Forbidden Planet review

 Number 565 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1956 science-fiction film 'Forbidden Planet.'

Commander John Adams (Leslie Nielsen) is leading a mission to the distant world of Altair IV to investigate the missing Bellerophon which disappeared 20 years before. There, he finds Doctor Morbius (Walter Pidgeon) and his daughter Alta (Anne Francis) who were the only survivors of the ill-fated mission.

As you know well by now, I'm not a big science-fiction fan. Too often, I find it's a vehicle for writers to show off how clever they are by writing an over-complicated and convoluted plot. However, Forbidden Planet didn't suffer from that. Instead, it fell into another pitfall which is common in science-fiction: excessive world-building. It prioritised world-building over plot. Any film that does this is likely to be a plodding, boring affair and Forbidden Planet was no exception.

It starts slowly and never really gets going. It doesn't leave second gear. Instead of anything interesting, we're treated to lengthy info-dumps about the Krell - the extinct alien race who once inhabited Altair IV. These ultimately do prove to be relevant to the plot, but they are much longer than they need to be. The more interesting part was seeing the crew-members fight off some invisible, malevolent force, but even this comes to a disappointing and anti-climatic conclusion.

Alta's character was also incredibly annoying. I say "character," but she had no character outside of the men she meets. It was hardly the most progressive portrayal of a woman on-screen. I get this was the 1950's, but Alta was a far-cry away from the feminist women that Katherine Hepburn was well-known for portraying. Instead she was a vapid, insipid irritant devoid of personality. 

She was badly-written. Alta, having never seen a man before, has to be coached on the best ways to be coached on the best ways to act and dress around them. This is even more ironic considering how Anne Francis went onto challenge female stereotypes in the TV series Honey West. She played the lead role in that show - one of the first actresses to do so. She was very much a pioneer of her craft. It's just a shame that she was lumped with such bad characters in the earlier parts of her career.

Yes, Robby the Robot was very cute, but he wasn't enough to save an ultimately boring film that focussed too much on world-building and poorly-written female characters instead of an interesting film.

Control review

 Number 523 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 biopic 'Control.'

Control focusses on the true-life story of Ian Curtis (Sam Riley) the troubled lead singer of the English post-punk band Joy Division. Control explores his relationship with his bandmates, his record label and his wife Debbie (Samantha Morton.)

As you will be very familiar with by now, I am not a fan of biopics. Nor am I familiar with Joy Division or Ian Curtis. But as somebody who couldn't even name a Joy Division song, I found Control entertaining and watchable. It was accessible even for a non-existent fan like me.

Filmed in colour and then rendered to black-and-white, Control hearkened back to a 1970's Cheshire. Everything was stark and bare, which gave the film great atmosphere. There was some great use of shadows and lighting especially the shots where we see the silhouetted Ian Curtis.

 Sam Riley brought Ian Curtis to life in his debut role. I did enjoy his performance. It was nuanced with plenty of gravitas. Anybody else thinks he really looked like Rami Malek? I had to keep doing double-takes, because the resemblance was so striking. I wasn't as keen on Riley's singing voice, but he was doing an imitation of Curtis, and I guess I'm not keen on post-punk music.

But Samantha Morton was every bit his equal. Dare I say she was better than Riley. She certainly proved why she has no less than two Oscar nominations. Their marriage was every bit as disturbed as Curtis, but Morton was a powerhouse. She spends much of the film with tears in her eyes. It is difficult not to feel sorry for her, after everything Curtis puts her through.

While Riley and Morton were good separately, they weren't so good together, but that was more down to the writing. It was obvious from the start that their marriage would not be a happy one, least of all to those who know the story. When the two started arguing, it was no surprise to me.

But they seemed to spend most of the film arguing. So much so, you wonder why they were so attracted to each other in the first place. We definitely needed to see more of the good before we saw the bad. Their relationship was rushed.

In fact most of the more tender moments seemed to be reserved for Ian and his Belgian mistress Annik (Alexandra Maria Lara.) They got on much more than he and Debbie ever did. This tenderness was missing from their marriage.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy Control. I'm not sure I'm going to become a Joy Division acolyte, but even to a non-existent fan like me, it was an entertaining and accessible watch. 

50/50 review

 Number 511 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2011 comedy-drama 50/50.

Adam Lerner (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a radio journalist whose world is turned upside down after he is diagnosed with spinal caner. Seth Rogen plays his best friend Kyle, Bryce Dallas Howard is his girlfriend Rachael, Anna Kendrick is his trainee therapist Elizabeth and Angelica Huston plays his over-bearing mother.

When I first started reviewing films all those years ago, I used a silly arbitrary rating scale that ranged from superlative to shit. Films like 50/50 would land decidedly in the 'meh' category. It wasn't amazing, but it also wasn't terrible.

It wasn't hilarious like how Heat Magazine described it, but it had its funny moments. The scenes where dam is receiving his chaemotherapy and bonds with a couple of old-timers were charming to watch. There were a few other funny moments, here and there, but nothing that had me rolling in the aisle, wetting my pants.

It didn't help that the characters were quite annoying. I get that a cancer diagnosis is unlikely to turn anybody into a ray of sunshine, but Adam does spend much of the film being an unlikeable, whiny jerk, especially to his best friend Kyle. And while Kyle is lacking in the social graces, he does have his friend's best interests at heart. But he was also loud and obnoxious. Rogen played the role with his trademark crude humour that wore thin after a while.

Bryce Dallas Howard's character was little better. She plays Adam's girlfriend who soon cheats on him when the pressures of being his carer became too much. Finally, you had Angelica Huston who played the standard over-bearing mother. All in all, not the most likeable lot. In fact, I probably liked Elizabeth the most - Adam's inexperienced therapist who is trying her best to help him.

As the two grow closer, Adam thankfully does become more likeable. I admit that it was predictable from the start that the two would end up together, but it was still nicely done. Their relationship was understated and quiet, as it should have been. The studio wanted the pair to be more physical, but thankfully this idea was rejected.

50/50 wasn't an entirely offensive film. Did I like it? Did I hate it? 50/50. 

The Name of the Rose review

 Number 506 on the top 1000 films of all time is the mystery historical drama 'The Name of the Rose.'

Set in a 14th century Benedictine Abbey in Northern Italy, Franciscan friar William of Baskeville (Sean Connery) arrives with his novice Adso (Christian Slater) to discover a gruesome murder has taken place. When William begins investigating, more murders start happening. F. Murray Abraham and Ron Perlman co-star.

At its heart, this was a who-dunnit in a historical setting. William and Adso were stand-ins for Sherlock and Dr Watson with William even saying "it's elementary." Who-dunnits should be gripping thrillers brimming with tension, but I was bored for most of the film.

Neither Connery or Slater were great in the lead roles. Connery was playing himself and Slater was playing a wet blanket of a character. This was only Slater's second film role. He wasn't great, giving a lifeless and dull performance. It didn't help that his character was an audience proxy, providing exposition where necessary, and where it wasn't necessary too, except for the weird moment where the village girl sleeps with him, because of... reasons. This love story was a big subplot, but it wasn't convincing at all. As William rightly points out, Adso is confusing lust with love.

The Name of the Rose was also excruciatingly slow. Much of the film focussed on singing monks and church politics. I get this is set in an abbey, but it didn't make for the most entertaining of cinema. By the time, we had meandered to the film's conclusion, I had all but lost interest.

The Name of the Rose was a plodding affair, devoid of dramatic tension or interesting characters. A while ago I wrote an article about films that could put you to sleep. If I were to write another one, the Name of the Rose would surely take the top place.

Blue Velvet Review

Number 471 on the top 1000 films of all time is David Lynch's neo-noir mystery thriller 'Blue Velvet.'

Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) is a recent college graduate who is returning home. When he discovers a severed ear in his garden, he is thrown into a dark world involving the night-club singer Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rosselini) and psychotic drug dealer Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper.)

When you think of David Lynch, you think of dark, abstract and surreal. When you think of noir films, you think of over-complicated, convoluted films. Thankfully Blue Velvet was relatively straightforward lacking any of the backwards-speaking and red rooms that made Twin Peaks such an enigmatic watch. If anything, David Lynch was just warming up here for his seminal TV show. Don't get me wrong, Blue Velvet was still weird, but it was nowhere near as weird as it could have been.

It helped that you had the excellent Dennis Hopper playing Frank Booth. Some might argue that he was so over-the-top, but this is what made him so scary. You never knew what he was going to do next. And this unpredictability made him such a terrifying villain. Yet Hopper kept the character incredibly grounded. He brought an electric energy to the role.

Praise should also be given to Isabella Rosselini. She was playing the tragic character of Dorothy Vallens helping her to revitalise her flagging career. But with good reason. She was great as the emotionally damaged cabaret singer who had fallen victim to Frank Booth's violent tendencies.

While Lynch was warming up for Twin Peaks, Kyle MacLachlan was doing the same for detective Dale Cooper in Twin Peaks. Kyle was good as well. But I think Lynch was the true star here, crafting a memorable, if weird thriller that was an intense and gripping watch, with a great performance by Dennis Hopper.  

Mississippi Burning review

 Number 470 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1988 crime-thriller 'Mississippi Burning.'

Mississippi Burning is based on the true story of three civil rights activists going missing in a small Mississippi town. When FBI agents Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) and Alan Ward (Wilhelm Dafoe) start investigating, they are met with hostility from the town's racist locals. Soon they suspect the three activists were killed by the KKK. Frances Mcdormand, Brad Dourif, Michael Rooker, R. Lee Erney and Stephen Tobolowsky co-star.

I recently wrote a listicle about films too traumatic to watch again. If I were to write another list, surely Mississippi Burning would be at the top of the list. This is a film that does not shy away from the United States' racist past. Rather, it tackles it head-on. And there's no other way you can depict such horrible subject matter.

Mississippi Burning is a harrowing and brutal portrayal of the ugly discrimination that the black community was forced to endure. Yes, it does show it through the perspective of white men, and it would be have been more interesting if the black men were put more front-and-centre, but it was still a powerful watch all the same.

The relationship between Anderson and Ward underpinned the film. Anderson, the older and more maverick of the two, has to follow the orders of the younger, but more senior in rank, Ward, who is a stickler for the rules. Despite their differences, they learn to work together.  Dafoe and Hackman had great chemistry, which shone through.

As Dafoe is a character actor, he usually plays larger-than-life oddballs, usually leading, to over-the-top, exaggerated performances *cough cough* the the Boondock Saints, but he was incredibly measured and controlled in this.

Hackman was also great. Anderson has a romantic subplot with the wife of one of the Mississippi police officers played by Frances Mcdormand. she showed why she is one of the few actors to have won three Best Acting Oscars. Their relationship was wonderfully understated. Originally, the pair were supposed to have a sex-scene, but this was dropped in favour of the two characters standing in the shadows. And that's all we needed to see. Props to the lighting department.

And all the supporting cast were good too: Brad Dourif, Michael Rooker, and, especially, Stephen Tobolowsky were chilling ass the abhorrent KKK members.

Sure there might be some who criticise Mississippi Burning for distorting history, but the key message is clear enough: the black community was subject to terrible, racist abuse. And that's a true we should never forget.

Another Ten films that should not be on the top 1000 films of all time

 There are many films that should not be on the top 1000 films of all time. Ten of them appear on my first list. Here are ten more. I'm sure I will get some heat for this list, but that doesn't change the fact tat these films are overrated and plain bad. This list is in no particular order except chronology.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God (1972)

Defenders of Aguirre may argue that director Werner Herzog was making this film on a shoestring budget, but there are plenty of low-budget films which are so good. Once comes to mind. Aguirre: the Wrath of God was tedious from the start. The characters were stupid and annoying, there was too much philosophy and too many shots of characters standing around doing nothing. Klaus Klinski also gave of the most boring lead-role performances ever.

The Goonies (1985)

I can just hear all the Gen Xers and early millennials sharpening their pitchforks in protest. For many, the Goonies was a stalwart of their childhoods.

But I found this coming-of-age drama incredibly irritating. it didn't help that I couldn't understand much of the dialogue due to the pre-pubescent child actors screaming over one another.

The adult actors weren't much better. The usually charismatic Joey Pantoliano was reduced to a cartoon villain. At least Key Huy Quan redeemed himself in Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

How on God's Green Earth did this film win the Best Picture Oscar? How did Kevin Costner win Best Director? How did it beat Goodfellas and Awakenings?

I'm sure Costner would explain it to me in the verbal exposition that made Dances with Wolves such a tedious watch. This three-hour slog could be number one on the top ten films to put you to sleep. It has been accused of white saviourism, but I don't know how anybody stayed awake long enough to make that judgement.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

If you like your war films interesting, dramatic and explosive, you best look elsewhere than Terrence Malik's World War two film.

This boring affair spent too much time philosophising and too little time actually showing the characters fighting in the war...which is the subject matter of the film.

It also wasted its great cast. From Sean Penn to Adrian Brody to Woody Harrelson to John Travolta and George Clooney, I would challenge you to name the protagonist of this confused, pretentious mess.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Where do we start with this disaster of a film that polarised audiences and critics? Audiences loved it. Critics hated it. Guess what side I came down on?

From the over-the-top performances to the cheesy dialogue, gratuitous violence and confusing direction, this film had the feel of being shot, written and directed by a twelve-year-old boy picking up a camera for the first time. Definitely not worthy of a place on the top 1000 films of all time.

In the Mood for Love (2000)

We are going all the way to Hong Kong for this romantic drama that was lacking in suspense, tension and anything that would have made it remotely interesting. It was dull with a capital D.

There were too many characters making stupid decisions, plus too many shots of characters sitting in empty rooms not doing anything. In the Mood for Love? In the mood for an interesting film to watch.

How to Train your Dragon (March 2010)

Another film that started a franchise. But I am baffled as to how. Yes, the animation was cute enough, but that did little to make up for the predictable, tepid plot.

The supporting cast all blended into one another. And Hiccup and Astrid were two cliched, poorly-drawn characters.

Megamind (November 2010)

As I am writing this article, I am struggling to remember why I didn't like it, but that is its most damning criticism. It was not a memorable film. It wasn't even entertaining, as I could barely keep my eyes open. 

Maybe if I were a kid I would have appreciated the silly humour and Brad Pitt and Will Ferrell's lacklustre performances, but I didn't. I didn't appreciate this film either.

Despicable Me 2 (July 2013)

How the first Despicable Me got a sequel is a mystery to me. How the sequel ranked 733rd on the top 1000 films of all time is the bigger mystery.

It is as bad as its predecessor with its infantile humour and Steve Carrell's incredibly irritating voice performance. Yes, the animation was eye-popping, but, beyond that, there was nothing to appeal to anybody over the age of ten.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (November 2013)

Just like the Goonies defined the adolescence of early millennials, the Hunger Games did the same for late millennials. Except this late millennial.

Like Despicable Me 2, I'm puzzled as to how the Hunger Games got a sequel. Catching Fire is slightly better than its predecessor, but that isn't saying much.

It was mired by the same plot holes, the same tepid love-story and the same confusing action scenes. Yes, J-Law, PSH, Donald Sutherland and, especially, Woody Harrelson, gave good performances, but they were not enough to save this film. Catching Fire? Dumpster fire more like.

If I haven't given you enough reason to light your torches and sharpen your pitchforks, I wouldn't worry. There'll be another of these lists coming soon enough.