Stalker review

Number 182 on the top 1000 films of all time is Andrei Tarkovsky's science fiction art film Stalker.

Set in a distant future in an unnamed land, Alexander Kaidonovsky plays the Stalker - a guide who steers people safely through a dangerous area, where the laws of physics don't apply, called the Zone. At the centre is a room said to grant the greatest desires of its occupants. The Stalker's next charges are the Writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and the Professor (Nikolai Grinko.)

From Italian art house to Russian art house, but the change in country doesn't make me anymore receptive to art house cinema. Films like these remind me of the dense, academic books, where nothing happens, which I had to slog through for my degree. And when I say nothing happens, I mean nothing - the film is little more than a philosophical debate about faith and the nature of human desire. Too intellectual for the likes of me. I didn't even understand what I didn't understand. Too much talking. As such, I found this film virtually unwatchable. Part of it was down to my own personal tastes, but also due to Tarkovsky's stylised direction.

Firstly, there was the soundtrack or lack thereof. In pivotal moments, a soundscape of distorted, synthesised sound effects played which created an eerie atmosphere. But much of the film had no music altogether. Only silence. Yes, this made things creepy, but it also made things boring. Sometimes in film, the use of music can be distracting, but the opposite was true here. Yes I know that Tarkovsky wants to ensure the audience can focus their whole attention on the philosophy, but you have to give them something to work with. Silence isn't engaging enough.

Especially when it's coupled with long takes of the characters doing very little. The film begins with the Stalker getting out out bed and brushing his teeth. It is not until the ten-minute mark that any dialogue is said. Any first-year creative writing student will tell you this is not interesting way to start a story.

One thing I did find interesting was Tarkovsky's colour scheme. For the scenes outside the zone in the "real world," he uses a sepia tone, but the scenes within the zone are in full technicolour. Perhaps this is how the Zone forces men to be completely honest with themselves and their desires whereas the real world allows them to keep lying to everybody.

That's my attempt of interpreting the film, but my days of deeply analysing media are long over. Although this film does raise an interesting question. If the Stalker was guiding you through the Zone to the room so your heart's desire can be granted, what would it be?

8 1/2 Review

Number 181 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fellini's 1963 surrealist, comedy-drama 8 1/2.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastrioianni) is a famous Italian film director who experiences a creative block when directing his latest science fiction film. To overcome this block, he revisits pivotal points and relationships in his life.

Much like any of Ingmar Bergman's film, 8 1/2 is a film that can only be enjoyed if you're a diehard cinophile. I know that I'm doing a challenge to watch the top 1000 films of all time, but I am not a diehard cinophile. I'm not that deep when it comes to films. There's stuff I like and stuff I don't. And 8 1/2 wasn't something I particularly liked or could follow. Films like these are usually surreal - to the point of frustration, and I don't have the patience to wade through the many dream sequences or worse have to figure out what's a dream and what's reality.

Films about films like Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood have an air of superiority. They're not so much a reference to what came before, but an ego trip for directors proving how much of a film buff they are. Granted being made almost sixty hours before OUATIH, 8 1/2 didn't have the same air of superiority, but it did feel like Fellini was dangling ideas over my head that I'm not intelligent enough to know they're even there.

But like I say, I'm not a cinophile and probably not intelligent enough to even begin interpreting this film. One IMDB reviewer noted you have to watch the film a few times to understand it. I probably won't be doing that anytime soon unless I have trouble getting to sleep.

Network review

 Number 180 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1976 black-comedy satire Network.

Howard Beale (Peter Finch) long time news anchor of the fictional news network UBS declares on-air that he will commit suicide live. UBS, which has long been struggling with low ratings, immediately tries to fire him, but his friend and division president Max Schumacher (William Holden) permits Beale to have one more broadcast to say goodbye. Beale takes this as a chance to rant about how life is "bullshit." When the network's ratings spike, UBS decide to exploit this with programming chief Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) deciding to give Beale his own "angry man" segment.

For a film that is so damning about the evils of everyday life, Network shares many tropes with your average melodramatic soap opera. We have lots of people yelling at each other (more on this later,) an extra-marital affair, ham-fisted messages, graphic violence and even a cheesy catchphrase. 

Perhaps I'm the wrong target demographic of this film. Being a millennial living in 2022, I am well aware of the pitfalls of modern society. For me, TV is little else than something I would just play in the background. But back in the seventies, TV was king and so the messages of the film may have resonated more with a 70's audience. I found everything very preachy and soapboxey. Beale's rants were like something you would see from a TV evangelist. They quickly lost their novelty and bloated out a film. It was only two hours long but it felt much longer.

This film was a critical success and was nominated for nine Oscars including the four acting Oscars. Finch, Dunaway and Beatrice Straight, who played Schumacher's wife, all won. Holden and Ned Beatty were also nominated but lost out. Yet I'm at a loss as to why any of them were nominated. As previously said, all they did was yell at each other. There was a lot of screaming and shouting in this film and not much else. Again, it did make for a very repetitive watch.

All in all, I'm probably the wrong audience. Network is a film that just doesn't hold the same relevance as it might once have done. After all, who still watches television? 

Black Cat, White Cat Review

 Number 179 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Serbian black comedy drama Black Cat, White Cat.

Matko (Bajram Severdzan) is a small-time Romani crook who is down on his luck. He plots to rob a train with the help of hedonistic gangster Dadan (Srdan Todorovic.) But the duplicitous Dadan double-crosses Matko and takes the goods for himself. To help Matko pay off his debts, he convinces him to allow his son to marry Dadan's sister.

Black Cat, White struck me as being Serbia's answer to the classic crime caper a la Snatch or the Sting. We have Matko as the lovable roguish protagonist who must pull a feat of daring do to get him out of a spot of bother. There's Dadan as the over-the-top gangster - a touch too over the top I would argue, there was a lot of gratuitous cocaine use and fooling around with prostitutes, and even a cute love story between Matko's son and the local barmaid. There is plenty of physical comedy especially at the end when Dadan is tricked into falling into the local manure. And also lots of hammy violence like the during the heist sequence when Dadan shoots dead a witness.

Despite all this, I did find the film hard to follow. I'm obviously not from the Balkans so I had to watch the film with English subtitles, meaning I missed anything that didn't translate. But I also don't know enough of the different Balkan cultures so a lot o the cultural references passed me by - the wedding sequence, a vital element of the film was lost on me. But even more bizarrely, there was a very strange scene where a lady squeezed and picked up a nail with her ample derriere. Perhaps if I was of Balkan persuasion I might have understood this.

Although I could see what the film was trying to do, I couldn't follow it at all. It wasn't for me.

In Bruges Review

 Number 352 on the top 1000 films of all time is Martin Mcdonagh's black comedy thriller 'In Bruges.'

When a hit goes awry, Irish hitmen, Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell) are ordered to lay low and await further orders from their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes.)

Do you think that sounds like a strange premise for a film? You would be right. In Bruges was strange and surreal, but it worked. Everything came together to create a film with off-beat humour and real heart.

And this heart is manifested in Ray portrayed brilliantly by Colin Farrell. On Ray's very first hit, he is sent to kill a priest but accidentally shoots a little boy. Having broken a cardinal rule, he is sent to Bruges where is harrowed by his demons. He constantly hallucinates the little boy and is consumed by his guilt. Farrell brought a real vulnerability to the role and left me feeling very sorry for a hit man - a person who by definition isn't very nice.

Ray is little more than a big kid, completely disinterested in the culture that Bruges has to offer - he is much more interested in drinking and snorting cocaine with a dwarf who advocates a race war. And yes you did read that correctly. But questionable racial politics aside, Ray's youth and immaturity is what makes him so endearing. Yes, he made a fatal mistake, but does he not deserve a second chance?

Enter Brendan Gleeson who as Ken serves as the moral compass of the film. It is revealed that Harry has sent them both to Bruges so that Ken can kill Ray for breaking the rules. After much deliberation, Ken decides to do so, only to change his mind at the last minute when he sees Ray is suicidal. Instead he helps his friend escape. In the inevitable final showdown with Harry, Ken sacrifices himself to save Ray.

Gleeson and Farrell played off each other well with their characters being polar opposites. Ken is patient and wise, but Ray is the young upstart. Ken loves the history of Bruges. Ray does not, but despite their differences the two men share a camaraderie that drives the film forward.

Finally, we come to Ralph Fiennes who plays the comically villainous Harry. Regardless of whether Fiennes is playing a Nazi, an evil wizard or a delusional serial killer, he always blends into his roles. This was role was no exception. Harry is a ruthless crime boss who would sooner blow his own brains out rather than betray his principles. Yet Fiennes also brought a lot of humour to the role. In one of the film's funnier moments, he rants to Ken about his disbelief at Ray not appreciating the culture that Bruges has to offer.

All in all, this was a highly enjoyable film. Darkly funny, but with a lot of heart. If you're looking for something unique, In Bruges is the film for you. 

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.