Garden State review

 Number 646 on the top 1000 films of all time is the romantic-comedy drama 'Garden State.'

Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) is a failed actor who returns time after his mother dies. There he tries to mend his damaged relationship with his father Gideon (Ian Holm.) Natalie Portman co-stars as Andrew's compulsive-lying love interest Sam.

Garden State marked the directorial debut of Zach Braff. It was a very good debut. I was impressed particularly with the delicate and understated nature of the film. Perhaps this was down to the film's small budget, but it also showed Braff's confidence in his directorial skills.

This was most prominent in Andrew's relationship with Sam. It seems like in every film there's a gratuitous and out-of-place sex scene to prove that the characters are in love. Of course, if you need to do this, to show your characters are in love, they're not in love. However, Zach Braff deliberately chose not to include a sex scene between him and Natalie Portman's character of Sam believing it would detract from their relationship. I completely agree.

Instead their relationship grew organically and naturally. Sure you can argue that Sam was your average manic pixie dreamgirl cliche, but Natalie Portman was still good. She brought a charming charisma to the role.

Zach Braff was also very good in the lead role. He is best known for his starring role in the sitcom Scrubs, but he was adept at drama too. As a director, he balanced the drama and comedy well. It was emotional without being sentimental and comedic without being ridiculous.

Overall, I really enjoyed Garden State. It was a quiet, understated but strong film.

Dracula review

 Number 645 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 adaptation of the classic horror story 'Dracula.'

Dracula (Bela Lugosi) - a vampire from Transylvannia decides to emigrate to England in the hunt of fresh meat. Or, should I say, blood?

There is no denying Dracula's place in the pantheon of horror. Bram Stoker's original book was a pioneer of gothic literary horror for a reason. The same goes for the film. It is a titan of early horror and the horror genre in general. The hammer horror films of the sixties wouldn't have existed without this pioneering film.

As much as Legosi tried, he could never escape the shadow of his most famous character. A bit like a vampire, he was doomed to repeat himself for eternity. No doubt this type-casting led to his deteriorating mental health and drug addiction.

Dracula was also a film of its time with it slow pacing, shorter run-time and tiny budget being indicative of the early decades of cinema. The lack of musical score hurt the film's pacing. Its lack could be attributed to the high cost of adding music, as well as it still being too novel for audiences. Either way, it made the film quite dull.

Perhaps I'm being unfair in comparing Dracula to modern-horror films. Obviously, it has earned its place in the horror-movie canon, but it wasn't for me.

Nil By Mouth review

 Nil By Mouth does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time.

Nil by Mouth marked Gary Oldman's directorial and screen-writing debut. The film follows a highly dysfunctional family living on a South-East London estate. Ray (Ray Winstone) is the family's violent, bad-tempered patriarch, as well as petty crook. Val (Kathy Burke) is his long-suffering wife. Her brother Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) is a junkie. Rounding out the family is Ray's equally violent and aggressive best friend Mark (Jamie Foreman.)

Although Nil by Mouth does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time, it will surely be number one on the bleakest, most depressing, relentlessly dark films of all time. I might add it to my future lists of the films too traumatic to watch again. 

Why was it so depressing and bleak? I think the main reason was its unflinching authenticity. It had an unmatched gritty realism. It was like one of the kitchen-sink dramas of the sixties which would star Albert Finney and be written by John Usborne. 

Rumours abounded that Nil by Mouth was based on Gary Oldman's own life and family. This is only partly true. It wasn't based on Gary Oldman's own family but of people he knew and grew up with. Either way, the violence and aggression were difficult to stomach. 

This was only emphasised by the film-making itself. A lot of the camerawork seemed hand-held lit only by natural or dull lighting. This was a mile away from the bright glitz and glamour of Hollywood. There were also plenty of shots of Ray and Mark walking through Central London which looked like they were shot with ultra-long lenses. Far from extras, it seemed like they were filming unwitting locals out on a Friday or a Saturday night. Even if that wasn't the case, it still looked very authentic.

At the heart of this, we had the proto-typical hard man Ray Winston giving a brilliant performance as the psychotic Ray. Every bit his equal was Kathy Burke. I know she is primarily known as a comedienne, but she is just as good in dramatic performances. As Val, she cut the most pathetic and tragic of characters. Again maybe that's because of how pitifully real she was. There are far too many beaten wives screwed over by their hot-tempered husbands in the world.

I know I've been harping on about the realism, but Oldman definitely dropped the ball a couple of times with the script. On these occasions, the film's authenticity was undercut. One scene sees Billy and his mate running away from a guy they just robbed. They run and hide in a launderette. The guy looks ready to stab them. The next scene? Billy and his mate are locked safely away in jail. The audience is obviously supposed to infer what happened in the in-between but it was still a sudden cut.

But this was nothing compared to the film's ending which almost undercut the entire film. Spoilers

After Ray almost beats Val to death and she leaves him, the final scene sees them back together again all playing happy families. We're supposed to infer that Ray has turned over a new leaf and has left his beating days behind him. I hadn't seen enough evidence of that to be convinced. 

On a final note, I loved the film's score though. It shouldn't be a surprise it was so good as it was composed by Eric Clapton.

Those minor gripes aside, this was an impressive directorial debut from Gary Oldman. It was also a damn depressing one.

Where Eagles Dare review

 Number 604 on the top 1000 films of all time is the WW2 epic 'Where Eagles Dare.'

Major John Smith (Richard Burton) and Lieutenant Morris Schaffer (Clint Eastwood) are leading a crack-team of commandoes to rescue the captured American General George Carnaby (Robert Beatty) who is being held hostage in a remote Nazi castle. However, not all is what it seems.

Where Eagles Dare was based on the book of the same name written by Alistair Maclean who also wrote the film's screenplay. Maclean had his share of critics with some deriding his plot as melodrama and his characters as cardboard. Considering Maclean also wrote the screenplay, those same criticisms also existed in this film.

Yet they didn't really matter, as the film was thoroughly entertaining. It had more twisters and turns than your average high-octane rollercoaster, as well as an endless supply of pyrotechnics, explosions and poor stunt-men being thrown around like sacks of potatoes. You definitely can't fault the film on its production level. It looked great on-screen.

Not sure if I can say the same for John Smith or Morris Schaffer. I've always said that Eastwood is a one-note actor doing little less than providing a sarcastic dry wit. Burton was similarly unimaginative in his portrayal of John Smith. But perhaps that's more a criticism of the characters themselves rather than the characterisations. Neither of them were particularly complicated.

Maclean also received criticism for his vapid female characters. This definitely did not come through on the film though with characters like Mary Ellison (Mary Ure) and Heidi Schmidt (Ingrid Pitt) - follow British undercover agents - more than providing a match for their male counterparts. They were not sex objects nor sacrificial lambs but tough soldiers not afraid to get into the action.

Where Eagles Dare is certainly not without its critics - some are fair in their criticism, yet the film is so entertaining, the criticisms aren't that important.

Dangerous Liaisons review

 Number 601 on the top 1000 films of all time is the period drama 'Dangerous Liaisons.'

Based on the book and later stage play of the same name, Dangerous Liaisons is set in pre-revolution France. It follows two scorned socialites: the Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) and the Marquise de Mertuil (Glenn Close) as they plot revenge on their ex-lovers. Michelle Pfieffer, Keanu Reeves and Uma Thurman co-star.

If there is one thing you should know by now is that I don't care for a period drama. Never have done. They've never appealed to me, often focussing on parts of history I don't care about, as well as containing characters I don't care about.

This was certainly the case with Dangerous Liaisons where the characters were painfully tedious and pretentious. They were rich people with such shallow problems that they have to invent their own conflicts to be seen as remotely interesting to outsiders. But instead of interesting, they were quite boring really.

This wasn't the fault of the actors, or at least, the older generation of John Malkovich and Glenn Close. Both of the lead actors were terrific and deserve any flowers they were given. They were much better than their younger counterparts: Keanu Reeves and Uma Thurman. Both of which were such wet blankets that it was difficult to believe they would go onto dominate Hollywood in their own respective ways.

Dangerous Liaisons was also an Oscar-darling. It was nominated for no less than seven Oscars, with Glenn Close getting a nod for Best Actress, but also going onto win Best Costume AND Best production design. I cannot deny that the production itself looked exquisite from the ways to the dresses and suits - not one hair was out of place.

I never like to judge films especially period dramas, before I've watched them. That's what I did here though and my initial judgements were completely correct. 

Thank you for Smoking review

 Number 637 on the top 1000 films of all time is the black-comedy Thank you for Smoking.

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a high-ranking cigarette exec who lobbies for the tobacco industry. He must carefully balance his job and his relationship with his estranged 12-year-old son Joey (Cameron Bright.) Sam Elliot, Katie Holmes, Rob Lowe, JK Simmons and Robert Duvall co-star.

This wasn't an absolutely awful movie. I could see its intention to be a satire and it definitely had its funny moments, but it was also quite superficial. There could have been a lot more depth. Nowhere is this more true than with the character of Nick Naylor.

It's quite obvious that he was supposed to be a shallow character and his character arc would show him maturing into somebody deeper. He is supposed to go from an unlikable, self-confident jerk into a man who can recognise the error of his ways. Except this doesn't really happen.

True, I would question how liable you could ever make a tobacco lobbyist. Especially one who cohorts with other lobbyists of other questionable industries or have difficult relationships with their children. But I also have an anti-smoking bias - always have done. This type of character would never appeal to me.

Nick Naylor reminded me of characters I have seen in George Clooney's films like  Up in the Air and Michael Clayton, but unlike those characters, Nick Naylor doesn't go through a satisfactory transformation. Or a transformation at all. He begins as an unlikable and immoral jerk and ends as a slightly less unlikable and immoral jerk. 

After his boss stabs him in the back, Naylor publicly calls him out. His boss goes up in smoke, as does the reporter who honey-trapped Naylor into revealing information that she uses for a damning expose. All the characters around him face consequences. Except for Nick Naylor himself. He unfairly goes off as a hero with a son who believes in him again. Although their relationship was never that damaged in the first place.

It's a shame as this film had lots of potential. But the pay-off was disappointing and unearned.

Lost Highway review

 Number 635 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's surrealist neo-noir psychological thriller 'Lost Highway.'

Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) is a saxophonist who is accused of murdering his girlfriend Renee (Patricia Arquette.) After being jailed, he mysteriously disappears only to be replaced by a completely different man - Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty) a mechanic who has connections with frightening mobster Mr Eddy (Robert Loggia.)

This is film is classic Lynchian horror - think Mulholland Drive. It is surreal beyond belief. Painfully surreal. And too often that surrealism got in the way of what could have been a very psychological thriller.

I'm not the smartest or most attentive of viewers so I struggle in following neo-noir films or even the old-time noir films like The Big Sleep at the best of times. This was only exacerbated by the surrealism. I could just about follow the storyline without the body-swapping or abstract dreams, but with? I was more lost than the titular lost highway.

This is probably a criticism of my own cerebral capabilities rather than Lynch's direction - although I would argue that the film started very slowly. It dramatised Fred and Renee's sexual relationship. It was probably only fifteen or twenty minutes, but it felt like it was going on for ages. And I think the film's pacing is a legitimate criticism. At times, it moved along at a blistering pace. At other times, all his momentum stopped whenever things got more abstract.

What I can't criticise is the casting of Robert Loggia who brought an electrifying energy to his role of Mr Loggia the bad guy. It had the same fear factor of Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet. Appropriately after being passed over for Blue Velvet, Loggia directed a tirade at Lynch - which is what subsequently won him the part here.

I've seen a few Lynch films now and with the exception of The Straight Story, I can't say I'm a fan. All too weird for me.