Solaris (1972) review

 Number 250 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Russian science-fiction epic Solaris.

Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is a psychologist tasked with deciding whether a Soviet Union space station should continue its research. Upon arriving, he realises that something dreadful has happened to the skeleton crew assigned there.

Last year, I watched the 2002 American remake of Solaris starring George Clooney. To be honest, I think watching paint dry would have been more interesting. The remake was so boring that I fell asleep in the first half hour and missed the rest of the film. Things were never quite that bad here, but they weren't far off either.

In making Solaris, director Andrei Tarkovsky wanted to bring more emotional depth back to science fiction believing that films like 2001: A Space Odyssey focussed too much on technical innovation as opposed to interesting characters or a good story. I certainly admire his vision. Too often I find science fiction to be a vehicle for writers to show off how clever they are by exploring big themes, but forgetting to include any interesting characters. There are few science-fiction films I can think of which balance these two ideas well.

However, while I respect Tarkovsky's goal, I think he went too far in the opposite direction. In his aims to make a character-centric narrative, he forgot to include an interesting plot or any big ideas. Solaris reminded me of his 1979 effort Stalker, which was another film that was as dull as dishwater. Too much talking and not enough happening.

I am also doubtful whether Tarkobsky achieved his goal in creating emotional depth or memorable characters. Even as I write this review, I am struggling to remember any of the character's names at all. I had to look up Kelvin's name and I can't remember any other names at all.

I'm sure there are some of you out there who will say that I do not have the necessary brain power to understand science-fiction. Maybe you're right. But when they're as boring as Solaris, do I really want to understand them?

127 Hours review

 Number 619 on the top 1000 films of all time is Danny Boyle's 2010 biographical drama '127 Hours.'

127 Hours tells the true-life story of Aron Ralston (James Franco) - an American canyoneer and adventurer who becomes trapped in Bluejohn Canyon, Utah. If he can't escape, he will die.

This was a film I initially watched over ten years ago before I started writing film reviews. In those dark days rather than writing levelled and fair criticism, I used a silly and arbitrary system of adjectives. Instead of five stars, I described a film as either superlative, awesome, good, meh and shit. 127 Hours was one of the first films I saw that I labelled as superlative. Over ten years later, I think it holds up well to this high praise.

Much of this is down to Danny Boyle's excellent direction. Don't forget that 127 Hours was released in 2010 - just two years after Boyle won the Best Director Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire. 127 Hours contained the same slick and stylistic direction with some great cinematography. Perhaps this was due to the unusual decision of Boyle employing two separate cinematographers, Antony Dod Mantle and Enrique Chediak, who both outdid themselves. Sure, we get the stunning scenery of the Utah landscape, but you would expect to see these in any film. What you wouldn't expect were the excellent extreme close-ups. Once Aron is trapped in the canyon, the camerawork becomes more claustrophobic and intimate. The audience is trapped alongside with him.

Limited by their surroundings, Mantle and Chediak employ a whole host of clever shots from seeing water travel through the inside of Ralston's camelpak tube to a close-up of Ralston spinning the setting wheel on his digital camera. Considering much of the film is spent with Ralston trapped under the boulder, there was every chance the audience could have become bored. But this was far from the case. Despite the limited settings, the action and cinematography remained gripping and creative.

It helped that you had James Franco playing the main character. Primarily known for his comedy work, he turned his hand well to the more dramatic role of Aron Ralston. He did so well that he earned an Oscar nod. Considering that he is the only character on-screen for most of the film, Franco gave an entertaining and nuanced portrayal of Ralston, conveying simultaneously the bravado and arrogance that led to his predicament, as well as his inner fears and vulnerability when he realises the lethal nature of his situation.

Boyle also paced the film well. It is only a short ninety minutes, but it felt so much longer. I'm sure there could have been the temptation to have really drawn out the dramatic tension and Ralston's suffering, thus also drawing out the screentime, but Boyle did well by cutting it short. Anything longer could have been exhausting or gratuitous. If I were to be really nit-picky, I might say we could have used slightly more time expanding on Ralston's life before his incident. We get clips of his family life and his failed relationships like with past girlfriend Rana (Clemence Poesy) but these are nothing more than vignettes. Maybe that was all that was needed though.

I have now seen 127 Hours twice. Yes, it a thrilling, superlative watch, but it was also harrowing and intense. I shall not be watching it again. I'm not strong enough to watch the amputation scene (you know what I mean, this isn't a spoiler) for a third time. All credit to makeup designer Tony Gardner and the Alterian Inc company. They knocked it out of the park here.

But a word of warning for all you budding canyoneers and adventurers out there. One: always tell somebody where you're going and when you expect to be back. Two: do not cheap out on your survival equipment. Aron Ralston paid heavily for those mistakes.

The Sea Inside review

 Number 249 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2004 Spanish psychological drama 'The Sea Inside.'

The Sea Inside tells the true life story of Ramon Sampredo (Javier Bardem) a man who has been rendered a quadriplegic for the last 28 years. In that time, he has been fighting to be granted the right to euthanise himself.

Films are always a great way to explore taboo subjects and there are few subjects more taboo than euthanasia. The Sea Inside tackled this theme with gravitas and grace. There is a reason it won a whole host of awards both in its native Spain and internationally including the Best International Film Oscar.

Director Alejandro Amenabar, who co-wrote the script with Mateo Gil, tackled the many arguments for and against euthanasia. After 28 years of trying and failing to end his life, Ramon becomes a local celebrity. He has supporters like lawyer Julia (Belen Rueda) and his friend Gene (Clara Segara) who works for an organisation which supports the rights of those who wish to commit euthanasia.

However, he also has his opponents like local radio host Rosa (Lola Duenas) who urges him that life is worth living. This is in contrast to Gene and Julia who insist that the decision whether to live or die should always be Ramon's alone. Despite facing a moralistic minefield, Amenabar and Gil avoided being too preachy in their storytelling.

It helped that they had Javier Bardem in the lead role. He was nominated for a whole host of acting awards including Golden Globes and Critic Choice while also winning the Volpi Cup. Bardem really brought the character of Ramon Sampredo to life imbuing him with a charm and charisma that endeared him to audiences. Barden showed this charisma again only three years later when he won Best Supporting Actor for playing the psychotic hitman Anton Chigurin in No Country for Old Men. Arguably, this was his breakout Hollywood role.

The Sea Inside was a great film that was poignant without being preachy. It also featured a winning performance from Javier Bardem.

The Truman Show review

 Number 303 on the top 1000 films is Peter Weir's psychological comedy-drama 'The Truman Show.'

Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) is your average, everyday American. Little does he realise that he is actually one of the most famous men in the world. He is unknowingly the star of his very own show, 'The Truman Show.' Secretly filmed since birth in a specially constructed set, Truman is loved worldwide. Yet everybody in his personal life from his wife Meryl (Laura Linney) and his best friend Marlon (Noah Emmerich) is trying to keep him from discovering the truth. Ed Harris co-stars as the show's creator Christof.

In 1998, director Peter Weir and screenwriter Andrew Niccol created one of the most relevant films about celebrity culture and reality TV ever. It's as pertinent today as it ever was in the 1990's. Just like most reality TV stars, Truman Burbank has no special talents or skills yet he is beloved by audiences worldwide. It is a great comment on the perverse nature of the parasocial relationships that audiences have with celebrities who don't even know they exist. Weir and Niccol brilliantly hit on the themes of celebrity worship in a way that saw them rightly nominated for a whole host of writing and directing awards including Baftas and Oscars.

However, a film like the Truman Show hinges on the success of its main star and Jim Carrey gave quite possibly one of his best performances. I'm always said that his comedy is over-the-top, but here he was reserved and understated. He was able to channel good physical comedy into the more dramatic role of Truman Burbank. Just like Truman endeared himself to fictional audiences, Jim Carrey endeared himself to real-life ones. But not the Academy though. He was snubbed by them when it came to the Oscars. This is made even more egregious by how Ed Harris was nominated for Christof, but Carrey would have been up against some stiff competition with Tom Hanks for Saving Private Ryan and Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful - but at least Carrey won the Golden Globe for the role.

The supporting cast were great too from Laura Linney as Truman's wife Meryl who eventually snaps after the pressure of keeping Truman from discovering the truth becomes too much to Noah Emmerich who played his best friend Marlon. Marlon was always on-hand to help defuse any situations and provide support to his best friend. Last, but not least, we have Ed Harris who excelled as the beret-wearing auteur Christof. Like too many creatives I know, he has a God complex, which Harris conveyed perfectly. After all he does have "Christ" in his name.

The Truman Show was a true triumph. It contained some brilliant social commentary and had a winning performance from Jim Carrey that perfectly blended drama and comedy.

Cabaret Review

 Number 410 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1972 musical period-drama 'Cabaret.'

Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli) is a free-spirited cabaret singer in 1931 Berlin. She forms an unlikely friendship with the upright and repressed English teacher Brian Roberts (Michael York.) Meanwhile, the shadow of Nazi Germany looms large overhead.

It's safe to say that Cabaret swept the 1973 Oscars. it was nominated for ten awards and won no less than eight including Best Score, Best Actress for Liza Minnelli and Best Supporting Actor for Joel Grey - who played the compere of Sally's club. It lost the Best Picture award to the second Godfather film.

Strangely, despite his co-stars winning, Michael York wasn't even nominated. To me, this smells like a snub as egregious as Audrey Hepburn and My Fair Lady. You'll nominate Cabaret for virtually every other Oscar going, but NOT Michael York for Best Actor? It doesn't make sense. I'm not sure he would have won - would anybody beat Marlon Brando in the Godfather, but to not even be nominated...

York was very good as the stoically repressed Brian Roberts who was slowly undone by the carefree Sally. I wouldn't describe Brian as a brutish, emotionally shutdown cinnamon swirl, but rather an uptight, stick in the mud. He is also a deeply conflicted man holding a dark secret.

Minnelli was also very good as Sally Bowles embodying the best of Audrey Hepburn's airheaded characters. However, there was more to Sally Bowles than meets the eye. All of this was played against the backdrop of the rise of Nazi Germany. We receive subtle clues, but the early brutalities of the regime were cleverly alluded to rather than being shown outright.

Musicals like Cabaret might not be for everyone - they're not for me, but the Academy certainly loved it. Just not enough to nominate Michael York for an acting Oscar...

The Man from Nowhere review

 Number 417 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2010 Korean neo-noir action-thriller 'The Man from Nowhere.'

Cha Tae-Sik (Won Bin) is a pawn shop owner with a dark past. When his only friend - the ten year old So-Mi (Sae-Ron Kim) is kidnapped by gangsters, he will stop at nothing to get her back.

If there's one thing I've learned from my experience of watching Korean films is that they do not do anything by half-measures. They go in hard with their use of stylised violence and slick fight choreography. Sure, at times, it's over-the-top and even cheesy, but it's still entertaining enough to watch.

At the heart of our action story we have the psychologically-damaged, former black ops soldier Tae-Sik and his touching relationship with the young, innocent So-Mi. The old cinnamon swirl being undone by the cute kid certainly isn't a new idea, but if done, well, it's certainly entertaining to watch. And it was well done here.

Won Bin gave a measured performance taking Tae-Sik from the darkly mysterious loner to an all-out action here. Similarly, So Mi's relationship with her junkie mother is so damaged that it's understandable seeing her latch onto a father figure like Tae-Sik.

If anything I would say the villains weren't as well-developed as they could have been. Tae-Sik was fighting against a series of gangsters running a lethal organ-harvesting operation. There were quite a few of them and they all blended into one after a while.

Overall, the Man from Nowhere, was exactly what it said on-the-tin - an over-the-top, no holds barred K-Thriller.

Clerks review

 Number 421 on the top 1000 films of all time is Kevin Smith's slice-of-life comedy film 'Clerks.'

Clerks follows a day in the life of best friends supermarket cashier Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) and video shop employee Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson,) as they navigate the challenges, customers and struggles of their own personal lives.

I've been fortunate enough to have never worked a retail job. There is no shortage of stories entailing the horrors of working with the general public. It is for that reason that I failed to properly connect with this film. Not to mention, it just wasn't funny.

I had my first chuckle at minute seventeen, my second at minute twenty-nine and I don't think there was a third. If a comedy film only makes you laugh twice in its ninety-minute run time then it has failed. It didn't help a lot of the humour was immature and juvenile.

It also didn't help that the main characters weren't characters I wanted to laugh with or at. Dante is constantly bemoaning how he wasn't supposed to be working that day, but was called in to cover a colleague's shift. At the film's conclusion, Randal correctly admonishes him on his self-pitying behaviour. Yet by this time I had grown weary of both characters. Randal's immaturity was equally annoying.

If I were to say anything positive, it would be about Kevin Smith's vision. He directed, produced and wrote a critical and commercially successful film for a miniscule budget of $27,000. To cut costs, he filmed in black and white, cast his friends and set the film in the video store where he worked during the day. His efforts worked as the film went onto gross almost $4,000,000. All credit to Kevin Smith.

Clerks was not a film that landed for me. It was funny with annoying, unlikeable characters.