affleck as a man trying to move on after a house fire kills his entire family. Affleck was well-deserving of the best Actor Oscar, but the film's tragic storyline would surely win the Oscar for most depressing film ever.

The Celebration

This Danish film made for a deeply uncomfortable watch. At a birthday party for the aging patriarch of the Klingenfeldt-Hansen family, we see the whole affair descend into chaos as the whole family goes to war with each other. Cue shouting, arguments, casual racism and nasty people being nasty to each other. It's not a celebration. And there was nothing comedic about it, despite it being labelled a black-comedy. I did not enjoy watching this at all.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

This American classic was also an uncomfortable watch for similar reasons to the above. It was so just relentlessly depressing. Paul Newman and Liz Taylor star as a couple who spend the entire film yelling at each other and everybody around them.

Homophobic attitudes of the time saw the removal of a key storyline that would have added much needed meaning to all the shouting. Otherwise this was an uncomfortable watch.

Midsommer

Ari Aster's horror film is too modern to feature on the top 1000 films of all time, but I still hated watching it. Florrence Pugh stars as Dani - a young woman attempting to get over the death of her family by holidaying in Sweden with her boyfriend and friends. There they find an idyllic cult, but everything is not what it seems.

While I can respect the craft, I found this film intensely disturbing. It freaked me out and I can never watch it again. I'm sure this is just me, as I have heard others say it is boring, dull and tame compared to some other horror films. I'm sure those same people would say I'm a wimp, which would be true. But this film still made me deeply uncomfortable.

None of this is to say these films are bad, but they were either so traumatic, upsetting or disturbing that I could never watch them again. Did I miss any films? Let me know in the comments.

Stalag 17 review

 Number 202 on the top 1000 films of all time is Billy Wilder's 1953 war-film Stalag-17.

J.J Sefton (William Holden) is just one of six hundred and thirty sergeants being held prisoner in a German WW2 POW camp. He is a cynical, jaded loner who stays apart from the rest of his men. When an escape attempt that leads to two of his fellow prisoners being shot dead, he is quickly suspected of being a collaborator.

Admittedly, I wasn't looking forward to watching this. I thought that because it's a war film, it would be depressing, hard-going and difficult to watch. However, I was surprised to find it had plenty of laughs and light-heartedness. A lot of that was down to William Holden who was great as J.J Sefton. Sefton is your standard wise-cracking smart-arse. He is also enterprising often bartering with his guards for luxuries, as well as improvising a distillery, organising mouse-races for gambling, as well as other activities to keep the other prisoners entertained. Holden played the role well, stopping Sefton from becoming overly-cynical.

Billy wilder has done such a wide array of films over the years from noir to rom-coms to screwball comedies that it was no surprise that Stalag-17 succeeded in the way it did. It had the same off-beat humour as Some Like it Hot but also the drama of Sunset Boulevard.  Originally adapted from a stage-play, Wilder was able to keep that same theatrical feel, while making it suitable for the screen. He made everything bigger and better.

If the film fell down anywhere, it would have been the supporting cast. Although some of them like the German guards were funny in their own right, mostly they all blended into one. I did have trouble distinguishing the different characters. I did get mixed up between Lieutenant James Dunbar (Don Taylor) and security officer Frank Price (Peter Graves.) Other than Sefton, the only other character I really remember is Sefton's loyal, if naive aide Cookie (Gil Stratton) who also narrates the film.

Overall, I did enjoy Stalag-17. It was an entertaining war film with a great turn by William Holden.

Midnight Express review

 Number 644 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1978 prison-drama film 'Midnight Express.'

Based on the memoir of the same name, Midnight Express follows Billy Hayes (Brad Davis.) He is an American college student who is caught trying to smuggle drugs from Turkey back to the US. He is sent to the notorious Sagmalcilar prison where he and his fellow prisoners are routinely beaten and mistreated. Realising that he will die if he stays there, he and fellow prisoners hot-headed Jimmy Booth (Randy Quaid) and quieter Max (John Hurt) plot to try and escape a.k.a catching the Midnight Express.

My biggest problem with this film was with the protagonist of Billy Hayes. Initially, he didn't seem very likeable or sympathetic. He willingly tries to smuggle drugs; it isn't like he is forced or coerced into it. He breaks the law and he is punished for it. And we're supposed to empathise with him? It was a very strange character to have as a protagonist. It might have made more sense if he were forced into the role or if like the Shawshank Redemption, he was frame and imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. This would have certainly made him more of a likeable character.

Putting this aside, this was still a thrilling and enjoyable film, despite the odd loose end and plot hole. It was a story of redemption. There is unflinching brutality but also moments of true tenderness. I guess Billy goes through a hero-arc of sorts, yet some of the other characters are tossed aside. For example, Jimmy Booth is quickly introduced as Billy's hot-headed cellmate. After an escape route goes wrong, Jimmy is taken away to never be seen again. Although I only realised this after the film had finished. It is never explicitly stated in the film. I found it odd how we never even had one line of exposition addressing that. He was an important character.

Initially, Billy is only sentenced to three years, but fifty-three days before his release, the prosecutor successfully has his sentence extended to life. Brad goes on an impassioned rant in the courtroom where he insults everybody in sight. Surely, no judge would stand for something like that. He would have been held in contempt for court and thrown out. 

What I enjoyed most about this film was the relationship between Billy Hayes and Max. John Hurt is always wonderful in everything he's in, but he was especially good as Max. I can totally understand why he was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He brought a quietness and a tenderness to the role. It made for a refreshing change to the ongoing violence. And he and Billy become very close friends. When Billy eventually escapes, he swears to come back for Max. We don't see it on-screen, but I hope he did.

This film wasn't for me. Yes, it was powerful and touching in its own way. But too many loose ends and an unlikeable protagonist made me wish I could catch the Midnight Express out of the cinema!

Glory review

 Number 353 on the top 1000 films of all time is Edward Zwick's 1989 US civil-war drama 'Glory.'

Glory tells the true story of 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment - one of the earliest African-American regiments within the Union army. It is commanded by the white officers Colonel Robert Shaw (Matthew Broderick) and Major Cabot Forbes (Cary Elwes.) Some of its troops include the hot-headed Silas Trip (Denzel Washington,) the older and wiser John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) and the well-educated Thomas Sears (Andre Braugher.)

I certainly cannot attest to the historical aspect of Glory, but it was a thrilling warm film that gave a well-rounded review that the 54th infantry faced. Its black soldiers suffered racism from their white counterparts and weren't paid as much as them either, while their white officers were constantly left lacking vital supplies needed by their men. It also highlights the interpersonal differences between the black soldiers - notably between Sears and Trip. The two initially clash on their radically different upbringings and perspectives. Trip resents how Sears acts and talks like a white man, while Sears rails against Trip's accusations of him not being truly black.

Both actors were great, but Washington especially so. He won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and I think his win was more deserving than his one in Training Day. Silas Trip was a far more nuanced character than Alonzo Harris. And Washington played him with a lot of vulnerability. Morgan Freeman was also good as the wise and calming John Rawlins. And I particularly liked Andre Braugher. He and Washington were great together.

The black actors were superior to their white counterparts. I do think Matthew Broderick was miscast. He was just too young for such a role. This was only three years after he starred in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and it was difficult seeing him as anything other than the high-school slacker. He just looked scared all the time; whenever he spoke it was like he was trying to convince both himself and the audience that he was mature enough for such a role. I understand this is partly the character. Shaw is supposed to be young, inexperienced and unsure of himself, but Broderick did little to persuade me that he was the right man for the job.

Honestly, I think his co-star Cary Elwes would have made a better lead. Elwes had already proved himself a capable leading man in the Princess Bride. Although he wasn't great here either. He had a strange accent that varied between American and his native English accent.

Glory strayed into melodrama at times. I could have done without the grandiose, instrumental score and characters dying in slow motion. Where it shone was its quieter moments; particularly when the black soldiers are singing a gospel song on the eve of their first big fight. This was a brilliant scene that highlighted the camaraderie and close relationship between these men.

Glory is certainly a good film. Yes, it is cheesy at times and Matthew Broderick was dreadfully miscast, but it was still a noble attempt to bring the efforts of the 54th infantry to the big screen.

Platoon review

 Number 192 on the top 1000 films of all time is Oliver Stone's war film 'Platoon.'

Platoon follows a group of soldiers fighting within the Vietnam War. The main character is the young, liberal Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) who quickly becomes disillusioned. His superior officers, the hot-headed and psychotic Sergeant Barnes (Tom Berenger) and the more enlightened Elias (Willem Dafoe) clash on the best way to lead their troops. Keith David, Forest Whitaker and Johnny Depp all co-star.

Since I started this challenge, I've watched my fair share of Vietnam war films and I don't think that Platoon was anything special. It didn't bring anything new to the table. Sure it was entertaining and watchable. It was frenetic, fast-paced and dramatic, but there wasn't enough to delineate it from some of its contemporaries. I think a lot of that was down to the characterisation. The cast was large and confusing with the different characters not being clearly delineated enough from each other. In fact, the three main characters are really the only ones I can remember with any certainty. The heinous Sergeant Barnes was definitely recognisable, but all of his cronies blended into one. And Willem Dafoe and Charlie Sheen always stand out anywhere. And like with many war films, all of the characters are dressed the same - in uniforms and helmets only serving to make things more confusing.

Furthermore, the characters were all just so unlikeable. Okay, Sergeant Barnes is the villain - he kills a Vietmanese woman in cold blood and later tries to rape two Vietmanese girls - so you would expect him to be nasty. Barnes has plenty of cronies that are just as bad as him. But there really wasn't any likeable characters that you wanted to root for.  Even the protagonist Chris shows signs of instability, at times, blindly shooting at anything in sight. True, at times, he does do the right things like preventing Barnes from raping those girls, but there wasn't anything in him that made me want him to succeed. Part of that was down to Charlie Sheen. Honestly, I don't think he's the greatest actor in the world. 

The platoon's commanding officer was Lieutenant Wolfe (Mark Moses) but he was too young and ineffective to be any good. And another of the sergeants - O'Neil (John C. Mcginley) is a coward and spends most of the battles hiding in the foxholes. Largely, the film is just nasty people doing nasty things. I get it, war changes people. War can turn the best men into monsters. But it doesn't make them the most likeable of characters.

Platoon was certainly watchable enough, but I'm not sure how much I actually enjoyed it. It was just horrible people being horrible to each other.

A Time to Kill review

 Number 969 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joel Schumacher's 1996 legal drama 'A Time to Kill.'

Based on John Grisham's book of the same name, A Time to Kill focusses on the relationship between white Mississippi attorney Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) and his black client Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson.) After Carl Lee's ten-year-old daughter Tonya (Rae'ven Larrymore Kelly) is brutally raped and almost murdered by two racist rednecks Billy Ray Cobb (Nicky Katt) and James Willard (Doug Hutchinson.) Carl Lee takes the law into his own hands and shoots them dead. Brigance decides to defend him. He is aided by his old mentor, the alcoholic Lucien Wilbanks (Donald Sutherland) and law student Ellen Roark (Sandra Bullock.) But Brigance is up against stiff competition as district attorney Rufus Buckley (Kevin Spacey) takes up the case for the Cobb family. Billy Ray's brother - Freddie Lee (Kiefer Sutherland) also resurrects the Mississippi KKK chapter to exact his revenge on Carl Lee.

Joel Schumacher is so well-known for almost killing the Batman movie franchise with the abysmal Batman and Robin, it is easy to forget that he has made other films. A Time to Kill is one of these films. It's just as cheesy as Batman and Robin, but it is a million times better. That is a low bar and it's certainly not perfect, but it's watchable enough.

A lot of that is down to the star-studded cast. To be honest, I don't think McConaughey was anything special. Brigance is your classic, intelligent, handsome clear-cut hero - there's not much more to him than that. But I thought Samuel L. Jackson was great. He's so well known for either action roles or over-the-top, eccentric oddball, it was refreshing to see him in a more human role. He played it well conveying a brilliant vulnerability. Carl Lee is an obviously sympathetic character. His daughter is raped and left for dead. She is attacked because she is black. He only did what any father would do. Is that so wrong? 

According to Spacey, it is. Men must not be allowed to take the law into their own hands. Spacey shone, as he always does, playing a slimy lawyer, who only takes the case to build his own public profile. And he does that Southern drawl so damn well. I couldn't help but be reminded of one of Spacey's most famous roles: President Frank Underwood on House of Cards. Kiether Sutherland was also enjoyable as the villainous Freddie Lee Cobb. Hell-bent on revenge, he starts up the local KKK chapter and terrorises everybody involved in the trial. Granted all the roles I've seen Sutherland in are villains/morally dubious, but he does them well.

The only character I was unsure about was Ellen Roark. An ACLU activist and law student, she helps Brigance pro bono, so to speak. Yet she was such a poorly written character. It seemed like Sandra Bullock was only cast because she was hot and not because of her great acting ability. As she doesn't really have a chance to do much except to riffle through cabinets and have sexual tension between her and Brigance. Perhaps her character is there to tempt Brigance into an extra-marital affair and put a strain between Brigance and his wife. But these ideas never came to fruition. An affair between the two is teased, but Brigance always stops himself before things go too far. But this is never something that makes it home to his family. In fact, rather than Roark, it is the KKK leaving burning crosses outside of Brigance's home that drives a wedge between him and his wife. She and her daughter soon leave for their own safety. And so does any potential for narrative tension.

If the intention was to force some sexual tension then it failed dramatically. And if it wasn't then what was the point of the character? Why would you squander Sandra Bullock's acting ability - she is a best actress Oscar winner? Why would you put two young hot people like Mconaughey and Bullock together if they're not going to get it on? Sure, he might need a paralegal, but why does that have to be somebody like Bullock. He character seemed so contrived. Also Bullock was in her thirties while filming - too old to be playing a law student.

The ending also seemed too contrived and cheesy. Brigance *spoiler alert* convinces the jury of Carl Ray's innocence, but his method is what troubled me. He effectively tugs at heart strings rather than using the law. He asks the jury to close their eyes and to imagine the rape and attempted murder of Tonya. He ends by saying "imagine if she was white." Obviously race is a presiding issue and Tonya suffered a horrific hate crime, but as, Spacey spends much of the trial protesting, it isn't Tonya's rape that is at issue, but Carl Lee's murder of her rapists. During Brigance's impassioned speech, Spacey doesn't object once, nor does Judge tell the jury to strike it from the record. This was all too difficult to believe.

I also found it troubling that Freddie Lee and the other KKK don't face any proper consequences for their actions. Sure, we see them being quietly confronted by the cops, but nothing more. Freddie Lee left a burning cross outside of Brigance's house, he beats his secretary husband's to death, he tries to shoot Brigance and he kidnaps Roark, takes her to the woods, strips her and leaves her tied to a tree. Yet his actions are effectively brushed under the rug. All I needed was the coppers clasping him in irons and reading him his Miranda rights.

Also there was a mysterious man operating through the film. He warns Brigance's family of the burning cross through a shadowy phone call. But was the person's identity ever revealed? Was it the same man who rescued Roark or was that just a stranger?

So yes, this film is cheesy, unrealistic and relegates Bullock to playing little more than a sex object, but I do think it is well worth a watch. Look past the cheese and you'll find an entertaining and gripping thriller. Just a shame that Schumacher followed this up with Batman and Robin.

Mean Streets review

 Number 850 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Scorsese's directorial debut - the crime drama 'Mean Streets.'

Charlie Cappa (Harvey Keitel) is a low-ranking mafioso in New York. His best friend is the hot-headed Johnny Boy Civello (Robert De Niro.) Johnny Boy is reckless, aggressive and rude. He also owes a lot of money to many loansharks including the dangerous Michael Longo (Robert Romanus.) Cappa has to work hard to keep his friend out of trouble...and Johnny Boy gets into a lot of trouble - angering almost every gangster in the neighbourhood.

As well as being Scorsese's directorial debut, it also marked the start of his many collaborations with actors Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro. Their relationship is at the heart of the film and the actors work brilliantly together. De Niro provides a chaotic, even manic energy which is balanced out by Keitel's straight-man approach. Johnny Boy antagonises every lone shark in the neighbourhood by stubbornly refusing to pay back his debts. As the film progresses, so does the tension and the drama. 

I certainly think you could argue that Mean Streets isn't always the most believable. No loan shark will give a little hot-head like Johnny Boy chance after chance to pay him back even if Charles Luciano was vouching for him. They might knock him around once or twice but if they don't get their money soon then they'll simply kill him. It is only at the end of the film that Michael Longo shoots Johnny Boy as punishment for not repaying his debts. And this happens as Johnny is attempting to drive to safety. And it's a botched attempt too. The car crashes and Johnny Boy stumbles to an uncertain fate. In reality, a loan shark would never let things get this out of hand. A loan shark would kill him earlier and far more efficiently than Michael Longo does. But this is a film, and not real life, so I'm prepared to suspend my disbelief. 

And I think that's because Scorsese creates such a fantastical world. Mean Streets, being Scorsese's first film, obviously didn't have the same budget as the Irishman or the Wolf of Wall Street, but Scorsese did well with what he had. He brought his world to life. And it is a dirty, gritty world. We are far away from the splendour and romance of the Godfather. It's grotty, ugly and unglamourous. But the best thing is that he presents this world without judgement. By completely immersing us in his world, he doesn't pass judgement on any of the characters living within it. Rather he allows the audience to judge for themselves. And I do judge Johnny Boy as a being an impetuous, little boy who would never measure up to the likes of the Corleones.

Also a quick shout out to the sound track. There were some great tunes that exemplified the sixties and the seventies. All of this helped provide some colour to a morally grey world.

If you're a Scorsese fan and you haven't already watched his directorial debut then what are you doing? It's a hell of a ride. Granted, not the most realistic of rides, but a great one nonetheless. 

Running Scared review

 Number 849 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir crime thriller 'Running Scared.'

Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker) is a low-level mafioso present at a drug-deal gone wrong. A group of masked, dirty cops turn up and a shoot-out happens. Gazelle and his other mobsters shoot dead all the cops. Gazelle is then tasked with hiding the gun. He takes it home and hides it in the basement. It is later discovered by his son Nicky (Alex Neuberger) and his son's best friend Oleg Yugorsky (Cameron Bright.) Oleg steals the gun and uses it to shoot his abusive, Russian mobster stepfather Anzor Yugorsky (Karel Roden.) Gazelle is in a race against time to find Oleg and the gun before his mob, the Russian mob and the corrupt coppers.

Who decided this should be on the top 1000 films of all time? Was it a group of twelve-year-old boys? Because it looked like it had been written, filmed, edited and directed by a group of twelve-year-old boys. It was all so immature and juvenile. I'm talking gratuitous violence, cliched characters, absurd plot developments, ridiculous action scenes, terrible dialogue, objectified women - Joey's wife Teresa (Vera Farmiga) spent much of the film with her thong poking out of her jeans - and the effects, filters and grainy colour scheme that look like they're out of a 90's rap video.

Let's break these down in more detail. The film starts badly with the drug-deal going wrong. The corrupt coppers turn up and the violence ramps up. Gangsters and ex-coppers are flying across the screen in slow-motion. We see bloody mists and weird filters. It all just looked ridiculous. But this was nothing compared to the final sequence where Gazelle confronts the Russian and Italian mob at an ice-hockey stadium. The Russians hold him down on the rink and have one of their players shoot pucks at his face until he tells them what he wants to know. It was all just so laughable. And of course there was another of these stupid filters - this time, a blue-light filter. Eventually this breaks down into another chaotic shoot-out where you have no idea what's happening and don't know who is shooting who.

I did criticise Teresa's character, but that's not a criticism of Farmiga, but rather her writing. She is immediately portrayed as a sex object. Her introduction is her rubbing up against Gazelle on the washing machine with her senile father in the living room and son in her basement. And as previously stated, she then spends the rest of the film with her thong sticking out of jeans. It didn't seem like a very empowering role for Farmiga, but I think she did the best she could. 

In fairness, she did have some agency. It's just a shame it happened with such a crazy plot development. When Oleg is on the run after having shot by his stepfather, he is kidnapped by these two paedophiles Dez Hansel (Bruce Altman) and Edele Hansel (Elizabeth Burke.) They take him to their flat where they're going to film a snuff film. He is later rescued by Teresa who murders the two paedophiles.  But this was just absurd. It comes out of nowhere and the vivid colour scheme didn't fit into the grainy visuals of the rest of the film. Obviously, I'm sure this stuff does happen, but it just didn't fit into the film. I do wish they had given Farmiga much better material. She was very much a cliche.

But so were the rest of the characters. Gazelle is your standard hot-headed mobster, Chaz Palminteri is your corrupt cop and the Italian and Russian mobsters are complete run-of-the-mill. And there was also the weird side character of Lester-the-Pimp. Oleg stumbles upon the pimp abusing one of his workers. He was just another silly addition to an already bloated cast. The only character I really felt any sympathy for was Oleg's mother Mila (Ivana Milicevic.) Unlike most of the other characters she actually had some depth. She worked as a prostitute in Moscow before her pimp brought her to the United States. After getting pregnant, she is told to abort her child. She refuses and her pimp sends Anzor to kill her. Instead he marries her. Unlike everybody else, I actually felt sorry for her.

The ending was also super cheesy. There is a fake-out death with Joey Gazelle. He and Farmiga share lots of tears, but I didn't feel anything. Both characters were complete cliches and it didn't help that he and Farmiga lacked any real chemistry. Other than them having sex and yelling at each other, you never see any real relationship or any reason why you should root for them.

I've been working through this list for years now and I've seen a lot of films that I can acknowledge as being good films in their own right, but not for me. Running Scared is one of the first films I've watched that I can say was objectively bad.

Green Book review

 I'm taking a slight deviation from the top 1000 films of all time to review the 2018 Best Picture Oscar winner: 'Green Book.'

Based on a true story, Green Book follows the relationship between acclaimed, African-American pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) and his Italian-American chauffeur Tony "Lip" Vallelonga (Viggo Mortenson) as they tour around the deep South in 1960's America.

Representation and diversity are massive buzz words in today's culture. As this film is all about race relations, naturally it has received some criticism about its depiction of race. However, I think it was a great representation of race on-screen.  Rather than forcing a black character into a white role, director Peter Farrelly depicted a true story. These types of films are always so much better as they bleed authenticity. And Green Book felt scarily realistic.

Sure you could dismiss a lot of the film as exaggeration or hyperbole, but the reality was that many African-Americans faced the same Jim Crow discrimination as Dr Don Shirley did. He is not allowed to try on a suit at a tailor shop and when he goes for a drink in a bar, he is beaten by three white racists. But he is also subjected to far more insidious cases of racism. He is not allowed to eat in "white" restaurants or use "white" toilets. Despite being a brilliant musician, he is very much a performing seal brought out to be gawped and pointed at by the white people and then sent back to his cage. They're happy to have him perform, but are abhorred by the thought of eating with him.

Mahershala Ali was absolutely brilliant as Dr Shirley. He perfectly portrayed the conflicted nature of the character: a character who is caught between two worlds without fitting into either. He is too black to be white and too white to be black. Ali conveyed the true loneliness of the character - loneliness that is hiding behind a veneer of pride and standoffishness. Mahershala won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor and deservingly so. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation: he can play prim and proper like in Green Book, he does suave and mysterious in House of Cards and a dark rough- around-the-edges policeman in True Detective.

But he can't take all the credit. Viggo Mortenson was also fantastic. He didn't just play Tony Lip, he embodied the character. Sure, you could say that he was a cliche who played up to every single Italian-American stereotype, but that is very much the point of the character and the point of the film. It's not just about overcoming your own prejudices and biases, but proving that you are much more than the sum of your parts. Tony Lip could have just been another hot-headed, vest-wearing Italian-American, but Mortenson turned him into a courageous man, determined to stand up for what was right - despite harbouring some initial prejudices himself.

And the film works so well because of the chemistry between Ali and Mortenson. The two of them were great together. They were like a comedy duo with Dr Shirley playing the straight man to Tony Lip's less than sophisticated ways. This clashing of cultures was hilarious to watch.

Farelly directed a brilliant film that wonderfully balanced humour and emotion while also treating listener's ears to a great soundtrack full of Motown classics, Chopin and even a composition by Dr Shirley himself. I've ran out of superlatives to describe this film. Just go watch it now. 

His Girl Friday review

 Number 260 on the top 1000 films of all time is Howard Hawks' 1940 screwball comedy 'His Girl Friday.'

Walter Burns (Cary Grant) is a newspaper editor who is about to lose his top journalist and ex-wife Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) to another man. To win her back, he convinces her to cover one more story with him - the case of murderer Earl Williams (John Qualen.)

Something interesting happened when I explained this film to my girlfriend. She didn't know what I meant by a screwball comedy. And that's when I realised that like film-noir, screwball comedies are a film genre that has been left behind in the Golden Age of Hollywood. I was trying to think of modern-day examples of screwball comedies and I couldn't. And I think that's because they don't make comedies quite like these anymore.

Modern-day comedy, for the most part, have an over-reliance on crude double entendre or crass, over-the-top physical comedy. Of course there are exceptions, but that is generally the rule. They lack all the subtlety and nuance of screwball films like The Apartment, Some Like it Hot or even His Girl Friday. His Girl Friday balances farcical situations and understated physical comedy well. So that Hily and Walter can gain a scoop in the story, they hide Williams in a rolltop desk which leads to a bunch of great gags. One of the best is to emphasise how the desk is empty Walter bangs on it. Unfortunately, Williams bangs back and is discovered.

You could argue that Walter isn't the most likeable of protagonists. He very much manipulates his wife into staying with him and mystifyingly his ploys work - by the film's end, Walter and Hildy reconcile and agree to remarry. But then again this is a screwball comedy - effectively a reworked love story and a love story always needs to have a happy ending. 

Hunted season 4 Episode 1

Season 1
Season 2
Season 3

Channel 4's hit reality TV series Hunted has returned for a fourth season and so have my reviews.  Ten ordinary men and women surrender their identities to become fugitives.  Their goal is to avoid government capture for 25 days; if they do so, they'll win a share of £100k.  They cannot break the law and must stay on the British mainland.  However, they'll be going up against a fearsome team of ex-policemen, criminal psychologists, intelligence analysts and military personnel.  Armed with sniffer dogs, ground teams, ANPR software and all of the tools of the state, the Hunters will not make things easy for the fugitives.

The Hunters are led by Peter Bleksley - a man more cockney than Delboy.  He is an ex undercover policeman.  He has deputies in the form of Julie Clegg and Ben Owen who were both intelligence officers.  Amongst others, there is also Donna Young - a criminal psychologist.

With so many fugitives, to keep things simple, the series focusses on a few at a time, which is what I'll do too.  But firstly, we'll have a break down of the 10 fugitives.

Nicholas Bachelor: a 51 year old Youth Worker and ex-convict and drug addict from Kent.
Paul James: a 48 year old Construction Worker.  Paul is a close friend of Nicholas and helped him through the worst of his drug addiction

Emma Davidson, a 23 year old nurse from Devon.
Jess Kirkham: a 27 year old nurse also from Devon.

Harry Savage - a 20 year old drama student from Essex.  Harry is also gay and he is participating to challenge stereotypes about gay people.
Frank Savage - a 23 year old campsite owner and Harry's older brother.

Nathaniel Watt - a 26 year old architecture student from Nottingham
Ismail Haruna - a 27 year old architectural technologist also from Nottingham.

Matt Mason - a 29 year old Royal Marine from Devon.

Loren Hannon - a 26 year old personal banker from Essex.

Every season begins with the fugitives gathered in one place ready to go on the run.  This year, it began in Liverpool with the fugitives on a boat going up the River Mersey.  They reach the port of Liverpool and bail out.

This episode focusses particularly on Loren and Nick and Paul.  But here is a quick rundown on the other fugitives.

We quickly learn that Matt Mason is very cocky.  Due to his background as a Royal Marine, he feels he has the expertise to outsmart the Hunters.  He is seen using an ATM in a heavy disguise.  He then ducks behind a lamppost and changes his outfit, before changing it again later on.  He is last seen successfully escaping the city centre.  As a Royal Marine, the smart money would be on him.  However, as time and time again have proven, contestants like Matt Mason have never done as well as you think they would.

Season 1's Ricky Allen was a hot-favourite but crashed out halfway through.  Season 2 featured two overconfident ex-soldiers who were caught after a week and season 3 had a police officer who was also caught halfway through.

Next up, we have our two nurses from Devon - Jessica and Emma who we see very little of, but we do learn they successfully escape the city centre.

Harry and Frank Savage - the two brothers from Essex escape the city centre to the countryside, where they have to get fend off a herd of cows.  Here we see Frank's brotherly instincts emerge.  Harry is scared by the cows, but Frank is there to comfort him and get him through it.  The last we see of them, they are walking along a canal, before hitching a ride on a canal boat.  Although, canal boats aren't particularly fast, so I'm not sure how good of an idea that is.

Lastly, we have Nathaniel and Ismail who have the novel - and highly conspicuous - idea of using roller skates to escape the city.  While the Hunters spot them, the two friends escape to the countryside.

 The Hunters' immediate tactic is to go for the weakest link - that is the fugitive they think they can catch the easiest.

This seemingly appears to be Loren Hannon - the personal banker from Essex.  In intercut interview footage, we learn that Loren is ditzy and scatterbrained.  Before she became a personal banker, she spent a lot of time caring for her agoraphobic mother.  She wants to win the money for her.

The Hunters identify her as the weak link, as they think she is disorganised.  Case-in-point, she is wearing a bright yellow jacket which can be spotted from a mile away.  And worse, as she is running, her backpack busts open and everything falls out.  She has to spend vital seconds packing everything back up, which is enough time for the Hunter's helicopter team to spot her.  The Hunters send a ground team to catch her.

Knowing she is standing out like a sore thumb, Loren ducks under a flyover and loses the jacket.  With the Hunters seconds away, she escapes by hitchhiking a ride out of the city centre.  From there, she is driven 300 miles to Fort William in Scotland by her cousin.  It's here we learn that she has lived a very sheltered life.  The Hunters search through Loren's home and interrogate her mother who claims it is unlike Loren to have a fully-thought out plan.

However, the Hunters find a vague itinerary in her bedroom.  For me, this is a rookie error.  Loren should have known the Hunters would search her home, so she shouldn't leave a paper itinerary just lying around.  She shouldn't have written anything down in the first place, but, rather committed to memory.  However, as previously discussed, Loren isn't the type to plan things like this.  Loren has also received a lot of backlash online for using this tactic, which I don't think is entirely fair.

It's always easy to say these types of things sitting at the sofa at home.  But when you're in that situation with the pressure building, it is easy to make mistakes.  Last year, Alex Ayling made a schoolboy error where he told his getaway driver the exact place to find him, which wouldn't be so bad, if the Hunters weren't listening in.  Alex went onto win.  In season 2, Nick Cummings was also an unlikely winner.  It is only early and Loren did make a mistake.  But she doesn't deserve the criticism she received.

While the Hunters suspect the itinerary could be a trap, they see that she has plans to travel to Fort William.  Knowing it is only a small village, they tell local businesses to watch out for Loren.

While in Fort William, Loren stumbles upon the Ben Nevis distillery and explains her situation to the workers there.  They tell her to go to the North Face car park where they have a car she can use.  After promising not to grass her up, they promptly grass her up.  The Hunters send a ground team to the distillery, but they're too slow to catch Loren.

Not knowing how close she came, she meets more locals and asks if she can camp on their land.  They agree, but also warn her about the Hunters in the area.  She decides not to stay there and the locals drive her to safety before the Hunters can catch her.

The next fugitives are Paul James and Nicholas Batchelor.  Both of them are recovering drug addicts with Nick serving time for his drug offences.  To aid the fugitives, a new rule has been introduced.  If so they recruit an accomplice to help them.  Nick and Paul use their accomplices to help them escape Liverpool city centre.  However, the Hunters catch them on CCTV and send ground teams to intercept.

But Nick and Paul ask two of their friends to act as decoys.  The plan is for them to distract the Hunters by diving onto public transport allowing Nick and Paul to escape.  While the plan works for a little while, the Hunters identify the decoys as being just that.  However, the plan has worked enough for Nick and Paul to reach Cromer, Norfolk.  They were driven there by their associate David Seaman.

On Nick and Paul's social media, the Hunters learn more about Nick and Paul's past as drug addicts.  They see that they have been members of various support groups and suspect they will be using their network of recovering addicts to aid them.  The Hunters focus on one such associate - the aforementioned David Seaman.  They monitor his calls and find he's called up another associate of Nick and Paul - George Goody who will drive them to another location.

However, when George is 45 minutes late to the rendeyvous, desperation drives Nick to call him up through a burner phone.  The Hunters track the call and send teams to intercept.  Turns out that George screwed up and drove to the wrong rendeyvous.  But he corrects his error and picks up the boys to drive them to Bristol along a series of A roads.  The Hunters use ANPR to track George's car, where they discover Nick and Paul's plan to go to Bristol.

Once at Bristol, Nick and Paul hole up at the house of their friend, Caroline Hogan.  However, the Hunters have identified Caroline Hogan as a port in the storm and send ground teams to intercept.  Meanwhile, the boys plan to lie low at Caroline's - wash their clothes, eat some good food, before moving on.  They don't want to become too comfortable or they'll let their guard down.  But then, in the next shot, we see them smoking outside, which undermines their plan.

While, the Hunters think they've found Nick and Paul, they decide to keep a low profile, in case they spook the locals who in turn will warn Nick and Paul.  But the Hunters screw up and are caught snooping around a field by one of Caroline's neighbours.  Back at the house, we see Nick and Paul becoming increasingly paranoid.  When they see an unfamiliar car approach, they fear it's the Hunters, but it turns out to be the Piano Tuner.

If they're panicking like this on the first day, they're going to be in trouble further down the line.  The neighbour warns them about the Hunters.  Thoroughly spooked, Nick and Paul have a big choice to make.  With the Hunters closing in, just where do they run to next?

Top 3 tips for going on the run

1. Don't write things down.  Commit them to memory.
2. If you're using decoys, make sure they're wearing similar clothes to you and are of a similar build.
3. Invest in a good bag that won't fall apart when you're running around.

And, as always, if you're going on the run, don't tell me your plan in the comments below.  The Hunters could and probably are watching.

The Hostile Hospital Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

The Wide Window Review

The Miserable Mill Review

The Austere Academy review

The Ersatz Elevator review

Dear Reader,

if you think that after seven installments, the lives of the Baudelaires would have improved, then you are sorely wrong.  Within this sorry episode, the Baudelaires encounter fire, mysteries and a severe amount of paperwork.  There is very little happiness or joy in this episode and so I beg you to read a review of a happier TV series.

It's safe to say that after the Vile Village, the Baudelaires are at the lowest they've ever been.  Not only have they been separated from the Quagmires, but they have also been framed for murder.  In the last episode, we saw Count Olaf capture Jacques Snicket and trick everyone into thinking Snicket was Olaf, before murdering him and framing the Baudelaires.

From here the Baudelaires go on the lam, a phrase which here means, they have to go on the run from the law.  They run away from the Village of Fowl Devotees, where they then encounter the Last Chance General Store in the middle of the desolate wastelands.  And they meet none other than Count Olaf there.  I've said this before but having Count Olaf appear right at the beginning of the episode is becoming a tired motif.

The best villains are ones who are unpredictable and the fact that we can bank on Olaf appearing at the start of every episode makes him predictable and thus boring.  He's quickly losing his menace.  Anyway, he gives chase to the Baudelaires who only escape by virtue of the VFD or Volunteers Fighting Disease.  This group of hippies believe that singing and positive thinking is the best way to get better.  The VFD were a great installment - a rare bit of light relief in a program that was getting even darker.  I also think they served to criticise anti-vaccinators or critics of modern medicine, claiming that it's a business designed to make money for the company fat cats.

The parody continues when VFD takes the Baudelaires to the Heimlich Hospital - an underfunded hospital, which prioritises paperwork above all.  From here, it's clear where the satire in this episode lies - of the medical industry in general.  The satire focusses on hospitals suffering from budget cuts and prioritising paperwork than patients.  Things are so bad that Heimlich Hospital is only half built and the constructed half has dim lighting and dirty corridors.  It's interesting considering that ASOUE is American where healthcare is privatised.  You'd expect these types of hospitals in countries such as Britain, where I'm based, where the desperately underfunded NHS is falling apart - only being supported by the countless, hard-working doctors and nurses.

Anyway, when the Baudelaires arrive at the hospital, they meet the severe Babs - the Dean of Medicine.  VFD goes off to start singing to all of the patients, while the Baudelaires go to the Library of Records to find answers to the mysteries surrounding their lives.  From there, they meet the librarian Hal, a kindly and trusting man with poor eyesight.  He is dedicated to filing records, but not to reading them under any circumstances.  

However, hot on their heels are Olaf, Esme Squalor and their henchmen, wearing their ridiculous disguises.  But they're stopped in their tracks by Babs who insists they fill in paperwork, going so far to claim that paperwork makes the money go round.  We also learn a little about Esme Squalor's motivations.  Unlike Olaf who is solely interested in the Baudelaires' fortune, Esme wants the mysterious sugar bowl, which she claims that Beatrice stole from her.  Who is Beatrice? We don't know yet.

From here, Count Olaf devises a plan to incapacitate the mentally unstable Babs in a scene , which wouldn't look out of place in a horror movie.  There were lots of references to famous horror films, but this chase scene was well-shot.  Dim lighting, quirky angles and scary music made for a great little homage to horror films of old.  The scheme works and leaves Olaf in firm control of the hospital.

Having been unable to gain access any files with Hal around, the Baudelaires decide to swap a set of fake keys with Hal's keys and they break into the library at night.  Knowing that Hal trusts them, the Baudelaires wrestle with the immorality of this decision, but they decide this is for the greater good.  This in itself adds a moral dimension to the show.  As book-readers know, as the Baudelaires' situation grows more and more direr, they have to do more immoral things.  But are they doing the wrong things for the right reasons? Are the things they're doing right? Could they ever be right?

They break into the library and discover the Snicket File - an old movie reel where Jacques Snicket reveals he is the brother of the author of ASOUE - Lemony Snicket, and also reveals that there may have been a survivor of a fire.  Which survivor? Which fire? We don't know, as Esme Squalor breaks into the Library of Records and chases after the Baudelaires.  Klaus and Sunny escape, but Violet is caught by Esme and the first part of this episode ends with one of our protagonists in real danger for the first time.  Separating our protagonists is always a good way of raising the stakes, as we get to see how they act when they have to depend on solely themselves.  We also see how far they'll go to become reunited with their family and friends.

And how far do the Baudelaires go? Well, to search for their sister without being spotted, Klaus and Sunny disguise themselves as Doctor Faustus.  While looking for a patient list to find Violet, they meet VFD and then see Count Olaf disguised as a doctor.  There's a great moment where both parties instantly see through each other's disguises, but can't say anything, for fear of revealing themselves to VFD.  However, the Baudelaires do manage to steal Count Olaf's patient list.

Meanwhile, Violet tries escaping with Babs, but they're quickly caught again and Violet is anaesthetised.  While it's nice to see our protagonist take some action, this seemed like a bit of a pointless endeavour, which didn't accomplish anything for the narrative.  

But the two younger Baudelaires realise Violet's name has been written in anagram form and quickly deduce what room she has been hidden on.  However, Olaf has already taken her away for surgery - a cranioectomy, a word which here means, the removal of a head of a teenage girl so that a dastardly villain can steal her fortune, and he requests for none other than Dr Faustus to perform the surgery.  

Playing for time, Klaus begins stalling, recounting his knowledge of knives and surgery.  The ploy keeps everyone distracted enough for him to turn off the anaesthesia, leading to Violet waking up.  Just as it looks like the plan hasn't worked, Klaus claims that the correct paperwork hasn't been filled out, meaning he cannot continue the operation.

However, I think more could have been done to increase the tension of this scene.  As this is a kid's show, it is unlikely that Violet's head would have ever been sawn off, but I think they could have drawn out Klaus' stalling a little more to really amp up the suspense.

Esme Squalor then demands that Klaus gives her item she's been looking for in exchange for Violet's life.  Thinking he means the Snicket File, instead of the Sugar Bowl, he hands it over.  Olaf then reveals Klaus' identity to everyone.  And this is when Hal, having discovered his library being broken into, arrives and begins accusing the Baudelaires.  While this is happening, Olaf watches the Snicket File and discovers there has been a survivor of the fire.  In a fit of rage, he destroys the file, inadvertently setting fire to the whole hospital.

The Baudelaires escape through a window, while being pursued by Olaf's henchperson of an indeterminate gender.  Meanwhile, Olaf and his henchpeople all escape the fire and prepare to drive to safety.  This includes the Henchperson of Indeterminate Gender who in the book 

SPOILER ALERT

perishes in the fire.  This was an interesting departure from the book, but a welcome one I think.  The henchperson of Indeterminate Gender is one of the funniest of Olaf's cronies and I would miss them if they died.  Maybe the producers thought that this would be too dark of an addition to a show, which is more of a comedy.

Anyway, the Baudelaires realise that their only option is to climb into the boot of Count Olaf's car.  They climb into the belly of the beast and allow Olaf unwittingly drives them away to their next misadventure.  And in the very last shot of the episode, we see an unknown set of hands grabbing the sugar bowl from the hospital.  Who could it be? Jacquelyn or Larry-the-Waiter who were thankfully absent from this episode?  Maybe it was Olivia Caliban who's also been absent.  I reckon it could be Kit Snicket.  Book-readers already know who I'm talking about.

VFD and Cultural References

1. Volunteers Fighting Diseases is the only VFD reference I picked up on.

2. Dr Faustus is a reference to Dr Faust, a German folktale about an academic called Faust who sold his soul to the devil in return for unlimited knowledge.

3. There were two references to adaptations of Stephen King books here.  During the scene where Count Olaf is terrorising Babs, we see the two white-faced powdered women holding balloons, like in It, and standing like the twins in the Shining.  Furthermore, when the henchperson of Indeterminate Gender breaks into the room where the Baudelaires have been hiding, they say "here I am.  Nurse Lucafont," a great reference to the iconic "Here's Johnny" scene within the Shining.

4. At the Last Chance General Store, when the shopkeeper asks if he recognises the Baudelaires, Klaus replies that they're child-actors.  While I have found some of the meta-humour growing old, this was a hilarious exception to the rule.

5. And finally, the Heimlich Hospital is obviously named after the Heimlich Manoeuvre.  

The Vile Village Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

The Wide Window Review

The Miserable Mill Review

The Austere Academy review

The Ersatz Elevator review

Dear Reader,

if you are reading this blog, then obviously you like to read distressing stories of attractive and intelligent orphans confronting horrific events, such as stringent rules, villains and being burnt at the stake.  If this is the case with you, then I beg you to read happier tales.  Meanwhile, I will work to keep this blog where it belongs, at the bottom of the Search Engine rankings

If the Austere Academy was a parody of education, and the Ersatz Elevator of wealth and fashion, then the Vile Village is one of small town life and of the Spaghetti Western genre.

Their latest misadventure sees the Baudelaire orphans arrive in the village of VFD or the Village of Fowl Devotees - a small village which is populated by crows and residents who adhere to strict rules.  Under the aphorism of "it takes a village to raise a child," the whole village will raise the Baudelaire orphans.  Well, their handyman Hector will, while the rest will just boss them around and make them do their chores.  Meanwhile, Hector is too skittish to speak up against them - he is just the latest in a long line of helpful, but ineffective adults.  However, Hector is brave enough to defy the townspeople in private, by building a self-sustaining mobile home in his secret barn.

However, where the Baudelaires go, Count Olaf is sure to follow.  And where Count Olaf goes, so does Jacques Snicket and Olivia Caliban.  Snicket confronts Olaf in the town saloon, where it is revealed that Olaf was once a good man who fought evil and fires alongside Snicket.  However, then something happened which catapulted him into a lifetime of villainy.  These were interesting nuggets, which helped to develop Olaf's character.  But Snicket gets the best of Olaf and imprisons him in the town jail.  And then the police catch him, send him to jail and the Baudelaires live happily ever after.  Right?

Wrong! Nothing ever goes right in this story.  Actually, that's not true, the Baudelaires discover couplets that could be written by none other than Isadora Quagmire.  The Baudelaires suspect that within these couplets is a clue to the Quagmires' location.  But before they can investigate any further, they encounter no other, than their previous guardian and Count Olaf's girlfriend, Esme Squalor, disguised as police officer Luciana, who reports the news that Count Olaf has been captured.  But it's really Jacques Snicket who has been crudely made up to look like Count Olaf.  Although, curiously, Snicket also has a tattoo of an eye on his ankle.

And where is the real Count Olaf? Disguised as the ultra-annoying Detective Dupin.  When the townspeople want to just fine Snicket for his supposed villainy, Olaf calls for him to be burnt at the stake and then mob mentality takes hold.  Snicket is taken to jail.  The Baudelaires plead for Hector to help them free Snicket, but when he refuses, they take it upon themselves.

However, their rescue plan goes awry when it emerges that Snicket has been murdered.  And on that note, the first part of this episode ends.

And just when you thought things couldn't get any worse for the Baudelaires, Olaf then frames for Snicket's murder, by using the very items, they were using to break Snicket out of jail.  This was a nice diversion from the books, where Olaf plants evidence.  I preferred the TV version, as it shows how the plans of our heroes can backfire on them.  Anyway, the Baudelaires are sent to jail with Hector being too skittish to defend them.

Once in jail, the Baudelaires figure out that the Quagmires are trapped in the fountain in the centre of town.  Klaus also comes to the sad conclusion that today is his 13th birthday, which was a nice human moment.  With this realisation, Klaus becomes resigned to his fate, claiming that nothing short of Deus Ex machina will save them now.  But trusty Violet uses their prison rations, as well as a wooden bench to create a battering ram to smash their way out of jail.  From there, they free the Quagmires only to discover that the townspeople are still baying for their blood.

Deus ex Machina then arrives in the form of Jacquelyn and Larry-the-Waiter.  However, they do little to deter the townpeople who then tie them up.  This was a nice example of how unrealistic Deus ex Machina can be, but it is also another example of how useless Jacquelyn and Larry actually are.  I can't think of how many times they've actually helped the Baudelaires.

Anyway, Hector finally gains the courage to start up his self-sustaining, hot-air mobile home, just in time to rescue the Baudelaires and Quagmires.  And so, all five orphans and Hector live happily ever after.  Right? Wrong.  Hector drops a ladder, which the Quagmires are able to climb up to safety.  However, their slow progress, allows Esme Squalor to begin firing at them using a harpoon gun.  When it becomes obvious that the mobile home can't take anymore damage, the Baudelaires decide to let their friends fly to safety, rather than endanger them.

Meanwhile, Esme Squalor unintentionally harpoons one of the VFD crows, breaking the most sacred rule of the town.  The townspeople turn on Olaf and Esme, who only just escape.  Now fugitives, the Baudelaires ride off into the sunset, accompanied by a score, which could be straight out of a Sergio Leone Western.

I still continue to enjoy this show.  Sure, the meta-humour, as well as Lemony Snicket's interludes have lost their novelty, they are still enjoyable to watch.  But what I love most is just how different parts of society are parodied.  In perhaps the darkest installment yet, VFD is ravaged by mob psychology, as the townspeople become suspicious of outsiders.  The set design and production continues to amaze.  From the Sergio Leonesque score and the Baudelaires riding of into the sunset, we already know this to be a parody of a Western.  But there also sweeping landscape shots of the Hinterlands - wastelands desolate enough to be reminiscent of the Western frontier.  Detective Dupin is a grotesque parody of John Wayne/Clint Eastwood cowboy characters - the characters who are always cool, regardless of how dire the situation is.  And don't forget the saloon and town jail, which wouldn't be out of place in one of the Dollars' films.

But what surprised me the most about this episode is how dark it was.  Zack Handlen of the AV Club has written extensively about how ASOUE has always felt like a low-stakes drama.  The threat Count Olaf poses is underminded by his constant blundering.  True this is a kid's show, but even kid's shows need threatening villains.  And this is what this episode had.  By killing the heroic Jacques Snicket, and having the Baudelaires almost being burnt at the stake was an effective way of injecting some immediacy into a show that is becoming overfamiliar.

VFD and cultural references.

1. Village of Fowl Devotees - the most obvious reference was the only one I spotted.
2. The deconstruction of Deus Ex Machina was effective to watch