This is England review

 Number 599 on the top 1000 films of all time is Shane Meadows' 2006 British drama 'This is England.'

Shaun (Thomas Thurgoose) is a troubled twelve-year-old boy whose father has recently been killed in the Falklands' War. Bullied at school, he is taken in by a gang of skinheads led by Woody (Joe Gilgun) and his girlfriend Lol (Vicky McClure.) However, everything changes when the gang's volatile and racist member Combo (Stephen Graham) returns from prison.

Directors like Shane Meadows always have difficult jobs when it comes to films like 'This is England.' They can't be seen either out-right condemning or approving of their content; they have to portray an objective reality allowing the viewer to make their own decisions. And that's where Meadows succeeded. Without ever becoming too preachy, he provides a fascinating snapshot into skinhead culture.

But he cannot take all the credit. Much of that should be bestowed on the brilliant Stephen Graham. Before he became a household name, he was playing characters who were espousing the same nationalistic, jingoism that was just as relevant now as it was back in the eighties. And he did it with such nuance. It would be all too easy to play the role as a romping - stomping, red-faced gammon shouting at the top of his lungs, but Graham was smarter than that. He brought many layers to Combo showing his vulnerability. While never condoning them, you understand his actions.

All this was seen through the perspective of twelve-year-old Shaun. This was a clever decision, as it was a stark warning of how easy somebody can be brainwashed by ideology. Thomas Thurgoose was very good in his debut role. While many of his co-stars like Joe Gilgun and Vicky McClure have gone onto bigger and better roles, I can't say the same for Thurgoose, but I'm sure his time will come soon.

Granted, you could argue that there isn't much in the way of plot, but I don't think it was necessary in a slice-of-life film like this. It was a simple snapshot of skinhead culture. And that's all it needed to be. Plus it had the brilliant Stephen Graham as the lead. What more do you want? Just be warned, this is England is way too depressing to watch more than once.

The Last King of Scotland review

 Number 557 on the top 1000 films of all time is the historical drama 'The Last King of Scotland.'

Nicholas Garrigan (James Mcavoy) is a young Scottish doctor. Looking to make a difference, he travels to Uganda to work in a missionary clinic ran by David Merrit (Adam Katz) and his wife Sarah (Gillian Anderson.) But after a chance encounter, he becomes the personal physician of the Ugandan despot Idi Amin (Forrest Whitaker.)

In terms of dictators, Idi Amin is up there among the rest. He expelled all South Asians from his country, wiped out all political opposition and was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Despite all this, Forrest Whitaker showed a remarkably human side of the tyrant. Without never romanticising his actions, Whitaker made Idi Amin into a watchable character. He had a fascinating arc as we saw him spiral into paranoia and meglomania while remaining incredibly charismatic.

James Mcavoy was equally good as the naive, starry-eyed doctor initially a disciple of Amin, until his tyrannical actions become too much for Garrigan to ignore. The character of Nicholas Garrigan was a nice dismantling of the white saviour archetype. Rather than your average white colonist aiming to pacify, sedate and civilise the savage negro, Garrigan is a destructive force, albert unintentionally. Instead of saving the black characters, he gets many of them killed. *Spoilers*

One of these characters is Amin's third wife Kay (Kerry Washington) whom Nicholas impregnates while the pair are having a secret tryst. He is criticised for being a white man who couldn't resist the mystical trophy of a black woman.

The Last King of Scotland was penned by Peter Morgan who wrote other biopics like the Queen and the Crown. He wrote well knowing the most important sections to focus on. There isn't any spare fat anywhere in this film. I also want to give dues to Gillian Anderson. She was great in the supporting role of Sarah Merrit. Having seen countless dictators come and go, she fails to share Nicholas' wide-eyed optimism for Idi Amin's regime.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Last King of the Scotland. It was a great look into the life of Uganda's ruthless dictator. 

Lucky Number Slevin review

 Number 504 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul McGuigan's 2006 neo-noir thriller 'Lucky Number Slevin.'

Slevin Kelevra (Josh Hartnett) is a victim of mistaken identity. Believed to be his friend Nicky, he is thrust into a war between two mob bosses - the Boss (Morgan Freeman) and the Rabbi (Ben Kingsley.) This is all while Slevin tries to evade the ruthless hitman Goodkat (Bruce Willis.) Together with the love interest and coroner Lindsey (Lucy Liu.) Slevin has to survive however he can. But all is not what it seems.

The general problem with the noir and, by extension, neo-noir films is that they are so overly-convoluted. The Big Sleep is notorious for its incomprehensible plot. Lucky Number Slevin is no exception. Major spoilers lie ahead.

Things are all relatively straightforward until the film's conclusion where everything is explained in the most complicated way possible. Slevin has actually been playing both mob bosses against in each other. This is to take revenge for how they murdered his father when Slevin was a child. To top everything off, a corrupt cop Brikowski (Stanley Tucci) murdered Slevin's mother. And, of course, he is the cop investigating the Boss and the Rabbi. Naturally he comes under Slevin's radar too.

This was a contrivance too far. I don't see why they had any reason to connect Brikowski with the main pot. it was all so unnecessary. Plus Slevin was supposed to be killed at the same time at his parents. Carrying out the hit was none other than the ruthless Goodkat who spares Slevin as he is a hitman who has suddenly developed a conscience because of ... reasons. And then Goodkat becomes a mentor to Slevin helping him to take revenge.

And despite having some major acting talent, Kingsley and Freeman are both Oscar winners, none of the characters were particularly memorable. Maybe that's because the characters weren't particularly memorable.

Although the mistaken identity element did produce some funny parts earlier on, the overall convoluted plot and one-dimensional characters made this an unenjoyable watch.

Sabrina review

 Number 520 on the top 1000 films of all time is Billy Wilder's 1954 romantic-comedy 'Sabrina.'

Sabrina Fairchild (Audrey Hepburn) is the daughter of Thomas Fairchild - the chauffeur to the wealthy Larabee family. All her life, she has held an unrequited love to younger brother and playboy David (William Holden.) Also present is David's older brother Linus (Humphrey Bogart) who soon starts harbouring feelings of his own towards Sabrina.

Never mind 520 on the top 1000 films of all time, this film should be number one on the most boring films of all time. Seriously, it was as dull as your average period drama. And I'm not hating on romantic-comedies - I thoroughly enjoyed Breakfast at Tiffany's and Roman Holiday - but Sabrina was insufferably dull.

It was all so flat. There was so little drama. And so little conflict. Okay, fair enough, Sabrina's broken heart at David's constant womanising leads to her trying to commit suicide by locking herself in a garage with a running car, but she is quickly rescued by Linus, no harm done.

She is shipped off to a French-finishing school where she takes some cooking classes for a couple of years, before returning home where David finally starts taking an interest in her. It's hardly on the some levels of drama as the Notebook.

*Spoilers* It's later revealed that Linus has macchinated a marriage between David and Elizabeth Tyson - wealthy heiress to a business empire, all to serve the Larabees' business interests. In doing so, he falls in love with Sabrina and she him, creating a love triangle between David, Linus and Sabrina. Yet this never worked due to the lack of on-screen chemistry between the three leads, probably due to Bogart's dislike of Hepburn and Holden.

Hepburn is an obviously charming and accomplished actress especially in performing her verbose lines, so it's a shame I didn't like this film more. There was just nothing to interest me.

Being John Malkovich review

 Number 500 on the top 1000 films of all time is the surrealist fantasy-comedy 'Being John Malkovich.'

Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is a down-and-out puppeteer living in New York City. He is trapped in a loveless marriage with his wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz.) When he finds work as an office-clerk, he stumbles upon a mysterious portal that leads him into the mind of John Malkovich. He discovers that for fifteen minutes a day he can literally be John Malkovich. He and his co-worker Maxine (Catherine Keener) then decide to exploit this by charging people $200 for the experience of 'Being John Malkovich.'

I have watched over 500 films on this list. I have watched comedies, dramas, musicals, romances and horrors. And this has to be one of the weirdest, zaniest, most creative films I have ever seen. It takes a simple concept, which could have easily become tedious, and kept taking it to new levels. The surrealism is what made everything so relatable. In many ways, the film is like a daydream - who hasn't thought about being a celebrity for a day? It's one hell of a vicarious thrill if completely bonkers.

Although could we expect anything less from Spike Jonze? This was the man who went onto the direct the absolutely excellent and similarly creative 'Her.' But what's most impressive is that 'Being John Malkovich' was his directorial debut, as well as the debut of Charlie Kauffman, who penned the script. Kauffman was up for the best Original Screenplay Oscar, but he ultimately lost to Alan Ball and 'American Beauty.' While 'American Beauty' is a good film in its own right, it is pretentious, and not nearly as creative as 'Being John Malkovich.' Kauffman penned a great script that didn't take itself too seriously.

But it only worked because John Malkovich agreed to star in it. Reportedly he only wanted to produce and instead recommended Tom Cruise, but Kauffman was adamant that it had to be Malkovich in the role. When the studio also suggested other actors, Kauffman stuck to his guns. This was a great decision, as the film wouldn't have worked with another actor in the role.

Cameron Diaz also really surprised me. She was virtually unrecognisable as Lotte. I have never rated her much as an actress, but she did the drama well here. And although Craig Schwartz was a slimy toad, John Cusack played the role well. He was intriguing enough to want to keep watching. He was also weak-minded enough to be influenced by the scheming Maxine who was a Lady Macbeth character of sorts. She machinates much of the film's conflict including the scheme to charge people to inhabit John Malkovich's mind.

Being John Malkovich might have been one of the zaniest films ever-made, but it is definitely worth a watch. 

Breakfast at Tiffany's review

 Number 490 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1961 romantic-comedy 'Breakfast at Tiffany's.'

Based on Truman Capote's novella of the same name, Breakfast at Tiffany's follows the free-spirited Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn.) She is a vibrant and independent socialise who falls in love with her neighbour - the struggling writer Paul Varjack (George Peppard.)

Firstly, let's address the Mickey Rooney shaped elephant in the room. He plays Holly's landlord Mr Yunioshi. For this role, Rooney wore prosthetics to look Japanese. This received both historical and contemporary criticism for being a racist characterisation of the Japanese, and East-Asians in general. As someone with East Asian heritage, I didn't find this offensive so much as I found it annoying. 

In fact, if there was an Oscar for most irritating performance ever Mickey Rooney would have surely won. Mr Yunioshi was a one-dimensional, terrible character. Rooney seemed to spend all his time shouting at the top of his voice in an accent that quickly grated on me. I think he was supposed to be some type of comic relief, but there was nothing funny about his performance.

If anything, I was more grossed-out at the revelation that Holly was only fourteen when she married her first husband Doc Golightly (Buddy Ebsen.) She is only nineteen in the film. And this is something that the film completely glosses over. But then again this was the sixties, long before political correctness ever became a thing. 

That notwithstanding, I did enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's. It was a wonderfully subtle film with plenty of laughs and a charming performance from Hepburn. She imbued the ditzy Golightly with enough charisma to make her a thoroughly likeable character. 

Director Blake Edwards also allowed for plenty of improvisation which helped the comedy to thrive. For the famous party scene, he let the champagne and food flow freely meaning, gave the cast little direction, permitting them to produce some authentic and hilarious moments.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is also well-known for its signature song 'Moon River.' Written specifically for Audrey Hepburn's limited range, it was the perfect accompaniment for the film. Suitably romantic and understated, it went onto rightly win the Oscar for the Best Original song. When a studio executive suggested it be cut in the film, Audrey Hepburn shot back with "over my dead body." If it wasn't for her strong convictions, we would have been robbed this gentle song.

The Mickey Rooney yellowface controversy aside, I did very much enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's.

The Celebration review

 Number 199 on the top 1000 films of all time is Thomas Vinterberg's Danish black-comedy drama 'The Celebration.'

Helge (Henning Moritzen) is the ageing patriarch of the Klingenfeldt-Hansen family. For his sixtieth birthday party, he invites all his family and friends out for a big dinner at a country hotel. The guests include his eldest-son Christian (Ulrich Thomsen,) the obnoxious and racist younger brother Michael (Thomas Bo Larsen,) daughter Helene (Paprika Steen,) wife Else (Birthe Neumann) and Helene's African-American boyfriend Gbatokai (Gbatokai Dakinah.) At the dinner, the celebration quickly turns sour as dark family secrets come to light.

I found this film to be a deeply uncomfortable watch. It was mainly horrible people being horrible to each other. It was also claustrophobic and suffocating. Perhaps that was because of its status as the first Dogme 95 - a new avant-garde film movement pioneered by Vinterberg. It championed low-budgets and simple production allowing the plot and performance to shine. That would explain the tight close-ups and shaky, hand-held camera-work. These forced the viewer right into the heart of the distressing action. And distressing is the best way to describe it.

When Christian gives a drunken speech, he accuses his father *spoilers* of sexually abusing he and his twin sister as children. It is later revealed that his sister killed herself because she couldn't cope with the emotional trauma. He also accuses his mother of standing by and letting it happen. Despite Michael's attempts to keep his brother quiet, this doesn't stop him from levying his allegations. In private, Helge threatens to expose Christian's lack of success with women and his potentially incestuous relationship with his twin sister. 

Furthermore, Michael is also depicted horribly. It is revealed that he cheated on his wife with a maid who went onto abort a pregnancy. When she tries talking to him at the party, he beats her senseless. He is brutal, boorish and racist especially toward Helene's black boyfriend. As a means of provocation, he encourages his guests to sing a racist Danish folk song. And if that isn't enough, Michael also has a short temper and argues regularly with his wife.

See my point? I don't know how any of this was conducive to entertaining viewing at all. Also, how is this classed as a black-comedy? Where were the funny parts? All I saw was a lot of people shouting at each other.

I think this is one of these films where you have to be a true cinophile to appreciate. I am evidently not one of those people, so I imagine I missed a lot of the hidden genius. But I did not enjoy this film at all.