The Pianist Review

Number 48 on the top 1000 films of all time is the powerful but heart-breaking film: Roman Polanski's 'the Pianist.'

How it all goes down:

Based on the memoir of the real-life Holocaust survivor Wladyslaw Szpilman, the Pianist follows his struggles of living as a Jewish man, as he and his family are subjected to increasing anti-semitic discrimination with Nazi-occupied Poland.  Beginning in 1939 and continuing to 1945, the film documents the horrific conditions that Jewish people lived under and what some, like Wladyslaw Spzilman, had to do to survive.

What worked:

As you would expect any film about the Holocaust to, the Pianist is brutal, horrific, unrelenting and extremely powerful.  Quite rightly, it doesn't shy away from the horrors that happened during the Holocaust.  Instead, it explicitly and graphically portrays these horrors for the viewer.  This is where the film rises to new heights.  As a viewer myself, I have heard about the Holocaust and the awful conditions that Jewish people and others were subjected to, but to see it in front of me was something completely different.  One of the most brutal moments of violence is when Nazis storm into a Jewish household where a family is eating dinner.  They demand that all of the family stand up to salute Hitler, but one of the men is confined to a wheel-chair and thus unable to stand up.  Without hesitation, the Nazis take the man to the window and throw him out of it.  This was a powerful and visceral reminder of the merciless and sadistic nature of the Nazis.  However, this act of violence was just one in a long line of many that all served well to keep me thoroughly engaged with the film.

Even though this film did well in depicting the brutal conditions that the Jewish people lived under, it did even better at depicting the panic and desperation that they felt.  In one of the film's most powerful scenes, a starving man tries to steal, essentially a bowl of slop, out of the hands of a starving woman.  In their struggle, the slop falls to the floor and the man immediately gets down on his hands and knees and gobbles up the slop directly from the cold, hard ground.  This scene was uncomfortable to watch, but a brilliant depiction of the terrible conditions within the Warsaw Ghetto.

The Pianist also engages excellently with the theme of family.  Wladyslaw comes from a large family all of which are vastly loyal and protective of each other.  Another powerful scene comes when the Szpilmans are waiting to be transported to Treblinka, they spend the last of their money on a tiny bar of caramel that they share as a last meal.  Fortunately, Wladyslaw is rescued at the last minute by a friend in the Jewish Ghetto Police, but his family are sent to Treblinka to never be seen again.  This was a touching scene and one that demonstrates the importance of family.

Polanski's direction is magnificent.  His depiction of the Holocaust is immediate, raw and doesn't let up for a minute.  He kept me engaged throughout the whole film and it is to be strongly applauded that rather than holding the viewer's hand, he throws them straight into the deep end.  Quite rightly, the Holocaust is depicted in all of its horror.

The acting and music were also superb.  Adrien Brody who played Wladyslaw Szpilman quite deservedly won the Academy Award for Best Actor.  Unsurprisingly, the soundtrack is largely comprised of piano pieces all of which fit the film beautifully.  In places they are understated, in others they are powerful.

Originally, I was going to criticise this film for how it has a happy ending.  After Szpilman escapes from the Warsaw Ghetto, he is hidden by the Polish resistance movement.  However, during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, Nazis discover Wladlyslaw's hideout and he is forced back into the ghetto where he hides from the Nazis in the attic of a ruined building.  There he is discovered by a German soldier called Hosenfeld who rather than reports him keeps him hidden and brings him food.  Initially, I would have preferred it if Szpilman had died at the end of the film, as I think it is only appropriate that a film concerning the tragic nature of the Holocaust should have a tragic ending.  However, in hindsight, I realise that if the film had had a sad ending, this would have been catastrophic for two reasons.

Firstly, it would have been gravely insulting to the memory of the real Szpilman who survived the Holocaust thanks to Hosenfeld, but, secondly, this would have undermined one of the greatest strengths of the film: how it demonstrates the complexity of human characters.  In the Pianist, it is not always clear which character is on which side and at times morality becomes blurred. For example, the Polish resistance worker Szales who is supposed to be looking after Szpilman pockets all of the money that he is collecting to supposedly buy food for Szpilman.  Through how Hosenfeld chooses to save Szpilman instead of shooting him on the spot portrays how it can be difficult to clearly distinguish between good and evil.  Just like how Hitler scapegoated the entire Jewish population for Germany's suffering after World War 1, we scapegoat every single German soldier who fought under his command as a murderous, brutal thugs who killed without conscience.  As this film quite rightly shows us, this was not always the case.  Things are never that black and white.

What didn't work:

Whilst I can't criticise the film for its ending, one thing I didn't like about the film was how it constantly jumped from scene to scene.  The film begins with Szpilman and his family in their home before they're moved to the Warsaw Ghetto, where Szpilman escapes and moves from home to home before finally being driven back to the ghetto.  I didn't like how the location changed so often, as it really took me out of the film as a viewer.  Just as I getting used to a new location and scene, it would change again.  I found these constant scene changes distracting and detrimental to the film as a whole.

Another thing I didn't like was how the film barely touched on the Warsaw Uprisings. Even though, they were an important backdrop to the Pianist, we were shown the build-up and aftermath of the uprisings and not the uprisings themselves.  I was vastly disappointed by this, as I felt that the Warsaw Uprising is too important of an event to be made light of.    

What was ugly:

In its portrayal of the atrocities of the Holocaust, the Pianist includes numerous scenes of brutality. The Pianist demonstrated how the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto were subject to routine violence including executions that happened every morning.  This has to be one of the ugliest scenes in the film.

Rating: 

Awesome.

This film is powerfully done.  It does not shy away from showing audiences the horrors of the Holocaust, rather forcing them to confront what happened.  It has great music, acting and does well to portray the complexities of human characters.  If only the Pianist had focused more on the Warsaw Uprising and hadn't jumped around so much, then it would have been superlative.  A great film, but perhaps one too traumatic to watch again.  Whatever way you look at it, Roman Polanski does brilliantly to really convey how for some victims of the Holocaust, it seemed like apocalypse now to them.

The Prestige Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my previous review of Cinema Paradiso

Whilst the Prestige is number 59 on the top 1000 films of all time, the reason I'm watching and reviewing it now is because I recently watched it with my friends Lucy and Callum.  Lucy recommended the film to us and I'm glad she did.  It was a great film.

How it all goes down:

Set at the end of the 19th century, the Prestige follows the story of two rival magicians: Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale.) The two magicians were originally friends and performed regularly together as shills for "Milton the Magician." Michael Caine also features John Cutter, as Milton's Ingenuier (stage engineer) and Piper Perabo plays Angier's wife Julia who is Milton's assistant.  When Julia dies in a stage illusion as the result of Borden's actions, Angier instantly begins to hate him and starts to bear a grudge.  The two quickly become rivals.  The rest of the film focuses on them constantly trying to outcompete the other by coming up with more and more original and new tricks.

The Good:

The Prestige was directed by Christopher Nolan.  He also directed Memento and Inception, so there was no doubt that this film would be a mind-boggler and a mind-boggler it certainly is.  The film begins with Alfred Borden going on trial for Robert Angier's murder and then there is an extended flashback explaining what has led to this event.  Nolan constantly cuts back and forth from the two different timelines, which does make the film slightly confusing and also difficult to follow.  However, I also argue that this is a strength of the film too.  I think that the cross-cutting makes the film more engaging for the viewer as it demands more of the viewer's attention.

Another reason why I liked the film was its subject matter.  I haven't seen too many films about magic so this was new and different for me.  That notwithstanding, the film isn't necessarily about magic.  It more focuses on the showmanship and misdirection that is present within magic.  It made me think of "magicians" like David Blaine and Derren Brown who aim to entertain an audience as much as they amaze them.  Also, I don't think showmanship and misdirection is something that I've ever really thought about that much, but I can see why it is vital to a magician's act.  

Like any Christopher Nolan film, the Prestige is multi-layered and works on a number of different levels.  I really liked how this film included Nikola Tesla, played by David Bowie, and Thomas Edison and commented on the rivalry that the two shared.  I thought that this was a good subplot, which reflected well the nature of the main plot.  

I also really liked how the film commented on themes of obsession and devotion.  It demonstrated how it is all too easy to become too focused on your work and as a result lose sight of all other aspects of your life.  For example, both Alfred Borden and Robert Angier lose wives and lovers, as a result of their fierce rivalry.  This rivalry culminates within the film's climax, where Alfred Borden determined to create the best trick ever, creates "the Transported Man trick," which sees him enter a cabinet on one side of the stage and then exit another cabinet on the other side.  Robert Angier becomes obsessed with trying to figure out this trick and showcasing his own version.  He initially uses a double, but then approaches Tesla to create a teleportation machine for him.  The film built to this moment well and it was extremely dramatic.

I thought the film ended well.  The twist was good, unexpected and very logical.  SPOILER ALERT! It is revealed that Alfred Borden performed the Transported Man trick through the help of his secret identical twin brother who has been masquerading as his assistant.  Afterwards, it is then revealed that the teleportation machine that Tesla created also creates exact duplicates of the matter it teleports.  Angier was using this method to do his own version of the Transported Man trick.  I thought that this was a sensible and clever way to end the film.

What didn't work:

Whilst this film is to be praised on its acting, direction, story-telling and characters, I feel that at times it skirted over some important issues which should have been focused on more.  For example, due to Alfred Borden's rivalry with Robert Angier, he drives a wedge in between he and his wife Sarah who becomes so distressed at his husband's actions that she is driven to depression, alcoholism and suicide.  Sarah's fate is only ever mentioned on screen and never explicitly shown in film.  This is definitely a significant event and I think it should have received more screentime than just one or two lines.

Another example sees Robert Angier falling in love with his new assistant Olivia Wenscombe (Scarlett Johansson) but he drives her into Borden's arms after he sends her to spy on Borden for him.  Again, Olivia and Borden's relationship is only really talked about the film and it isn't given a great deal of screentime.  I would have been very interested to watch the beginning of Olivia and Borden's relationship, rather than just see it be talked about.

What was ugly:

The ugly side of obsession and devotion is portrayed in this film when Alfred's twin voluntarily agrees to have two of his fingers chopped off to make the Transported Man trick seem realistic.  In an earlier part of the film, Borden performs the Bullet Catch trick, but loses two fingers, as the result of sabotage by Robert Angier.

Rating:

Awesome.

This was film was engaging, different and very original.  It was interesting and had great acting and characters.  I really liked the film's narrative style, but I felt that it the film left just a little too much out.  This notwithstanding it is still clear to see why magicians were held in such high regard in the 19th century, as much as pianists in the 21st century.

Cinema Paradiso Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my review of the Godfather

Number 47 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time is the 1999 Italian film: Cinema Paradiso (Cinema of Paradise)

How it all goes down:

The film opens on the main character Salvatore receiving the news that a person called Alfredo has died, which distresses him greatly.  The film the flashbacks to his childhood in the small Sicilian village Giancaldo a few years after World War 2.  Salvatore is depicted as a mischievous but kind-hearted child.  Whilst he underperforms in school, his greatest love is for the Cinema Paradiso, which is the heart of his small town.  The projectionist, Alfredo, mentors Salvatore in the ways of the cinema under the strict condition that once Salvatore is old enough, he will leave Giancaldo and the cinema to live the rest of his life.

What worked:

I really liked this film, as it was deeply touching on a personal level,  Set only a few years after World War 2, fears of Fascism and Communism are still high and the destruction that the war caused is still evident.  However, the cinema is the fixture of the small town and a source of great pride.  This is why I enjoyed the film,.  It was heart-warming to see this community that had been damaged by the war be able to untie around the Cinema Paradiso.  This was a really nice idea and one that worked on screen.  It was so effective due to all of the different characters.  For example, one of the audience members is a man who falls asleep during every single screening.  The other audience members then try to throw things into his open mouth and he wakes up cursing and screaming.  This is a running joke throughout the film and one that works well.

As well as uniting a community, this film works so well, as it highlights the cinema's effect on specific individuals.  For example, the cinema is deeply important to Salvatore as it gives him so much joy.  He fails academically, yet is able to succeed through working in the cinema.  The Cinema Paradiso is also a point of great pride for the projectionist Alfredo, as it gives him a sense of purpose.  The relationship between these two characters is one of the best parts of the film.  After Salvatore's father dies in the war, Alfredo reluctantly acts as a surrogate father.  Alfredo is hesitant to teach Salvatore about being a projectionist, as he wants the child to do bigger and better things than sitting in a dusty projection room.

 However, despite Alfredo's warnings, Salvatore cannot stay away.  The pair display a strong loyalty and friendship which is endearing to watch.  When a fire breaks out in the projection room trapping Alfredo inside, Salvatore selfless runs in and drags his friend out.  This moment was surprisingly dramatic and I was shocked to find myself so embroiled in the action.  Even though, Alfredo is blinded by the fire and the cinema is destroyed, the townspeople rally together to rebuild the cinema, employing Salvatore, who has been taught everything about projectionism from Alfredo, as the cinema's projectionist.  These moments earmark the best parts of the film: how the love for cinema can bring out the best in people. 

What didn't work:

Salvatore was given a love story which did not work.  Salvatore runs the projection room for ten years, from a small child to a young man.  And as a young man he falls in love with a girl called Elena.  Whilst it is only natural that this would happen, the love story felt contrived and forced.  Elena is initally dismissive of Salvatores affections and in response, he waits outside her window every night for her to change her mind.  Whilst he might think this is sweet and romantic, it is actually creepy and stalkerish.  What's more surprising is that it actually works.  I can't quite remember how this narrative ends or whether it is given a proper ending, but the fact that I can't remember it signifies how weak a narrative it is.

What was ugly:

Salvatore selflessly running into the fire to save Alfredo is a great example of courage and heroism in such an ugly situation.

Rating:

Good.

This film is definitely one to watch.  Its different and intriguing narrative makes it entertaining to watch and it also mixes together well comedy and drama.  Just don't expect too much from the weak love story.  Either way I think this film is well-deserving of the high prestige it received.

The Godfather Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my review of Spectre

Whilst this film is number 2 on the top 1000 films of all time that's not why I'm reviewing it.  I am reviewing it, because I am writing my dissertation on Mario Puzo's the Godfather and the Godfather trilogy of films.  As I have read the Godfather, I will be comparing the two throughout this review.  And also it's just a great film, isn't it?

How it all goes down:

Meet the Corleone family, your average Italian-American family consisting of family patriarch Vito Corleone (Marlon Brandon,) his wife Carmela, their eldest son, the hot-headed Santino 'Sonny,' (James Caan) their middle son, the weak and uncharismatic Frederico or 'Fredo,' their youngest son, the quiet and reserved Michael (Al Pacino) and their youngest child Constanzia 'Connie,' who is constantly beaten by her husband Carlo Rizzi.  However, the Corleones are a family with a twist.  Vito Corleone is the head of one of the biggest Mafia families in New York and Sonny is his underboss.  Whilst Michael Corleone begins the film as distant outsider who despite having no wish to become involved in the family business, progressively becomes more embroiled until he eventually succeeds his father as boss of the Corleone family.  In Michael's succession, he is assisted by family consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall,) the three caporegimes Peter Clemenza, Salvatore Tessio and Paulie Gatto and the family's violent enforcer Luca Brasi.

What worked:

Oh boy, what didn't work would be a better question.  This film is number 2 on the top 1000 films of all time only beaten by the Shawshank Redemption (click here to read my review) and I'm just going to come right out and say it.  The Godfather is a better film and is more deserving of the number one spot.  No disrespect to Shawshank which is a great film in its own right, but the Godfather engages with so many different issues and themes that it works on a much deeper and more detailed level than the Shawshank Redemption. 

The Godfather's presentation of its central theme, family, is one of the best parts of the film.  It simultaneously sanctifies the family, where members are not only loyal and protective to each other, but also to outsiders, especially the German-Irish Tom Hagen.  These members then use this loyalty to justify their violent and destructive behaviour.  Vito Corleone has the power to grant favours for his close friends and family, regardless of their immorality.  Sonny Corleone beats his sister's husband after he finds out that she is being abused by him.  After Michael is punched by the corrupt police captain McCluskey who is being supported by the Tattaglia family, the Corleones respond by killing the son of the Tattaglia boss.

After the Tattaglia family in conjunction with the Turkish drug baron Virgil Sollozzo perform a failed assassination attempt on Vito Corleone, Michael who hitherto has been unwilling to get involved, willingly volunteers to shoot Sollozzo along with his bodyguard the corrupt police captain McCluskey.  All of these men justify their actions through the pretence of protecting their families.  This then raises a great moral dilemma for the viewer.  How far would a man go to protect his family? Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread if it's to feed a starving family? The Godfather completely subverts the notion of the family being a place of sanctuary and I think that's one reason why it works so well.  It takes the viewer's expectations and completely turns them on their head.

Another great thing about the Godfather is its authenticity.  Everything just felt real from the setting to the props to the dialogue to the costume.  I really felt like the film-makers had put a lot of effort into making everything realistic as possible, even if the level of violence is somewhat dramatised. 

The characters and characterisation also really helped to add to the authenticity.  Great long passages in the book are devoted to explaining about characters like Sonny, Vito and Michael, yet within the film, the same level of detail is conveyed within about half the time.  This is partly due to great script-writing, but also to great acting.  Marlon Brando is brilliant as Vito Corleone.  Even if you have to turn your volume to maximum to even hear him, he conveys perfectly the cool, calculating manner of Don Corleone.  In actuality, I think that Marlon Brando's quietly-spoken dialogue really added to the character.  Don Corleone is man of persuasive logic who rarely makes threats or raises his voice or loses his temper.  Through how Marlon Brando whispers, Don Corleone's calm temper and disposition is conveyed brilliantly.

In the book, a detailed passage is dedicated to explaining Sonny's short temper, yet this is conveyed succinctly in the film, when Sonny smashes the camera of a photo-journalist who gets a little nosy at his sister's wedding.  This moment was reportedly improvised by James Caan.  The second son Fredo features even less in the film than he does in the book, but this fits in well with how he is described as uncharismatic and weak. 

Al Pacino is also great in this film, as it documents how his character Michael Corleone is transformed from quiet outsider to a ruthless Mafia Don.  Pacino portrays this transformation so well that it really is remarkable to behold.  Another great example of transformation is how Vito Corleone is transformed from the calm yet unrelenting Mafia Don to nothing more than a frail old man.  All credit to Marlon Brando for portraying this transformation so brilliantly.

The film was also interesting and engaging throughout.  Each idea and theme was explored in turn and never did they become muddled or confused.  Surprisingly for a film as long as three hours, the pacing was really good and it never felt like it was running on for too long or that the narrative was becoming stretched. 

And lastly, there is no way I can write a review of the Godfather without talking of the music.  The theme tune for this film, scored by Nino Rota, is just magical.  It captures everything the Godfather is about.  It's dark, eerie, ambiguous, melancholic, subtle yet refined.  As I've been writing my dissertation, I've been listening to it on repeat and it has proven to be great study music. 

What didn't work:

Nothing! Next!

No, seriously, there were a couple of things that bugged me.  Firstly, during a war meeting, two fish wrapped in Luca Brasi's bulletproof vest are delivered to the Corleones.  Sonny Corleone screams "what the hell is this," before Clemenza responds "it's a Sicilian message: Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes." I just don't find it realistic that Sonny would say this considering that he has been in the Mafia since he was a young man.  I think it would have been much better if Michael, who is more unfamiliar with Sicilian symbolism, asked this.

I also think that Paulie Gatto is too young to be a caporegime, especially with how, in the book, a big fuss is kicked up about Tom Hagen being consiligieri, due to his German-Irish ancestry and also how he's only thirty-five.  However, I am just nit-picking here and neither of these points really warrant severe criticism.

I could be a massive book elitist here and talk about how the film differs from the book.  However, for the most part they are quite faithful to Mario Puzo's original text and the changes they do make are mostly for the better. 

The book begins with a lengthy description of the undertaker Amerigo Bonasera standing in court waiting for the two young men who have beaten his daughter to be sentenced.  To his disgust they are set free and he resolves to see Vito Corleone who he hopes can deal out some rough justice.  The film instead opens with Amerigo Bonasera saying "I believe in America," before explaining how he and his family moved to America as they genuinely believed they could make a better life for themselves.  I loved how the film opened on this point, as it engages with the theme of the American Dream.  During the early 20th century, there was an influx of Italians immigrating to America under the promise of the American Dream, before being disillusioned with the harsh reality.  Amerigo Bonasera immigrated to America to provide the best possible life for his daughter and was rewarded by his daughter being brutally beaten and almost raped by two young men. 

The beginning of the book is further changed when, during his sister's wedding, Michael Corleone, acting as an exposition device, explains Mafioso terminology, such as Consigliere to his girlfriend Kay Adams.  Whilst this gets a little lengthy within the book, the film punctuates the exposition well with scenes from the wedding.

Another major change is the almost complete omission of the character Johnny Fontane, as well as the complete omission of his singing partner Nino Valenti, who other than the famous horse's head in the bed scene, plays little purpose within the film.  Whilst the book focuses on Fontane's backstory and his failed marriage, the film completely omits this.  I argue this is for the better, as Fontane is mainly tangential to the main narrative.  The film also omits the backstory of Vito Corleone, although from what I remember, this is touched on within the second film, which I will of course be reviewing.

When Vito Corleone is attempting to broker a peace with the mob families, the book gives the backstory of every single one of the families, which the film omits.  I think that if the film had talked about every character in detail then this would have slowed up the narrative and added unnecessary information.

Whilst I could go on and on about how the film differs from the book, the only change that annoyed me was how the film hardly mentioned Sonny Corleone's mistress Lucy Mancini.  After Sonny is killed, the Corleones take care of Lucy by sending her to Las Vegas where she begins a new relationship with Doctor Jules Segal, who is also omitted.  I don't like how this section was cut, because I feel that it's a perfect example of the loyalty that the Corleones pay to each other.  Whilst, Lucy is nothing more than Sonny's mistress, the family still goes to great lengths to make sure that she is taken care off.

What was Ugly:

I've heard rumours about Marlon Brando's mumbling diction, but I've never seen it before until now.

Rating:

Superlative.  Be serious now.  Was this film ever going to get any other rating? This film is intense, engaging, informative and interesting.  It interacts with so many themes and ideas, but never once does it become lost or confused.  The cast are all brilliant as is the characterisation and characters.  Again, no disrespect to the Shawshank Redemption, but never has a film been more deserving of the number 1 spot on the top 1000 films of all time than this one.  Watching this when it originally came out in the cinema would have been nothing short of paradise.

Click here to read my review of Cinema Paradiso



Spectre Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go my previous review of Dr Strangelove

So if you ignore every single James Bond film between the Man with the Golden Gun and Die Another Day, I have finally caught up on James Bond.

How it all goes down: 

The film opens in Mexico with James Bond (Daniel Craig) hunting down Marco Sciara, an assassin behind a terrorist attack.  Bond kills Sciara, but having stepped out of line once too often, he is taken off field duty and grounded.  Disobeying direct orders, he travels to Rome to attend Sciara's funeral and discovers that he is a member of Spectre, a criminal organisation that makes its first appearance since Diamonds are Forever.  Bond finds that Spectre is being headed by Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) and works to stop his plan to gain political power through his Nine Eyes Program.  The Nine Eyes program is designed to replace the 007 program by instead constructing a global surveillance and intelligence co-operation initiative between nine member states.

What worked:

What struck me instantly about this film was Daniel Craig.  Whilst, I didn't like his portrayl of Bond in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I feel that he has relaxed more into the role within Skyfall and Spectre.  The opening chase scene sees him calmly walking across the Mexican rooftops.  He does this confidently and suavely.  If this was Casino Royale of Quantum, I would have half-expected him to fall off.  

Similarly, to Skyfall, I also really liked this film due to how it was so character-driven.  Bond attends Sciarra's funeral to honour Judi Dench's M's final wishes.  He takes care of Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux) after her father, Mr White, kills himself.  I really liked the character-driven plot, as it made the film more identifiable and relatable.  I thought the broken family narrative worked well, as it is something that audiences could relate to.  It gave the film a good dramatic tension and kept it engaging.  Seeing the different characters interact with each other was much more interesting than watching explosion after chase scene after explosion after chase scene after explosion after chase scene after explosion.  That was tedious and repetitive right? Now you know how I feel after having watching Quantum of Solace.

The acting was great all around.  I've already mentioned Daniel Craig, but special mention has to go to Christoph Waltz.  Despite not having the most screentime, Christoph Waltz dominates and controls every scene that he appears in.  He is calm, calculating and utterly enthralling.  I also thought that the supporting cast were very good.  Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw who play M, Moneypenny and Q respectively played very well off each other.  It was nice to see the three of them actually do something in a film, as they all work well together.

One of the most enjoyable things about this film though was Madeline Swann.  It was great to see a Bond girl do something more than just have sex with Bond and die.  I really liked her character and Lea Sedoux portrayed her well.

What didn't work:

Thinking about it now, I think that the narrative wasn't as strong as it could be.  Whilst I really liked M, Q and Moneypenny working together in London to prevent C, the head of newly merged MI5 and MI6, from launching the Nine Eyes Program.  I find it a little disappointing that Ernst Blofeld had orchestrated the Nine Eyes Program.  I just think that this is a little unimpressive for Blofeld.  C was a strong enough villain to carry the Nine Eyes Program narrative and Blofeld could have had a separate narrative or one that went a little further than just gaining political power by creating a global surveillance network.  As leader of a criminal organisation, I expected Blofeld to be more ambitious than that.

What was Ugly:

Mr Hinx, Blofeld's violent enforcer, is introduced in a scene where he gouges out somebody's eyes, which was definitely the ugliest scene in the film.

Rating:

Good.

So, this film is good.  I thought the acting was commendable, the supporting cast was strong and Daniel Craig was great as Bond.  It's just a shame that Blofeld's motivations as a villain weren't nearly as ambitious or convincing as I expected them to be.  Either way, as Spectre was the villain that James Bond encountered in Dr No,it still very much is the Godfather of James Bond villains.

Click here to read my housemate Michael's review of Spectre

Click here to go to my review of the Godfather

Dr Strangelove or how I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my previous review of My Neighbour Totoro

Onto number 44 of the top 1000 greatest films of all time.

How it all goes down:

Made in the height of the Cold War and just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Dr Strangelove or how I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, focuses on the tensions felt by both the Americans and Russians in the aftermath of the arms race and the threat of mutually assured destruction.  The film follows the insane American General Ripper (Sterling Hayden) who after suspecting that the Soviet Union is planning on poisoning the water supply of the American people sends a wing of American fighters to drop nuclear bombs on Russia.  Only General Ripper has the power to recall these ships by using a secret code.

His executive officer, Captain Mandrake (Peter Sellers) desperately tries to stop him.  This narrative is paralleled with a separate storyline that sees President Merkin Muffley, also played by Peter Sellers, also desperately looking into how the nuclear missiles can be stopped with the help of the overly zealous General Buck Turgidson and the Soviet ambassador Alexei de Sadeski..  The stakes are raised higher when it is revealed that the Soviet Union have installed a "Doomsday Device:" many buried bombs jacketed with CoIbalt-Thorium G that will explode in the event of a nuclear strike, thus wiping out life on Earth.  President Muffley calls upon his scientific advisor, ex-Nazi Dr Strangelove, Peter Sellers in his third role, to help provide a solution.

This film is good.  It's not outstanding, but it's good.  I think one reason it worked is because it is really weird.  It's classified as a political satire black comedy film and I could definitely see the comedy in this film.  For a film that deals with topics as dark as mutually assured destruction and nuclear holocausts, it has to have some comedy to stop it from becoming too morbid.  The comedy in this film works exactly to this effect.  In what should be some of the film's most dramatic and tensest moments, the audience is greeted to some some seemingly out-of-place moments of comedy.  For example, during the scenes in the war-room, a scuffle breaks out between General Turgison and the Soviet Ambassador after the latter is found with a listening device.  The fact that this scuffle breaks out in the War Room amongst grown men who are diplomats and military advisors serves to break up the tension of this scene.  It is so abrupt and sudden that you can't help but laugh at it. 

Another example of the comedy is when Captain Mandrake who is desperately trying to place a call to the President to tell him of the deactivation code lacks the necessary change to make the call.  He, thus, orders an American colonel to shoot the lock of a vending machine so that Mandrake can use the change from there.  The American colonel responds that if  he gets into trouble for this then Mandrake will have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.  Again, this humour is bizarre, abrupt and seemingly out-of-place, yet it still works.  Whilst, it is weird, it again relaxes the tension of the scene. The suddenness of the incident completely subverts the viewer's expectations and keeps them interested in what's happening.  

Peter Sellers is undoubtedly the best part of this film.  He plays three separate roles, but he plays them so differently and so well, that all they seamlessly merge into one.  Each character is so different from one another, that it is difficult to believe that it just one actor who is playing them all.  From the stiff and proper Captain Mandrake to the more reserved President Muffley, whose telephone conversation with the Soviet Union Premier Dmitri Kissoff is absolutely hilarious, to the Dr. Strangelove who looks like an evil genius, Peter Sellers is great in every role.

I think that the film took a little while to get going.  The beginning wasn't as nearly as interesting or as engaging as the middle or ending of the film.  Whilst I definitely felt the tension as it progressively built through the film, I think the beginning was a little boring.  Also, whilst in some parts, the zany humour was effective, due to how it portrayed the farcical nature of the situation, in others it was just so weird that it detracted from the film.  For example, despite receiving the deactivation code, the Americans are able to recall all but one plane.  After the bomb doors of the plane gets stuck, the plane's pilot straddles the bomb to manually force them open.  When the bomb is eventually released, the pilot hollers and cheers as it falls to Earth. Whilst this was funny, I'm not sure how realistic it is.  

Also the ending was just plain weird.  It was too abrupt and sudden to feel like an ending.  The film ends with the hitherto wheelchair bound Dr. Strangelove suddenly being able to walk and screaming "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk," before the film cuts to a montage of nuclear detonations accompanied by Vera Lynn's "We'll meet Again." This was just plain weird and really didn't fit in with the rest of the film.  Whilst many moments of the film are anomalous, but still work, this was not one of them.  It was just too sudden and bizarre.

Don't get me wrong, I did like this film.  It was tense and funny, but it was just completely bizarre at times.  It was weird.  I'm not sure how else to describe it really.  Regardless, of its weirdness this film really was a complete spectacle to watch.

Click here to read my review of Spectre

My Neighbour Totoro Review

SPOILER ALERT

Welcome to my second Studio Ghibli film and I'm sure it won't be the last.  Whilst this film is number 137 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time that's not the reason I'm watching and reviewing it now.  After me and my housemate Anna watched Spirited Away, we were in the mood for watching another Studio Ghibli film. On hand we had either Princess Monoke or My Neighbour Totoro and we opted for the much more light-hearted My Neighbour Totoro.

How it all goes down:

Set in post-war rural Japan, Tatsuo Kusakabe and his two daughters Sasuki and Mei move into a country house, where they can be closer to their mother who is in hospital recovering from a long term illness.  One day when Sasuki is at school, Mei follows two rabbit-like creatures into the nearby forest, where she meets Totoro, the spirit of the forest.  When the sisters find out that their mother won't be coming home as soon as they expected, Mei decides to attempt the three hour walk to the hospital to give her mum a present of some freshly grown corn.  Upon getting lost, Sasuki leads a desperate search to find her with help from Totoro.

What works:

What I love most about this film is its simplicity.  Spirited Away works so well due to how it combines so many elements together into one single film and My Neighbour Totoro works for the opposite reason.  At heart the film is a story about a little girl trying to bring a present to her sick mother to make her feel better.  There aren't any explosions or plot-twists just a simple character-driven narrative that works extremely well.  One reason it works is because of the excellent inventions of Totoro and also the Catbus, which Totoro travels around in.  Both of which have become icons of Studio Ghibli and they are both adorable and extremely creative.  They are friendly and welcoming towards the viewer.  I would love a life-sized Totoro cushion or a Totoro onesie.  *Cough cough* Christmas present idea *Cough cough*

The music in this film is also great.  Whilst, I have always considered Spirited Away as having the best sound track, My Neighbour Totoro also has some great music in it, such as its happy theme song.  The character-driven narrative also lent itself to some brilliant instances of dramatic tension.  After Mei had become lost and Sasuki was desperately trying to find her, I felt that the suspense and drama was very immediate, which is surprising considering that this is only a cartoon.  It kept me engaged throughout and I liked the supporting cast which were constituted of an array of great characters, from the wonderfully awkward Kanta to his loving and caring grandmother.

The film was also animated brilliantly especially Totoro.  Some of the funniest moments of the film emerge from his interactions with Mei.  From his wide eyes to his iconic Cheshire cat grin to him shivering when raindrops fall on him, every single animation of Totoro bring charm and humour to the film.  

What didn't work:

It is difficult to fault this film really.  It is funny, charming and very entertaining.  Whilst you can argue that Mei and Sasuki are a little annoying throughout the film, I think this is only because the English dubbed version of the film has them voiced by American actresses, thus making them sound brattish and whiny.  That notwithstanding, I do feel that something holds it back.  Perhaps it's the short run time. Maybe in a two hour film, rather than just 90 minutes, we'll get to find out more about Totoro, whom I would have liked to learn more of.

What was ugly:

Whilst watching this film, Anna told me about a dark fan theory, which the film-makers have denied is true.  She said that Totoro is the God of death and only those close to death can see him.  When Mei goes missing and what is thought to be her sandal is found in a pond, Mei actually drowned.  Sasuki then kills herself over the guilt she feels for Mei's death.  After the two girls find out their mother won't be coming home, they get into a fight and Sasuki harshly chastises Mei, leading to the latter running away.  To whoever thought up this theory, what the hell is wrong with you? Why would you want to turn an adorable children's film like this into something as dark as concerning death and suicide? Seriously? Why would you do this? You're ruining my childhood!

Rating: 

Awesome.

Another great Studio Ghibli film and one of my favourites.  It is an excellent celebration of childhood innocence and discovery and is definitely one to watch if you're an anime fan!