Let the Right one in review

 Number 332 on the top top 1000 films of all time is the Swedish, romantic horror 'Let the Right One in.'

Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) is a twelve year-old who is being bullied in school. He also has a troubled home life. One wintry evening, he meets a mysterious child called Eli (Lina Leandersson) who is harbouring a dark secret. Eli is a two-hundred year old vampire who has the form of a twelve-year old child.

This film very much reminded me of Stephen King's Carrie. A troubled child is terribly bullied. They are then aided by supernatural forces to overcome their bullies. Whereas Carrie has special powers, Oskar has unknowingly fallen in love with a vampire. And it s this love story that drives the film. Despite being far from conventional, it was sweet seeing the story unfold.

Oskar meets Eli in a playground while it is snowing. This may seem like a suspicious and an unlikely place to begin a romance, it is believe as we see how isolated Oskar has become. As the film progresses, his and Eli's relationship develops further and even when Eli's true nature is revealed, Oskar isn't scared away. The two of them even use Morse code to secretly communicate with each other.

I also enjoyed how the 'horror' was underplayed. Modern horror film tend to over-rely on tacky CGI or a jumpscare every five seconds. Sure this is scary once or twice, but it becomes very tedious if it's done all the time. Much of the horror in 'Let the Right One in' happens off-camera making it even scarier. The creepy atmosphere is alluded to either with creepy music or clever angles rather than excess gore. And then this makes the on-screen horror moments truly terrifying. Whether this was a character bursting into flames or Eli's eyes bleeding, this film had its genuinely scary moments.

And a quick note on Kare and Lina. Both of them were great in the lead roles. I don't think all the child actors were great especially those bullying Oskar, but the two leads gave good performances.

Overall, I enjoyed this film. It worked as a romance and as a horror. It had some endearing moments, but some truly scary ones too.

The Man from Earth review

 Number 337 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction film 'The Man from Earth.'

John Oldman (David Lee Smith) is an academic moving on from his old life. At his farewell party, he reveals a big secret to his fellow academics: he claims to be a caveman who has survived 14,000 years into the modern day.

Before I watch these films, I generally take a cursory glance of their Wikipedia pages, so I know what I'm up against. When I read about this film, I thought it would be a tedious, surreal, philosophical arthouse film a la Ingmar Bergman.  And we've established that I'm not a fan of Bergman.

However, that assessment could not have been more wrong. Despite The Man from Earth being little more than a one-act play, it was very engaging. The academics discuss the philosophical nature of Oldman's being in a way that is accessible for audiences to understand. It isn't too scholarly neither is it oversimplified. I never felt like I was being talked down to or did the dialogue feel contrived.

And as the story advances things only become more interesting as Oldman's story is examined from different academic disciplines - from biology to archaeology and even theology. This culminates in the implication that even this outlandish claim didn't harm the suspension of disbelief. This claim and the others were all backed up by reasoned logic like any academic argument.

I also really enjoyed the ending. *Spoiler alert* Under duress, Oldman reveals this was all an elaborate prank. Some of his friends believe him and others. But without any conclusive evidence to either prove or disprove him, the audience is left to make up their own minds.

This film definitely surprised me. It was quiet, understated but very powerful.

District 9 review

 Number 329 on the top 1000 films of all time is the South African, science fiction action thriller: District 9.

In 1980's South Africa, an alien spaceship appears over Johannesburg. The alien inhabitants, only known by the human moniker of 'Prawn,' are rounded up into a shanty town known as District 9. Thirty years later, humanity has had enough of these aliens, whom they see as nothing more than thieves and liars, and demand their relocation. Heading this up is bureaucrat Wikus Van Der Mer We (Sharlton Copley) who befriends a Prawn called Christopher Johnson who is trying to return home with his son.

There is no denying that we are a tribal species. We are afraid of the unknown and sometimes that fear can turn into anger, as an us vs them mentality takes over. This is a theme that's been tackled many times before, but nothing about District 9 felt cliched or hackneyed. Having the "other," so to speak, being an insectoid alien was a refreshing way of engaging with this time.

District 9 is a very obvious allegory of South African apartheid. And the metaphor helped to keep the message pertinent. Wikus was a likeable protagonist starting off as a hapless, ineffectual bureaucrat and becoming an unlikely hero. After being exposed to a mysterious alien liquid, he begins mutating into one of them. This brings him to the attention of the shadowy MNU - a weapons technology who want to dissect him. They believe he holds the answer to helping humans to operate the alien weaponry. Vikus escapes and later connects with Christopher Johnson.

Sharlton Copley was very good considering that he had no formal acting experience. This was even more impressive considering that he improvised most of his dialogue. I did enjoy how he didn't fulfil a reluctant or even unlikely hero archetype. At many times he isn't heroic but cowardly. He helps Christopher Johnson, not out of altruism, but for the purely selfish reason of wanting to be transformed back into a human. But this flaw made him classically human. And he overcomes this flaw to become a hero.

And although the Prawns were little more than CGI animations they felt real. Just like humans, they weren't all the same. Some like Christopher Johnson were only trying to protect their family while others were criminals and miscreants. And the fact that we learn nothing about them except for how humans perceive them only makes them the more empathetic. You realise that there is more to them than meets the eye.

If the film falls down anywhere, it would be with the villains who were generic and superficial. The head mercenary Colonel Koobus (David James) was little more than your shouty, run-of-the-mill bad guy. He evens falls into the classic "I'm going to monologue before I kill the hero instead of killing him" cliche, which results in the Prawns catching and dismembering him. And Nigerian crime lord Obesadnjo (Eugene Wanagwa Khumbanyiwa) wasn't developed enough to be menacing. I also don't understand why Wikus would still love his wife after she betrays him to her father, who is the managing director of MNU, but I guess love is blind.

Ultimately, this was a great film. I enjoyed it immensely. It was a brilliant morality tale in how our own hatred and fear of the 'other' can tear us apart.

The Lady Vanishes review

 Number 311 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's 1938 mystery thriller 'The Lady Vanishes.'

Iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood) is an English tourist returning home from travelling in Europe. She befriends an elderly woman called Miss Froy (May Witty) on the train before drifting off to sleep. When she awakes, Miss Froy has vanished. The fellow passengers don't know where or even who she might be. Iris is convinced something bigger is happening and along with the pompous Gilbert (Michael Redgrave) she begins to investigate.

To say that this film employs the suspension of disbelief would be the understatement of the century. It stretches disbelief to ridiculous lengths. The plot creaks as much as the hokey special effects and cardboard sets. I know that this was the 1930's, but the final shootout was made less thrilling by the melodramatic deaths and tinny explosions/sound effects. And it emerges that Miss Froy was secretly a British spy who had to report vital information in the form of a tune. The only thing more unbelievable was how she escaped from the firefight unharmed.

Having said all this, I did enjoy this film. Yes, the beginning drags on for too long - too much time was spent introducing the characters. But when things did get going, the tension became very high. Just like Iris, I wanted to know where Miss Froy had gone and what was her true identity. Also it was a very funny film with Gilbert's standoffish attitude providing a lot of the comedy. Redgrave played the laughs well.

There were plot holes and loose ends - what happened to the henchman who holds our heroes at gunpoint just when it looks like the day has been saved? Nothing apparently, as they're all fine in the next shot.

Despite this, I did enjoy this film which was one of Hitchcock's earliest efforts. But he started as he meant to go on and it was a great start. 

JFK review

 Number 306 on the top 1000 films of all time is Oliver Stone's epic political thriller: JFK.

Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is the former New Orleans district attorney. After President Kennedy is assassinated, the Warren report declares that Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) was the lone perpetrator. Garrison has his doubts and reopens the investigation. He inadvertently unearths a massive conspiracy theory. The huge ensemble cast includes Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau and John Candy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a film needs a very good reason to be over three hours long. And it needs an excellent reason to be three hours and twenty-five minutes long. JFK had no such reason. it was one of the longest films I've seen and far longer than it needed to be.

It's safe to say that Kennedy's assassination is one of the most controversial topics in history. Few people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting as a lone wolf. The true perpetrators range from the mob to the CIAS to the Russians to the Cubans. Any one of these explored in isolation could have made a very interesting film, but where Stone went was how he tried to connect everything. Reportedly, he read two dozen books on Kennedy's assassination and his research team read 100-200 books. And it was like Stone tried to include every single scrap of information he could find. This made for a bloated, unfocussed film.

The supporting cast was huge and certainly could have been trimmed down. Garrison's many deputies were very similar to each other and I regularly mixed them up. Some of them were also ultimately pointless to the plot as they were involved in subplots that went nowhere. Bill Broussard (Michael Rooker) is one such deputy who becomes uncomfortable at how the conspiracy begins to implicate LBJ. He betrays his former boss by starting to work for the feds, but we never see any consequences for this.

Stone was heavily criticised for taking liberties with history. But my issue isn't so much was he included, but what he didn't, which was nothing. He included everything which was not necessary. I could have done without seeing how Garrison's investigation was affecting his family life. This would have cut the film down a lot.

And everything was slow that after a while it became very tedious. Much of the film were characters sitting in a room either quietly talking or loudly yelling at each other. As such, a lot of the supporting cast was wasted. Gary Oldman did very little as did Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. With so many famous faces, it's inevitable that you can't give them all the attention they deserve and a lot of them did fall by the wayside. Although, John Candy and Joe Pesci gave memorable performances and Costner's ending monologue was particularly powerful.

The film did have the potential to live up to its ambitious premise, but if you have to watch a film in two halves then it is too damn long.

Captain Phillips review

 Number 302 on the top 1000 films of all time is the biographical action thriller Captain Phillips.

Based on the true story of the Maersk Alabama hijacking, Captain Phillips follows the tale of the eponymous titular character played by Tom Hanks - a merchant sailor whose ship is attacked and captured by Somali pirates led by Abduwali Muse (Barkhad Abdi.) When the plan goes wrong, Muse then takes Captain Phillips hostage.

If I could describe this film in one word? Intense. From the start to the finish, it was edge of the seat stuff. And a lot of that was down to how well Paul Greengrass paced the film. With thrillers, pacing is absolutely everything and some of them fall flat due to bad pacing. There is the tendency to draw out the scene setting or the denouement usually leading to the climax being rushed and unsatisfying. That was not the case here.

The film opens with Captain Phillips speaking with his wife Andrea (Catherine Keener) about their home and family life. They talk about the rapidly changing world and how their children will fit in and that's it. That's all we needed to see. The simple ending was complimented by the simple ending where *spoiler alert* Captain Phillips is rescued by the US navy and breaks down in tears. This left plenty of time for a brilliant rest of the film. 

Captain Phillips and his crew fend off one assault by the Somali pirates only for them to return later and board the ship. Some quick-thinking tactics see the pirates being chased into the lifeboat only for them to kidnap the captain and hold him hostage to safeguard their escape. These peaks and troughs really made the fil nail-bitingly tense. I know this was based on a true story where nobody died, but it was difficult to see how any of Captain Phillips' crew could come out of this alive. 

Least of all, Captain Phillips himself. Tom Hanks gave a magnificent performance which really showcases his talents as an actor. In one scene he is kissing his wife goodbye, in another he is trying to talk down Muse and in another he is breaking down in tears. By the end of the film, both the character and the actor have been put through the ringer. And it was an absolute travesty that he was not nominated for an Oscar. 

Barkhad Abdi was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. This was his first acting role and it was a hell of a debut. Muse is the quiet, but thoughtful leader of the pirates. He is smart enough to lead an attack on the Maersk Alabama, but also unpredictable and scary enough to control the more volatile members of his crew.  He has enough nuance to stop him from being a cliched villain. He justifies himself by saying he is only a fisherman wanting to stay in control of his destiny instead of relying on unwanted help from the Americans. Abdi very much earnt his Oscar nomination. But to not nominate Hanks as well? Terrible.

This really was a great film. It was edge-of-the-seat action, but with real heart. Abdi was fantastic as the villainous Muse, but not nominating Hanks for Best Actor has to be one of the biggest snubs in Oscar history.

Brazil review

 Number 299 on the top 1000 films of all time is Terry Gillam's dystopian black comedy drama Brazil.

Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) is a low-level bureaucrat in an unnamed dystopian future. He frequently dreams of saving a mystery woman from death. When a typing errors results in the erroneous death of cobbler Archibald Buttle, instead of rogue heating engineer Archibald Tuttle (Robert De Niro) Lowry tries to undo the mistake which brings him into contact with the woman he has been dreaming about.

Surreal? Arthouse? Experimental? A satirical look at the modern world? However you look at it, there is no denying that Brazil is a weird film. Made by Terry Gillam and co-starring Michael Palin, it was a bit like a twisted Monty Python misadventure. Rather than one cohesive narrative, the film jumped from surreal scene to surreal scene - we have Sam Lowry dreaming of being a winged warrior saving a woman from falling to her death, the next we jump to Archibald Buttle being arrested and sentenced to death and then Sam is fighting this massive robotic samurai. It really was just bizarre and after a while the weirdness all became a bit much. I just don't have the patience for it. Maybe if there was an obvious deeper meaning than I would get it, but it just seemed like it was being weird for the sake of being weird.

Having said that, Terry Gillam was inspired by 1984, despite having never read it. Gillam was also highly inspired by Fellini and I could see his influence here. Brazil was like a grotesque parody of both Fellini's work and of 1984. Lowry is the stand-in for Winston Smith, another low-level bureaucrat stuck in a totalitarian system. It's not Big Brother and Emmanuel Goldstein, but it is dystopic nonetheless. The origins of this world are not explored in any great detail, but there is an over-reliance on technology which usually malfunctions. And *spoiler alert* just when it looks like Lowry has escaped and will live happily ever after, it was all a torture-inspired hallucination.

And I know this was in the eighties, but the special effects looked awful. From the tinny explosions to the flamethrowers that were obviously painted paper, they really looked like they were from a cheap B-film. Terry Gillam has referred to this as the second in his trilogy of imagination, and it was nominated for best original screenplay. There is no doubt that this was an original, imaginative film. Confusing, surreal and abstract, but definitely original. I can safely say that I haven't seen anything like it before.