Blood Diamond Review

 Number 300 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2006 thriller, and one of many Leonardo Dicaprio's acting nominations, Blood Diamond.

Set in civil-war ravaged Sierra Leone, Blood Diamond brings together mercenary Danny Archer (Dicaprio,) fisherman Solomon Vandy (Dijumon Hounsou) and journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) as they all try to bring some good into the world.

I bought my a girlfriend a diamond necklace for our one year anniversary. Having seen this film I don't think I'm ever going to buy another diamond again. Sorry Sam. But this film is a damning indictment of the diamond industry and a damning indictment of colonialism in general. In 2022, the horrors of colonialism are nothing new but this film still lays them bare.

The RUF brutally chops off the hands of the Sierra Leoneans who may otherwise vote against them, but they only learned this violence from their colonial oppressors. Chopping off limbs, as is pointed out in the film, is something that started with the Belgians in the Congo. And anybody who knows their colonial history knows about the atrocities that the Belgians committed.

And right from the start, we see this savagery in the evil Captain Poison (David Harewood.) He leads a division of the RUF who massacres Solomon's village and sends him to a diamond mine. Here he find a huge diamond, but he has to quickly bury it when the army come and send him to jail. Enter Leonardo Dicaprio as Danny and also where the film misses its mark a little.

Danny Archer has debts to pay and so agrees to reunite Solomon with his family in exchange for the diamond. But with the help of Maddy Bowen, he realises that he cares about more than money. While Leo was great in his role, I would argue that the character itself was cliched. How many times we seen a reluctant hero/lovable rogue overcome their morally questionable qualities to become a bonified hero? And this is usually with the help of an attractive female lead such as Jennifer Connelly. 

And So, I think the film focussed too much on the wrong character. Because Archer is a mercenary, he is used to fighting in a warzone whereas Solomon was not. Solomon was only a fisherman desperate to get back to his family. And I think that would have made him a far more interesting character to focus upon. He would have been a true fish out of water.

And maybe that's why the film didn't quite land for me. I could see it trying to make me angry or break my heart, but while I was sad, I certainly didn't shed any tears. For what it was, this was a powerful film with great performances by Dicaprio, Connelly and especially Hounsou, there was something holding it back true greatness.

Prisoners Review

 Number 251 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2013 thriller 'Prisoners.'

Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard) are best friends and carpenters in Pennsylvania. But then their daughters Anna and Joy go missing. When Detective Loki's (Jake Gyllenhaal's) investigation breaks down, Dover takes matters into his own hands when he suspects local man and intellectually disabled Alex Jones (Paul Dano) as the kidnapper.

How best to describe this film? Doomy? Depressing? Downbeat? All of these adjectives are accurate. Yet it was till dramatic and interesting to watch. The setting was great as you can see the paranoia of the characters build and build up. The once familiar suburban houses and liquor stores become hostile.

And while the atmosphere was great, I do think it took a while for things to get going. The film opens with the two families sharing a thanksgiving dinner and Franklin showcasing his awful trumpet playing. And I get this was all setting the scene, but I think it could have been set a bit faster. I would have expected that the film opens with the disappearance of the daughters and we would see the backstory in flashbacks.

And I also think that everything was a little too perfect. Jackman, Gyllenhaal and Dano were all great in their roles, but maybe a little too great. Jackman was the angry grieving father, Gyllenhaal was the moody detective who doesn't play by the rules and Dano was the intellectually disabled fall guy. And I think to some extent, they were too good in the roles. Beyond these roles, there was little else behind the characters. In fact, they were closer to cariactures than characters. But I did enjoy the ending twist which I won't spoil here. It made a pleasant surprise and a nice subversion to what could have been a very obvious edning.

Although I enjoyed how Prisoners explored the theme of imprisonment - how we can all be prisoners of our own fears and demons, everything was just a little too perfect.

The King's Speech review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Million Dollar Baby review

Number 227 on the top 1000 films of all time is Clint Eastwood's 2004 sports drama Million Dollar Baby.

Clint Eastwood plays Frank Dunn, an irascible boxing coach and gymowner. When Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) asks him to train her, he refuses as she's a girl. But thanks to some gentle encouragement from his friend and former protege Eddie "Scrap-Iron" Dupris (Morgan Freeman,) he soon changes his mind.

I'm going to say it now. I don't like boxing. It doesn't interest me. And as such, boxing films don't interest me regardless of whether they're Rocky, Raging Bull or Million Dollar Baby. I was bored for much of this film but that was more down to my own personal likes and dislikes rather than the film itself.

But I do have one valid criticism and that is Clint Eastwood's acting. He is great director, but he always acts the same character. In Gran Torino he is a grumpy old war veteran, in Unforgiven, he is a grumpy old bounty hunter and in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, he is a grumpy, old cowboy. You get the picture. Million Dollar Baby was no exception to this rule. He plays a grumpy, old boxing instructor with a secret heart of gold. How he was nominated for a best acting Oscar, I will never understand.

But I do understand why Hilary Swank won the Best Actress Oscar and Morgan Freeman, the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Their characters were far more interesting to watch. Maggie has a dysfunctional relationship with her trailer trash, welfare fraud families, while Scrap went blind in one after one fight too many. It was interesting to see how these two characters relate to each other, due to how they both have dark backgrounds.

Seeing Scrap knockout the obnoxious upstart boxer Shawrelle Berry (Anthony Mackie) was one of the best parts of the film.

The ending also surprised me. I thought it would be a cheesy happily ever after, but it was anything but...Dunn arranges for Maggie to fight the German champion Billie "The Blue Bear" Osterman who has a reputation for fighting dirty. In the fight, The Blue Bear sucker punches Maggie and she falls onto her stool and breaks her neck, leaving her as a quadriplegic. To make matters worse, her leg is amputated when her bedsores become infected. She asks Frank to euthanise her which he reluctantly does. I totally thought she would make a miraculous recovery and take down the Blue Bear, but it wasn't to be. And I liked this ending better. It wasn't a fairytale ending, but something more realistic and powerful.

Overall, while Swank and Freeman were great, I just didn't care for this film. But that's just because I don't like boxing.

There Will Be Blood review

 Number 224 of on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Thomas Anderson's epic period drama There Will be Blood.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a prospector turned ruthless oil tycoon in Southern California. Over the course of three decades, we see the rise and fall of his empire, as well as his tempestuous relationship with local preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano.)

I'll readily admit that I'm not a fan of period dramas. Generally, I find them slow and boring. I'm just not interested enough in their subject matter. And There Will be Blood  was no exception. This is no disrespect to Mr Day-Lewis. There is no doubt that Plainview is a despicable character. After his adopted son is deafened by an explosion, Plainview sends him to a special school to save him the trouble of raising him. He also cheats the Sundays out of their land and refuses to allow Eli to bless his new wells. 

Despite this he is still a very charismatic character to watch. I wouldn't necessarily say I wanted him to achieve his goals, but I was intrigued to see what would happen. And this was down to Day-Lewis' strong portrayal. He gave a character who could have easily been a stereotypical, moustache-twirling panto villain, a humanity and moral greyness.

I just wish Anderson had this in a shorter amount of time. At times, there is a lot of talking and the pacing was slow. I'm not sure we needed to spend as long as we did on Plainview's fake brother Henry (Kevin J O'Connor.) But maybe that ties in well into the central idea behind the film: it doesn't matter how rich you are if you're the only one enjoying the wealth. Plainview turns his son against him and kills the fraudster impersonating his brother. I wasn't entirely clear on the motivations of the fraudster, but presumably it was to steal Plainview's money.

The film climaxes with Plainview's rivalry with Eli bubbling over into a fall-on confrontation. Plainview beats Eli to death and the film ends with Plainview sitting alone in his massive mansion, a somewhat obvious metaphor for how the pursuit of wealth can leave you lonely.

I did want to enjoy this film more than I did. Day-Lewis truly earned his second Oscar win, but the pacing could have been faster with far less shots of the desert landscape. But hey, maybe that's just me. As I've said, I'm just not a fan of period dramas.

In the Name of the Father review

Number 205 on the top 1000 films of all time is Jim Sheridan's 1993 biopic In the Name of the Father. 

Based on the true story of Gerry Conlon and the Guildford Four, we see the lovable rogue Gerry Conlon, a Belfastian who along with three others are falsely imprisoned when the IRA bomb a pub in Guildford.

Would you believe that this is my very first Daniel Day-Lewis film? He plays Gerry Conlon, taking him on a great character arc from workshy layabout to charismatic hero. From humble beginnings stealing lead from the roofs of houses in Belfast, we see him evolve into a brave leader prepared to stand up for what's right.

And why is that? Because he and his friends have been horrifically betrayed by the British criminal justice system. Bullied into signing a false confession, by policemen keen to cut corners to secure a quick win, he is sentenced to life in prison.

But that isn't all. Conlon's family are also imprisoned under the erroneous idea that they're a support network for the IRA. This includes Conlon's father, Giuseppe, (Pete Poselthwaite.) Poselthwaite is always a formidable actor and he played very well off Day-Lewis, as the film explores their dysfunctional relationship. Giuseppe is a straight, hard-working bookkeeper, in contrast to his immature son, and he quickly disapproves of Gerry's growing relationship with IRA prisoner and true bomber of the pub, Joe McAndrew. But when Giuseppe dies in prison, in the midst of mounting an appeal, Gerry takes up his cause. Although this was somewhat predictable, it was still tragic.

Aided by the solicitor Gareth Pierce (Emma Thompson,) Conlon secures freedom for his friends. And Emma Thompson gave a great performance. The as she fought for her clients was plain to see. I also loved Trevor Jones' musical score. In the final scene after Conlon has secured his freedom, we hear Irish pipes play in the background. This was a small, but powerful touch.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, I would have liked to have seen more of a focus on the rest of the Guildford Four: Paul Hill (John Lynch,) Paddy Armstrong (Mark Sheppard) and Carole Richardson (Beatie Edney.) But I guess Gerry Conlon was always the focus. And of course Jim Sheridan was playing fast and loose with history to produce a powerful if doomy film.

And why was this Pete Poselthwaite's only Oscar-nominated performance? He was a fine actor and he deserved a few more Oscar nods. 

And you maybe wondering whether the true perpetrators for the Guildford pub bombing were ever arrested? No, despite McAndrew openly confessing that he did it, as God forbid the police admit they made a mistake. And were any police officers every punished for hiding evidence, obtaining confessions under duress that led to the false imprisonment of the Guildford Four? No. I am disappointed but not surprised.

A Beautiful Mind review

 Number 191 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ron Howard's 2001 Life is Beautiful. I'm going slightly out of order, as I had the chance to watch this on Netflix.

Based on the true story, John Nash is a brilliant mathematician and student at Princeton. However, his life begins to unravel when he starts suffering from schizophrenic episodes and hallucinations. Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany, Anthony Rapp, Adam Goldberg and Christopher Plummer all co-start.

I have to admit that I'm very conflicted about this film. I can see why it was so popular, with John Nash very much fulfilling the 'Overcoming the Monster' storyline. He is the likable if awkward nerd who beats his own demons to become a success, but the film wasn't for me. And maybe that's because John Nash isn't as likable as you might think. Not at first anyway. And that's down to Akiva Goldman's writing and Ron Howard's direction.

In the first act, we're introduced to John Nash and his intellectual chums as they engage in petty games to prove who's the cleverest. However, all this did was portray them as the prototypical, arrogant nerds. While there is some truth behind the stereotype, it doesn't serve to make the characters anymore likable.

This set-up consumes a good portion of the film and, by the time, we've reached the meat and bones of the film, I had almost lost interest. And if I had I would have missed a very intense second act. Nash is recruited into MIT where he is made to do trivial work that is beneath his huge intelligence. This is when William Parcher (Ed Harris) recruits him to do top-secret research for the Ministry of Defence. But, plot twist, Parcher as well as Nash's best friend and ex-roommate Charles Herman (Paul Bettany) are only hallucinations. Here we see Nash undergo severe psychiatric treatment such as ECT (how this was ever a thing, I'll never understand) until he finally accepts the reality of his situation.

This is where we see Nash at his most human rather than as the archetypal, arrogant nerd. Jennifer Connelly was great as Nash's wife, Alicia. She suffered mentally and physically all due to Nash's hallucinations. I wish the film spent more on the middle section, but as it spent too long on the set-up, it had to rush through the rest of the film.

Also, is it me or as Russell Crowe bad at doing accent? Whether it's as Robin Hood or John Nash, his accents are less than convincing.

This could have been a very powerful film, but it was let down by poor pacing and a bad structure. But what do I know? Perhaps I'm just another of these self-confessed geniuses criticising something that I don't fully understand.