Joker (October 2019) Review

 Having come out in October 2019, Todd Philips' Joker is too young to feature on IMDB's top 1000 films of all time, but I am sure it will feature on the next iteration of this list.

Joker provides a re-imagined origin story for the Clown Prince of Crime. It follows Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a mentally-ill clown and stand-up comedian who goes through a dark journey into becoming the titular Joker. We see his descent into insanity as he navigates the dark underbelly of Gotham City. Robert De Niro and Zazie Beets co-star.

I've never been a fan of superhero films. In the Marvel/DC debate, I pick neither. I tried watching the MCU, but I got bored by the Age of Ultron. I've seen fewer DC films, but that's done little to convince me of joining their side. IMDB obviously disagrees with me as the Dark Knight featured at number four and you will find the various other superhero films scattered throughout the list.

I had low expectations going into Joker; I thought it would be the usual mess of CGI, gun fights and explosions, but I couldn't have been more wrong. Joker was a masterful psychological thriller exploring what happens when you push a nice man over the edge. It is a far cry from the campy 60's Batman and Robin TV series - tonally closer to the gritty, dark world that Christopher Nolan created in his Dark Knight trilogy.

And just like Heath Ledger, Joaquin Phoenix won a well-deserved Oscar for the role. It was a phenomenal performance, as he brought a scarily-human element to his role. His version of the Joker isn't a gangster or an anarchist, but an everyman who is pushed to his limit. He becomes a symbol for a revolution, as he inspires the down-trodden underclasses to rise up.

Considering Todd Philips is better known for his comedies like the Hangover franchise, it is impressive that he created such an intimate character study which is simultaneously fascinating and terrifying. The Joker could be any one of us. In may ways, he became a mouth piece for our deepest, most-repressed thoughts.

Critics of Joker have said that it is too derivative of previous films such as Martin Scorsesee's Taxi Driver or the King of Comedy - both of which also star Robert De Niro. However, Scorsesee certainly did not pioneer the dark, mysterious loner. I don't think Todd Philips so much ripped off Taxi Driver, as much as he was paying homage to it.

I did touch on Joaquin Phoenix before, but he gave an excellent performance, highlighting why he is one of the most versatile actors working in Hollywood today. You could argue that he should have won an Oscar before now, but Joker was certainly not a legacy win. He earned that award.

Yes, Joker has its critics, but that's only natural. As Frank Sinatra sings throughout the film: "that's life!" 

Star Wars: Rogue One (2016) review

 Set just before the events of Star Wars: A New Hope, Rogue One follows a group of rebels plotting to steal the schematics of the Empire's Death Star in the hopes of finding a fatal weakness. The rebels include renegade Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), Rebel captain and spy, Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), blind warrior monk Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen), Chirrut's friend and mercenary Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen) and droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk).

There is no denying that Star Wars is one of the biggest media franchises in history. The three original films all feature highly on IMDB's list of the top 1000 films of all time with the Empire Strikes Back ranking at 13 and A New Hope at 19. Even the Revenge of the Sith features far lower down on the list. 

But it is difficult to deny that Disney has butchered its attempts at reviving the franchise. Even a casual fan like me can acknowledge that the sequel trilogy are pretty flawed. I am doubtful whether any of their films will appear on an updated version of the aforementioned list that has become my obsession to complete. The only exception would be the anthology film of Rogue One. 

In Rogue One, director Gareth Edwards had the bravery to take the franchise into a darker, unknown territory. For one, it foregoes the opening crawl and transition wipes that has become mainstay of the franchise. Furthermore, the light-hearted whimsy has been substituted for a far starker tonal shift. True, in the Last Jedi, Rian Johnson also tried taking risks, but J.J. Abrams walked most of these back in The Rise of Skywalker. However, the nature of Rogue One meant that nobody could undermine Gareth Edwards' bold direction.

Principally, Rogue One, addresses on of the biggest plot holes that has haunted the original Star Wars films - how could the omnipotent, omniscient Galactic Empire overlook such a vital flaw within their Death Star unless that flaw was disguised as a clever part of sabotage. Cue Mads Mikklesen who stars as Galen Erso - the architect of the Death Star.

He is arguably the biggest name in this film. In line with the previous films, Edwards eschewed casting Hollywood A-listers for lesser-known actors like Diego Luna, Felicity Jones, Donnie Yen and Alan Tudyk. Yet they all brought different elements to their roles especially Donnie Yen who played the blind monk Chirrut Imwe. Again contrasting with the previous films, the Jedi do not play a large role in Rogue One. Alan Tudyk is also great as the comic relief character of K-2SO.

Sure, there are some who would argue that Rogue One is derivative of previous Star Wars films, but I would argue those fans are blinded by nostalgia. In Return of the Jedi, the Galactic Empire are building a second even more powerful Death Star that has the same flaw at the first. And it is doubtful that Galen Erso designed this flaw. If you think about it, it's as stupid as the "somehow Palpatine returned" line.

Another reason why Rogue One is so brave is that is take the bold decision of 

*spoilers alert*

killing all its main characters. The principle cast who we've all grown to love all die at the end of the film. All of them. This would be unusual in any Hollywood film, let alone a Star Wars film. It's certainly a contrast to the cheesy medal ceremony at the end of a New Hope. In fact, the ending of Rogue One is so striking, as it is a rare showcase of the bad guys winning.

Yes, our heroes do get the plans to a CGI'ed Princess Leia, but they all die in the process. That CGI was weird though. It was freaky seeing the deceased Peter Cushion and Carrie Fisher being resurrected by some type of de-aging computer technology. Considering how Star Wars  was so pioneering in its special effects, it is peculiar that the CGI looked so dodgy here.

Anyway, while I don't think that the Force Awaken, the Last Jedi or the Rise of Skywalker would make it onto an updated list of IMDB's top 1000 films, Rogue One surely would even if for the epic Darth Vader sequence at the end. You know the one I mean.

Whiplash (2014) review

 Whiplash was received in 2014. Despite how I started watching IMDB's list of the top 1000 films of all time in 2014, Whiplash did not earn a place. Considering how it received critical acclaim, three Oscars and countless other awards, this was a true mystery.

Whiplash focusses on Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) an aspiring jazz drummer who comes under the tutelage of the tyrannical Terence Fletcher (JK Simmons) who is determined to make Andrew as good as he can be regardless of the consequences.

Whiplash is an incredible film that is all about how far we'll push ourselves to reach artistic perfection. this notion is no better exemplified than with the brutal Terence Fletcher who takes the idea of the ends justifying the means to a whole new other level. He is a different villain than you typically see in cinema. he isn't a serial killer dressing up as his mother nor is he a giant shark eating everything in its path, but a mere teacher pushing their students to reach their potential by any means necessary. If he pushes a student too far, then that's their problem. They obviously weren't good enough.

He is a one-hundred percent human which is what makes him so scary. That is only elevated by JK Simmons' Oscar-winning performance. Whether on the big or small screen, he is magnificent. Fletcher is an intense role, but Simmons made him one of the most believable and memorable villains of the twenty-first century.

Of course, we can't forget his co-star Miles Teller who was brilliant as Andrew Neiman. Neiman quickly falls under Fletcher's spell, as he is determined to prove himself at any cost. Teller encapsulates the single-minded determination that some people have in achieving their goals. In many cases, he drums until his hands are blistered and bleeding.

Having said that, the film was not perfect. I did not like the ending. *Spoiler alert*

After Fletcher pushes Neiman too far, he rats on him and gets him fired from his job. Later on, they meet again and everything is seemingly fine. Fletcher invites Neiman to perform with his band at the JVC Festival. But this is all a ruse! Fletcher knows that Neiman got him fired. In revenge, he humiliates him by giving him different sheet music to the rest of the band. After a disastrous performance, Neiman storms off stage. But by sabotaging Neiman, Fletcher is sabotaging himself. Surely, this all reflects badly on Fletcher himself? The audience and judges don't know that Neiman was unwittingly playing the wrong music. They don't know that Fletcher was sabotaging him. All they know is that a band leader screwed up by giving his drummer the wrong music.

That aside, Damian Chazelle showed his early promise as a director. He created a thrilling and captivating examination of the complicated relationship between teacher and student. Only a few years later, he would become the youngest recipient of the Best Director Oscar for his film La La Land.

But it all started here. This film was a rollercoaster that will definitely leave you with whiplash (pun intended.)

Frailty review

 Number 963 on the top 1000 films of all time is Bill Paxton's 2001 psychological thriller 'Frailty.'

An adult Adam Meiks (Matthew McConaughey) wanders into an FBI office and confesses to agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) that his brother Fenton is the mysterious "God's Hand" killer. Afterwards, he recounts how as children, he and Fenton were subjected to their father's (played by Bill Paxton) twisted delusion about how he was on a mission from God to kill demons disguised as normal people.

Spoilers to follow

Frailty marked Bill Paxton's directorial debut. It was certainly creepy and thrilling with a great performance from Matthew  McConaughey, but it was all predicated on a rather flimsy premise. Bill Paxton's character says that he was randomly visited by an angel sending him on a mission to rid the world of its demons.

I found this less than convincing. Yes, he is a single father and widower, but I saw little to suggest that he would just snap like this. His character was missing some much--needed backstory as to why he would become a deluded serial killer. It might have made more sense if he was under a lot of stress, but we can see that he has a happy and healthy relationship with his two sons. Furthermore, there isn't any distinct catalyst that pushes him over the edge. While fixing a car at work, an angel randomly appears in a vision telling him to kill demons and he's all like "yeah, sure thing."

Things remain unconvincing as the story heads toward a conclusion that seemed like it was being too clever for its own good. In my summary, I identified Matthew McCongaughey's character as Adam, but this is only revealed at the film's ending. Hitherto, we were led to believe that he is actually Fenton who is reporting on his brother's murders. As children, their father's madness drives a wedge between the two brothers with Adam becoming his father's disciple and Fenton his opponent.

This culminates in Fenton ultimately killing his father rather than continuing to participate in the murders. We assume that his dad uses his dying breath to tell Adam to continue his legacy, which he does to some extent, but it is later revealed that the God's Hand murders are completely unrelated. This made little sense. Why have two different sets of murders? Surely, it was more logical for Adam to only be investigated for the demon killings.

Sure this film was entertaining, if rather joyless, but it was certainly not without its flaws.

Paris, je t'aime

 Number 618 on the top 1000 films of all time is the anthology film 'Paris je T'aime.'

Paris, je t'aime is a collection of eighteen short films all set in Paris and exploring the theme of love. Each film has its own director and cast. Directors include the Coen Brothers, Alfonso Cuaron and Gerald Depardieu. Some cast members include Maggie Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman, Steve Buscemi, Rufus Sewell and Emily Mortimer.

In a film containing eighteen short films, it is inevitable that some would be better than others and that was certainly the case here. However, it didn't always come down to overall quality, but ]how some of the films were structured. Some of them were full stories with a beginning, middle and the end. Others just seemed to have a beginning. They left me asking "is that it?"

The obvious example is director Gurinda Chadha's short film: Quais de Seine where a young man befriends a Muslim woman. The short film centres on the beginning of their friendship and that's where it ends. Obviously, it is only a short film, but I think it could have explored their relationship further.

The same could be said for Le Marais where a Frenchman speaks candidly to a new colleague believing he has found a kindred spirit. This story could have used a bit more foundation to have been truly effective. It had a good middle and ending, but the beginning needed more work.

Out of the eighteen films, I have three favourites: Tuileres by the Coen Brothers which starred Steve Buscemi as an American tourist who breaks the cardinal rule of never looking at somebody on the Paris Metro. It had all the trademark surrealism and humour that we would expect to see from the Coen Brothers. Secondly, there was Alfonso Cuaron's one-take Parc Monceau focussing on the relationship between an older man (Nick Nolte) and younger woman Ludivine Sagnier which was topped off with a clever twist, and the emotionally powerful Place Des Victories where a young mother comes to terms with her son's death.

The nature of an anthology film means that it allows different directors to interpret the theme of love in so many different ways. This led to some truly creative and kooky ideas. No more so than with Quartier de la Madeline which saw Elijah Wood falling in love with a vampire. It was a wonderful exercise in creativity.

Overall, Paris Je T'aime is an entertaining if uneven collection of stories set in the city of love.

Heathers review

 Number 932 on the top 1000 films of all time is the teen black-comedy 'Heathers.'

Veronika (Winona Ryder) is part of a high-school clique consisting of three girls all called Heather: Heather Duke (Shannon Doherty,) Heather McNamara (Lisanne Falk) and Heather Chandler (Kim Walker.) The same time she realises that her friends are ruthless bullies, she falls in love with the mysterious outsider JD (Christian Slater0 who has a plot to kill all the popular kids in school.

How to describe this film? Natural Born Killers set in a high school. But instead of the psychopathic Mickey and Mallory Knox, we have JD and the naive Veronika who he manipulates into being his unwitting accomplice.

In creating this film, director Michael Lehmann wanted to portray a darker side to high-school by turning the standard coming-of-age drama on its head. He certainly succeeded there. JD is a long way from Ferris Bueller. He is a damn sight creepier too although I'm not sure whether that was the character or Christian Slater. Seriously. JD is what I would imagine Klebold or Harris being like...

Although I think a more accurate comparison could be the Moors Murderers or Paul Bernado and Karla Homolka. However, the key difference is that Veronika quickly wisens up to JD's true agenda and decides to confront him.

In Heathers, Winona Rider was urr riding her success in Beetlejuice - a wave she continued riding throughout the nineties. She was good as Veronika who was perhaps the most self-aware character and perhaps the only character who wasn't some distorted stereotype. Christian Slater leaned too heavily into the moody outsider while the football players were overly-simplistic as well as the group of nerds they bullied. Yet, the Heathers knew exactly what they were doing, but they still weren't much more than your standard mean girls.

Heathers is also clever in its dissection of contemporary society - particularly with the romanticisation of suicide. Suicide is a recurring theme and we see how it affects different people in different ways. In some ways, Lehmann satirises this dark theme through his comical approach to it. But despite this satire, it is still treated with the respect it deserves.

Heathers was certainly an effective way to deconstruct the coming-of-age films that directors like Justin James Hughes made famous. It's just a shame that Christian Slater was so damn creepy.

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.