Once Upon a Time in America Review

Click here to go to my review of Her

Number 80 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time is Sergio Leone's epic crime-thriller Once Upon a Time in America.

Leone's sprawling venture into the mobster genre encompasses three separate narratives centring on David "Noodles" Aaronson (Robert De Niro) leader of a group of Jewish gangsters during Prohibition era.  The first narrative is set during Noodles' childhood, as he and his friend rise up the ranks to form a small gang of their own.  After Noodle goes to jail, for avenging the murder of one of his friends, the rest of his friends form a business to boot-leg alcohol, which Noodle joins when he is released from prison in 1930.  The final narrative takes place in 1968, where Noodle returns to his old neighbourhood after decades of being away.

Sergio Leone originally wanted to release this film in two three hour long installments, but after the studio denied his request, he instead release one three and a half hour film.  This is the version that I watched.  There also exists a two hour European cut, but as this was a critical and commercial flop, I decided to stay clear of it.  For a three and a half long film, it was surprisingly easy to follow.  Sure at 210 minutes, the pacing wasn't entirely even and I did get bored at moments, but these moments were few and far between.  I felt that the three and a half hour run time gave this film a chance to breathe.  It delved deeply into each character's backstory and developed them into something other than the Corleone-esque gangster figure.  It was really interesting seeing the growth of these young boys and the loyalty that they demonstrated towards each other.

Once Upon a Time in America is the third in Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time trilogy after Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time...A Revolution.  Whilst I haven't seen the latter, I found Once Upon a Time in America far easier to follow than Once Upon a Time in The West.  The first two narratives dovetailed each other nicely and it was easy to see how the second narrative is a continuation of the first one.  Although, the third narrative was a little more difficult to follow, as there were thirty year , rather than twelve, separating this storyline from the previous one.  This caused a big disconnect and make it a little harder to follow what was happening.

Once Upon a Time in America also felt painstakingly accurate.  From the costumes to the location to the dialogue and props, everything seemed authentic.  This added to the brilliant realism of the film and helped to bring everything to life.

One of the best aspects of the film was how it objectively portrayed the life of Noodles and the other gangsters.  It doesn't romanticise their actions, like the The Godfather does, but rather allows the audience to come to their own decisions.  From the outset, it is obvious that Noodles and his cronies are bad men.  They're cheats, thieves, rapists and murderers.  Their actions aren't celebrated, but documented.  It is left to the audience to make up their own minds.  Are Noodles and his men parasitical, murdering criminals? Or are they emasculated, alienated men to survive in the only way they know how? I'll leave you to think about that.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood review

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (OUTIH) is too young to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time, it does appear on the 2024 edition of the top 1000 films of all time, but I recently watched it in cinemas and here’s the review.

Rick Dalton (Leonardo Dicaprio) is a Hollywood actor who’s afraid that his career is at an end.  Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is his stunt double and driver.  Together they navigate the changing landscape of 1960’s Hollywood.  Meanwhile, Charles Manson and his cult machinate a plot to begin a race war by killing Roman Polanski (Raful Zavierachi) and his wife Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie.)

As well as directing this, Tarantino also directed Kill Bill.  My main criticism of that film was that it was more style than substance.  The same criticism applies here.  Rather than offering a strongly plotted narrative, Tarantino presents a mostly nostalgic vision of Hollywood and stretches it to its limit.

Where Kill Bill is a homage to martial arts films, OUTIH is a homage to 1960’s Hollywood.  It’s overly seasoned with gratuitous real-life allusions, from Dicaprio being digitally imposed into the Great Escape, to Brad Pitt fighting Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) to Steve Mcqueen (Damien Lewis) appearing for 5 minutes to even the title: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood being a reference to Sergio Leone’s ‘Once Upon a Time in the West” and … “in America.” Of course, Leone is best known for his spaghetti westerns with westerns featuring heavily in this film.

However, all these references felt more like Tarantino patting himself on the back, showing off how much he knows about Hollywood, rather than actually doing anything for the plot.  The real narrative lay in the conflicted mind of Dalton – a washed-up movie actor trying to revive his career.  Dicaprio was great in this role.  He imported true humanity to Dalton and prevented him from becoming just another of many Hollywood has-beens.  The scene where he breaks down in his trailer is the best example of this. Pitt was equally good. He won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for a reason after all. The two of them were good together. Reportedly they developed a strong off-screen friendship which translated well on-screen.

What’s left of the plot focusses on Booth being mixed up in the Manson family.  Although this is more of a sub-plot that should have received more attention than it did, the outrageous ending notwithstanding.

Three of Manson’s cult go to kill Tate and Polanski.  Instead they decide to kill Dalton and Booth.  The plan goes wrong as all three are brutally killed in progressively over-the-top ways.  This stylisation of violence is quintessential Tarantino, but it does become silly at times.

And we need to take a moment to talk about feet again.  Tarantino is just trolling us at this point.  He knows that his foot fetish is common knowledge and doesn’t give a damn anymore.  From Margot Robbie’s feet at the forefront of the frame, to Margaret Qualley’s feet pressed right against the windscreen, it was all a bit much.

While the film has all of the classic Tarantino hallmarks, I fear it is another example of style over substance.  And I get it, Tarantino! You have a foot fetish.  You don’t need to remind me of it in every single movie. 

For a Few Dollars More

Number 109 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sergio Leone's For a Few Dollars More.  It is the second in the Dollars trilogy, sandwiched between A Fistful of Dollars and The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.

The Man with No Name (Clint Eastwood) and The Man in Black (Lee Van Cleef) are two bounty hunters in El Paso.  They decide to team up to catch the ruthless bandit El Indio (Gian Maria Volonte) who is on the run from the law along with his gang.

If you're wondering why I haven't reviewed A Fistful of Dollars, I must confess that I actually watched this film series backwards.  When I watched The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, I had no idea it was part of a trilogy.  As For a Few Dollars more, was higher up than A Fistful of Dollars and there isn't really any continuity between the films, I figured that I might as well continue watching the series backwards.

I've seen quite a few of Sergio Leone's films.  Obviously I've watched The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but I've also seen Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America and if there's one thing that Leone does well, it's setting the scene.  Just like in his other Westerns, he uses great sweeping panoramic shots to clearly establish the desert setting.  The cinematography in this film is no exception: it's awesome.  The film is set in 1872 and the great setting and production designed helped to signify this.  Similar to his next film, Leone also makes great use of close-up shots to help build up the tension.

Speaking of tension, Leone once again used music and sound brilliantly to build tension.  The film score of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is undoubtedly great, but music is also used well in A Few Dollars More.   The best example of this is the music box that El Indio plays just before a duel.  The music is haunting, but powerful.  Originally, the music box had belonged to a young couple.  However, El Indio killed the man, before raping and killing his lover.   I think this is what contributed to the music box being so sinister.  It began as a symbol of innocence and love and was manipulated into something evil.  This really helped to bring El Indio's character to life and to make him a frightening villain.  And this is exactly what music should do in a film.  It should compliment it, not detract from it.

Listen to the For a Few Dollars More theme song

Take a listen to the music box theme

From what I've heard of the Dollars Trilogy, they're supposed to progressively get better and better.  And I'd agree with this.  This was a great film in its own right, but I don't think it matches up to The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.  Yes the narrative was simple and easy to follow, the camerawork was great and the music effective, but it just isn't on the same level.

Once Upon a Time in the West review

SPOILER ALERT 

Number 22 on top 1000 films of all time is Sergio Leone’s 1968 Once Upon a Time in the West. 

What’s it about: Jill Mcbain is a recent widow whose husband, has recently bought the land of Sweetwater, where a new railway station will be built, has been killed by Frank (Henry Fonda) intending to frame a bandit called Cheyenne for the murder.  Jill teams up with Cheyenne and a mysterious Harmonica-playing gunman called Harmonica (Charles Bronson) to take revenge on Frank.

The Good: Like the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, this film has a great musical score, which really served to ratchet up the tension.  What makes the score even better is the film’s sound effects that are incorporated into the musical score.  For example, the film’s opening scene has sound effects like a tapping boot or a buzzing fly, which merged well into the sound rack, thus further contributing to the tension-building in the film.  The best example of this is when Harmonica plays his harmonica and this is intertwined very well into the background musical score.  Also, like in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, the camerawork was also great, alternating between long master shots showing the vast expanse of the Wild West to small closeups that emphasise little details in a scene.

The Bad: I really had trouble following this film from the outset.  I was confused from the beginning and it took me a while to settle into the film.  I had a vague idea of what was going on, but it was so vague that I had to constantly read internet synopses to try and catch up on everything that I missed.  I also got very confused over which character was which, especially with Frank and Harmonica, which I got very mixed up about.  As for the bandit Cheyenne, I was aware that he was in the film, but I wasn’t sure which character he was.

The Ugly: Frank proves what an ugly villain he can be when in a flashback it is revealed that he had an older brother stand upon his younger brother's shoulders with a noose around the former's neck.  Once the younger brother's strength gave out, the older brother died.

Rating: Good

Whilst the film had a great musical score and interesting camerawork, I found it too difficult to follow and the characters confusing, which detracted from the viewing experience for me.  Whilst none of these characters may not have been having wonderful lives, they were making the best out of the ones they had been given.

Natural Born Killers review

 Surprisingly this film isn't on the top 1000 films of all time although considering how controversial it is, perhaps this isn't so surprising. However, it is one of my girlfriend's favourite films so I thought I would give it a watch.

Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) are a couple deeply in love. Both having abusive childhoods, they become mass murderers who go on a lethal rampage killing anybody who stands in their way. All the while their actions are glorified by the media, most notably by journalist Wayne Gale (Robert Downey JR) Their rampage culminates in them being arrested and sent to a prison controlled by the maniacal warden Dwight Mckluskey ( Tommy Lee Jones)

Penned by Quentin Tarantino, although he has since disowned the film, and directed by Oliver Stone, NBK is what I lovingly refer to as 'True Romance' on acid.  It is a surreal, abstract and bizarre two-hour rollercoaster with more cuts than you can shake a fist at. And enough filters and visual effects to keep film majors analysing for years. But the film's unique visual style is its greatest strength with every colour scheme and visual composition peeling away another layer of Mickey and Mallory's psychotic mindset. For example, my girlfriend argues that the use of black and white at the beginning signifies how Mickey and Mallory see the world and everybody in it. Some people are good. Some are bad. There is no in-between.

Later, Mickey and Mallory become lost on in the desert while tripping on mushrooms. They encounter a Navajo chief Red Cloud who feeds and shelters them.  As their trip takes a bad turn and Mickey's dark past surfaces, he shoots Red Cloud. Upon fleeing, the couple find themselves surrounded in a field of rattlesnakes, unsure of which are real, and which are hallucinations. An apt metaphor for the paranoia they're feeling.

As I've said earlier, this film is highly controversial due to how its portrayal of ultra-violence has been blamed for numerous copycat killings, most notably, the Columbine High School Massacre which Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris code-named as NBK. But Oliver Stone has argued that those who say this have completely misunderstood the point of the film. Rather he argues the film is a satire of how the mass media glorify serial killers and mass murderers. And this is a theme that Stone absolutely nails.

NBK regularly references cult leader Charles Manson and serial killer Richard Ramirez who both received huge followings upon their incarcerations, even going so far as to marry their fans. Over the decades, Hollywood has displayed a perverse fascination with serial killers, making many films about Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac killer just to name a few. The TV series Criminal Minds draws inspiration from many real-life crime stories. More recently, Tarantino himself depicted Charles Manson and his murderous cult in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Netflix also produced a series about Ted Bundy starring Zach Effron. And let's not forget my favourite film, The Godfather which utterly and totally romanticises and glorifies the Mafia.

But as a society, we have always had this twisted interest in serial killers and mass murderers - seeing how they ick and how they become the way they are.  Nowhere is this more present than in the film's arguably greatest scene which explores Mallory's backstory and how she and Mickey meet. Framed as a campy, 70s sitcom complete with laugh track, we bear witness to Mallory's horrific homelife. Her father (Rodney Dangerfield) who wrote most of his own dialogue, sexually abuses her and is also physically abusive to his wife who allows him to abuse their daughter. Mickey delivers meat to Mallory's family and helps her to kill them. But the sit-com's laugh track is quite obviously a proxy for the audience-cum-armchair therapists who obsess over analysing every single detail of a serial killer's/mass murderer's childhood.

Robert Downey JR also shines as brash, vulgar and sleazy journalist Wayne Gale. This despicable man will do anything to get an interview with Mickey and Mallory as he knows the ratings will go through the roof - even if that means helping them escape from prison during a riot. The violence even excites him as he starts to gain a vicarious thrill through the violence he witnesses. Not to mention, the violence also fuels his massive ego. He starts getting off on all the monstrosities that he sees and even begins participating in it. He is very much a proxy of how the media can manipulate the actions of these depraved killers to turn them into some type of twisted symbol or god. 

I must admit, I'm a little puzzled as to why this film was omitted from the top 1000 films of all-time list as it is well-deserving of a place. Its memorable visual style and nuanced exploration of complicated themes makes it very compelling and entertaining to watch. But then again, equally controversial films such as a Clockwork Orange have made the list, so who knows why one film is okay and the other one isn't. Perhaps it's not the ultra-violence that bothered audiences but more how Stone argues that through our own glorification and fascination of real-life ultra-violence, we are indirectly responsible for its creation and continuation.

City of God Review

SPOILER ALERT

And number 21 of the 1000 greatest films of all time, we have the Brazilian crime drama, another foreign language classic, the 2002 City of God.

What’s it about: City of God is set in a slum in Rio De Janerio otherwise known as the City of God.  It focuses on two boys who grow up within the slum and the extreme crime that surrounds them.  The two boys are Rocket, the narrator, who aspires to escape the slum by becoming a photojournalist and L’il Dice, later L’il Ze, a psychotic child who soon grows to become the most feared drug lord in the City of God.  

The Good: This film was amazing.  Seriously.  It reminded me of why I started reviewing films in the first place.  City of God is dark, morally ambiguous, twisted and brilliantly depicts the world of organised crime.  It is gritty and brutal.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many people get shot in one movie before.  One of its greatest strengths is its fragmented narrative, which rather than following a traditional linear timeline, jumps back and forth from story to story and character to character.  The film also had a very authentic and realistic feel to it.  I read on IMDB that the director hand-picked children straight out of slums, which further added to the realism.   

The characters were all very interesting too.  Even though, the cast was large, the film only explores the backstories of the primary characters, leaving the rest in mystery.  This all helped to add to the moral ambiguity of the film.  Rocket was also very interesting as a character.  Even though he is the narrator and the protagonist, he is very much on the periphery and of  everything.  For example, when L’il Ze enters a war with a rival drug lord, Carrot, Rocket just watches and doesn’t get involved.  L’il Ze was perhaps one of the scariest villains I have ever seen in a film.  He was a psychopath from a very young age.  In a particularly brutal scene, L’il Ze, only a very young boy, is left with a gun as a lookout, whilst an older crew rob a motel with a sworn rule not to kill anyone.  Unsatisfied with this role, L’il Ze scares the older boys away by falsely telling them the police had arrived, before shooting everyone in the hotel and taking any leftover money, whilst laughing manically.  At 18, L’il Ze then becomes top dog in the City of God by murdering all of his competition. 

I also really loved all of the camerawork in this film.  There were so many great uses of close-ups and freeze frames.  At some points, shakey cam was used, which helped to add to the film’s tension.  The flashback scenes were quite grainy and had a slight yellow filter, which I felt really added to the old-time feel of the shots.

The greatest part of the film was how it had a cyclical narrative and every event and story was connected and led onto the next.  For example, the character of Knockout Ned joins Carrot in fighting L’il Ze, after L’il Ze raped Ned’s girlfriend and shot his brother and uncle.  However, what gets Ned killed is Otto, a son of a security guard whom Ned murdered during a bank robbery.  Otto shoots Ned in the back as an act of revenge.  The best example of the film’s cyclical narrative is when at the movie’s conclusion, L’il Ze is gunned down by a gang of children (called the Runts) who want to take over his business.  They then make a list of all of the drug dealers they have to kill in order to become top dogs, in a way very reminiscent of L’il Ze’s rise to power.  For me, this was a great instance of what goes round comes around and how a life of crime can always come full circle.

The bad: Hmm, there were the occasional moments, where the film’s fragmented narrative did confuse me, but these moments were few and far between.

The Ugly: In the film’s most brutal scene, L’il Ze initiates a young boy into his gang by ordering him to shoot one of two Runts, children not older than ten, who have been causing trouble in L’il Ze’s territory.  If this isn’t ugly, I don’t know what is.

Rating: Superlative

A film worthy of a superlative rating if ever there was one.  This film is intense, gritty and dramatic and is wonderfully made.  It demonstrates what life is like in slums without romanticising it.  Arguably, this film is a modern-day western, although lacking in a once upon a time or cowboys walking off into the sunset. 

Old Boy Review

Click here to go my previous review of Once Upon a Time in America

FULL SPOILER ALERT

"Even though I am no better than a beast, don't I deserve a chance to live?"

Number 82 on top 1000 greatest films of all time is the mystery thriller neo-noir thriller Old Boy.

After seven American films, I have returned to the best of foreign-language cinema.  South Korea's contribution is the brilliant Old Boy.

One night without any explanation, Korean Businessman Oh Dae-Su (Choi Min-Sik) is kidnapped and placed in a hotel room-cum-prison cell.  Here he is held for fifteen years with no explanation given to who his captor is or why he is being imprisoned.  He spends his time shadow-boxing, watching TV and attempting to tunnel his way out of his cell.  However, before he finishes his attempt he is abruptly released.  Upon being released, with the help of young sushi chef Mido (Kang Hye-jung,) Oh Dae-su vows to discover the identity of his captor and take his revenge.

Old Boy is not a film for the faint-hearted.  If you are squeamish or unable to follow such a densely plotted film, then I suggest you buckle up and give it your best shot.  Even if you can't follow the film's many twists and turns, then you can at least appreciate the film's cinematography.  I've read IMDB reviews praising the film's cinematography and I would say that this praise is well-deserved.  Stylistically this film is brilliant.  As one review reads "each shot is bursting with colour." There is an incredible amount of detail.  This ranges from the close-ups to the master shots.  In some form or another, each and every shot contained meaning.

Oh Dae-Su also narrates this film in the present tense giving the film a real energy.  It makes it that more intense.

When Oh Dae-Su is locked in the prison, he spends his time shadow-boxing.  When he is released he puts this taining to good use in some excellently choreographed fight scenes, such as the famous one-take corridor fight scene.  This was made only more epic by the music playing.

Overall the musical score is great.  In every scene, the music fits it perfectly.

The characters are densely layered and entirely three-dimensional.  From the beginning, it was obvious that he would be fulfilling the tragic hero archetype, with Oh Dae Su's fatal flaw being that he speaks too much.  The film opens with him being in a police station after being arrested for drunken and disorderly behaviour.  In the station, he gets himself into more trouble by refusing to keep his mouth shut.  His character is initially portrayed as pathetic and annoying, which is his transformation to a fearless killer by the film's conclusion is so great to watch.

Whilst the vast majority of reviews I read praised the film on its visuals, direction and performances, there were one or two more critical ones.  These reviews pointed out that the film is riddled with plot-holes, both big and small.  This is something I can respect, as I noticed a few of my own.  Firstly, Oh Dae-Su is able to attempt tunnelling out of prison, as once during dinner, he was given three metal chopsticks instead of two.  Why was he given the third chopstick? I can only assume his captors wanted to see Oh Dae-Su attempt to escape and failing.

Secondly, Oh Dae-Su has been locked in a prison for fifteen years with little exposure to sunlight and all of the benefits it brings.  How then is he able to successfully able to defend himself against multiple enemies in fight after fight? Not only does he fight them off, but he leaves them struggling to breathe on the floor.  This is despite how earlier on in the film, he collapses from vitamin A and E deficiencies.

Thirdly, I felt that the antagonist, Lee Woo-Jin (Yoo Ji-tae) was played by a far too young actor.  Woo-Jin was an old school colleague of Dae-Su's.  This would imply, of course, that the two went to school together.  However, their ages don't add up.  Dae-Su looks to be in his forties, whereas Woo-Jin still appears to be in his twenties.  This therefore makes Woo-Jin too young to be behind Dae-Su's imprison, as he would have still been a teenager when Dae-Su was kidnapped.  I think that the studio should have found an older actor to play Yoo-Jin.  This is no disrespect to Yoo Ji-Tae's brilliant performance, but I feel that this is too big of a plot-hole to ignore.

Another of the IMDB reviews criticised Old Boy for how it is so against its protagonist Dae-Su.  Whilst I argue that this is true, I feel that this is all part of the tragic hero archetype and the revenge narrative.

  SPOILER ALERT SPOILERS FROM HEREAFTER

Old Boy is a film about the futility of revenge.  Dae-Su wants revenge on Woo-Jin for kidnapping him.  Woo-Jin wants revenge on Dae-Su for how at school, he saw him commit incest with his sister and then began spreading rumours about it.  One of these rumours was that Woo-Jin got his sister pregnant.  It is never confirmed whether this is true or not, but the devastating implications of it leads to his sister killing herself.  Both men commit themselves to their vengeance.  Dae-Su enlists the help of Mido and his friend Joo-hwan (who pays the ultimate price for helping Dae-Su) to track down Woo-Jin.  However, Woo-Jin's revenge is far more sadistic and destructive.  At the same time as he kidnaps and imprisons Dae-Su, he also kidnaps Dae-Su's four year old daughter and, for fifteen years, raises her as if she were his own (another reason why the actor playing Woo-Jin should have been older.) After Dae-Su is released, using post-hypnotic suggestion, Woo-Jin manipulates Dae-Su and Mido into falling in love with each other and eventually having sex.  Woo-Jin the reveals to Dae-Su that Mido is actually his daughter and he has just committed incest.

So whilst the IMDB reviewer was right in saying that the film is not with its protagonist, I think this film showcases the danger of becoming overcome by a desire for vengeance.  Old Boy is very much a film where the bad guy wins.  We see the pathetic, but tragic image of Dae-Su being reduced to a grovelling mess begging Woo-Jin not to reveal the truth to Mido.  He kisses Woo-Jin's shoes, says that he will be his dog and goes so far to cut out his tongue to signify that he will never speak too much again.  See Dae-Su destruct in front of his eyes, Woo-Jin's quest for vengeance is fulfilled.  Having nothing else to live for, he kills himself, leaving Dae-Su to live his dishonour.  Dae-Su has become consumed by his quest for vengeance and it has cost him everything.

The final scene is the film's most powerful.  Dae-Su goes to a hypnotherapist who he hopes can make him forget what has happened.  Yet it is left ambiguous whether this actually works.  The final shots of the film see Dae-Su meeting Mido with her saying that she loves him.  The final shot is Dae-Su's tortured grin.

Old Boy is a deeply psychological film about one man who becomes consumed by his desire for revenge.  It is an absolute must-see and it is in my top five films that I have seen since I started this challenge.  I think it should be much higher than number 82.  It is certainly better than Citizen Kane or Witness for the Prosecution.  Old Boy is full of gorgeous proverbs, but I'll end this review on its most prevalent one:

"Laugh and the world laughs with you.  Weep and you weep alone."

The Player review

 Number 623 on the top 1000 films of all time is Robert Altman's satirical black-comedy thriller 'The Player.'

Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins) is a Hollywood exec who gets to greenlight which movies are made or not. His position is threatened by the new young upstart Larry Levy (Peter Gallagher.) Meanwhile Mill is receiving death threats from a disgruntled writer he rejected - that is until Mill kills him or at least thinks he does. Whoopi Goldberg, Dean Stockwell and Richard E. Grant co-star.

In many ways, The Player was a Hollywood film about Hollywood. it was absolutely littered with celebrity cameos in blink and you'll miss them moments ranging from Cher to Malcolm Mcdowell to Burt Reynolds to Julia Roberts.

The Player reminded me of Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood which he described as a love letter to Hollywood. Maybe the Player wasn't a love letter as such, but it definitely smelled like a Hollywood director showing off how much he knew about Hollywood. And without any subtlety either. After a while it all felt a bit too self-indulgent.

Sure I like Hollywood films, but not enough to watch Robert Altman give himself a pat on the back for two hours. It was a shame as all the Hollywood glitz and glamour distracted from the more interesting murder plot.

I found it far more engaging watching the always great Tim Robbins try to figure out a murder plot before becoming involved in one himself. Film critic Gene Siskel said that even if you didn't care about Hollywood, you could still appreciate The Player as being a good thriller. I'd agree with that.

Once you stripped away all the sparkly Hollywood wrapping paper, you were left with a thrilling present. There was just a hell of a lot of wrapping paper.

True Romance review

 Number 344 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tony Scott's romantic crime drama True Romance.

I am watching this film out of order as I recently saw it in the roof-top cinema in Peckham, South London.

Penned by Quentin Tarantino, True Romance tells the romance of Clarence and Alabama. Clarence (Christian Slater,) a comic book store worker is unknowingly set up with call girl Alabama (Patricia Arquette.) A whirlwind romance and shotgun marriage later. Clarence confronts Alabama's pimp, Drexel (Gary Oldman) and unwittingly steals 500k of Drexel's coke. However, the coke actually belong to the mob. And they want it back. Val Kilmer, Christopher Walken, Brad Pitt, Samuel L. Jackson and James Gandolfini round out the supporting cast.

    Released in 1993, this was one of Tarantino's earliest ventures and, arguably, one of his most original. I've been critical of Tarantino's latest film - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for being more of a homage than an actual movie - a similar criticism I also reserved for Kill Bill Volume 1. Yet that wasn't the case here. A quick pace and plenty of plot twists keep this film hurtling toward its thrilling conclusion.

    One such plot twist is Samuel L' Jackson's quick demise. Upon meeting Drexel, he mocks him relentlessly before Drexel blows him away. Plus a pre-Soprano James Gandolfini was utterly menacing as mobster Virgil. Sure you could argue that the fight scene with Alabama burdened on the ridiculous, but it was also great to see such a brilliant performance from Gandolfini.

Tarantino and Tony Scott also paced this film well. There aren't any too many dialogue scenes and there are plenty of comedic scenes the keep the content light. most of these were due to Brad Pitt's character of stoner Floyd. Reportedly, he improvised most of his dialogue which worked to great effect. Especially when he is interrogated by the ominous Gandolfini.

   This film climaxes in classic Tarantino fashion. Clarence meets a hot-shot movie exec to offload the coke in the hopes of fleeing the country with Alabama. However, the dead broker has flipped and is wearing a wire. On top of that, the mobsters have tracked down Clarence. Cue a massive shootout between the cops, the mobsters and the exec's security guards. Cue blood, bullets and everybody dying except for our heroes Clarence and Alabama. Although Clarence does dance with death for a second.

Reportedly Tarantino originally wanted to kill Clarence but Tony Scott convinced him otherwise. I think that's the better decision. The film is called True Romance and in a very twisted way it is a romance - the two loves Clarence and Alabama will do anything for each other - even kill. Seeing them walk into the sunset was more effective than seeing Alabama cry over Clarence's gravestone.

Again you can argue that the violent conclusion is gratuitous which is is. But by the same admission, it's also classic Tarantino. if you're not into that then you shouldn't be watching a Tarantino film. Especially this one. But if you want to watch Tarantino at his best, True Romance is the film for you.

Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India review

Number 102 on the top 1000 films of all time is this Indian epic, sports drama film.

Set in Victorian Indian, the British Raf is in full force.  The village of Champaner is suffering from a terrible drought and to only make things worse, Champanur's commanding office, the arrogant and obnoxious Captain Russell (Paul Blackthorne) imposes double Lagaan (taxes) upon the people.  When they come to protest his decision, they become captivated by the game of cricket that he and his men are playing.  After Captain Russell chastises them for interfering, the young rebel Bhuvan (Aamir Khan) insults the cricket game.  In retaliation, Captain Russell challenges the villages to a game of cricket.  If they win, he will cancel Lagaan for the next three years, but if they lose, they will have to pay triple Lagaan.  Bhuvan accepts and puts together a rag-tag team of cricketers to beat Captain Russell at his own game.

Although on the surface, this film is purely about a game of cricket, the far wider political implications are obvious.  The film was set about 30 years before the Indian independence movement in the 1920s, and it is clear that Bhuvan and the others are fighting for more than the cancellation of Lagaan; they're fighting against the unwelcome occupation of the British forces.  Even the puppet ruler, the Rajiji, comes to support Bhuvan's team.  Bhuvan also receives help from Captain Russell's sister Elizabeth (Rachel Shelley) who sympathises with the Indians and aids them in their mission.  What was even more impressive was how quickly Elizabeth was able to learn Hindi, especially as she was initially relying on an interpreter.  Anyway, by setting up the film like this, the Indians are positioned as the under-dogs, and I found myself rooting for them quickly.

Lagaan had a large cast with many different characters making up Bhuvan's team, from a fortune-teller, to a doctor, to a woodchopper, to a cripple, all with their own skills to offer.  Whilst initially, they all argued and fought with each other, seeing them unite in the face of their common enemy was great to watch.

I loved the inclusion of the cripple Kachra, which I think was one of the best parts of the film.  Kacha served to expose the hypocrisy in Indian culture, as despite how they are discriminated against by the British, they themselves discriminate against Kachra, due to how he is an untouchable.  Although his deformed hand allows him to unpredictably spin the ball, the others are disgusted by the thought of him, due to his lower caste.  It is only after Bhuvan chastises them for their hypocrisy do they relent.  This occurs within one scene and I do wish they had made a bigger deal out of this.  Although having said that the fate of the team rests in Kachra's hands in the final act.

The last section of the film is dedicated to the actual cricket match and, despite how I'm not a cricket fan at all, I found this highly entertaining.  I had no doubt that the Indians would win; they were the underdogs after all and there was no way they were going to lose to the British.  Yet the match was still unbelievably close.  It was tense, which was how it's supposed to be.  The British batted first and soon rumble all of the Indian team's tactics.  And then when the Indian team bat, their batters drop like flies, leaving only Bhuvan and Kachra.  Whenever one of the Indian batters was eliminated, the pain and failure on their faces was evident.  They were so passionate about winning that I become quite excited seeing whether they would actually do it, which of course they did.  But the interesting thing was that I became as wrapped up in their battle, as the two teams did.

All this being said, the film wasn't the best Indian movie that I've seen.  That honour would go to Rang De Basanti, with 3 Idiots as a close second.  Funnily enough, Aamir Khan stars in both of these films too.  Whilst the diversity of the Indian characters was great, I do feel that the British characters were all the same and drawn very stereotypically.  Captain Russell is your daily villain with little to him, but his arrogance and impudence.  Whilst this may have been typical of the time, his character could have been far more interesting.  Having said that, it was gratifying to see his arrogance become his downfall.  When his superiors hear of the wager he has made, they tell him that he will pay triple Lagaan and be sent to Central Africa if he loses.  Right at the end of the match, Captain Russell mistakenly catches a ball that has gone beyond the boundary, thus giving the six runs that the Indians needed to win the match.

My second criticism would be all of the singing.  I've seen Indian films before and I know that the songs are part and parcel of the whole show, but I really didn't lie them here.  They were tedious and stopped the film cold.  In some cases, they felt increasingly out of place, such as when Elizabeth sings about her realisation of love for Bhuvan.

This notwithstanding, I did enjoy Lagaan.  Despite being close to four hours, it flowed well and was paced nicely, other than the singing.  Aamir Khan was great as usual and the anti-colonial message makes this necessary viewing.

8 1/2 Review

Number 181 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fellini's 1963 surrealist, comedy-drama 8 1/2.

Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastrioianni) is a famous Italian film director who experiences a creative block when directing his latest science fiction film. To overcome this block, he revisits pivotal points and relationships in his life.

Much like any of Ingmar Bergman's film, 8 1/2 is a film that can only be enjoyed if you're a diehard cinophile. I know that I'm doing a challenge to watch the top 1000 films of all time, but I am not a diehard cinophile. I'm not that deep when it comes to films. There's stuff I like and stuff I don't. And 8 1/2 wasn't something I particularly liked or could follow. Films like these are usually surreal - to the point of frustration, and I don't have the patience to wade through the many dream sequences or worse have to figure out what's a dream and what's reality.

Films about films like Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood have an air of superiority. They're not so much a reference to what came before, but an ego trip for directors proving how much of a film buff they are. Granted being made almost sixty hours before OUATIH, 8 1/2 didn't have the same air of superiority, but it did feel like Fellini was dangling ideas over my head that I'm not intelligent enough to know they're even there.

But like I say, I'm not a cinophile and probably not intelligent enough to even begin interpreting this film. One IMDB reviewer noted you have to watch the film a few times to understand it. I probably won't be doing that anytime soon unless I have trouble getting to sleep.

Hunted Episode 2 Review

SPOILER ALERT

If you had to go on the run, where would you hide?

Continuing my TV reviews, I have my review of the second episode of the Channel 4 series Hunted.  If you haven't read my first review then click here.

The Premise: 

Fourteen ordinary men and women have to go on the run from a crack government team of CIA analysts, intelligence experts and former police officers from 28 days.  They're not allowed to leave the UK.  They have to stay within the boundaries of the law.  They're given £450 in a bank account.  They are accompanied by their own personal camera operators.  How they use this money and how they decided to hide is completely up to them.

The Fugitives:

Harinder and Davinder Singh

This episode introduces a new team of fugitives: Sikh brothers Harinder and Davinder Singh.  I found the two instantly likeable, as they're charming, loyal to each other and very smart.  The Singhs explain that they go on the run to challenge misconceptions about Asian communities and terrorism.  Harinder says "we're Asian, we've got beards, we'll probably going to have some rucksacks on our backs, which is not gonna help.  The automatic thing that people will think is bloody hell, terrorist." It was this reasoning and logic that made me like the pair so much.  What they say is very true.  Ever since 9/11 and 7/7, there have been increased surveillance on Asians, as well as an increasing sense of Islamophobia.  The brothers wish to fight this surveillance and prove that you should be judged on your actions rather than your faith or the way you dress.

On the subject of dress, there are shots of the Singh brothers trimming their beards, which then begged the question, why haven't any of the fugitives changed their appearance yet? Ricky Allen with his balding head, beard and circular glasses is very recognisable and I wonder why he hasn't shaved or started wearing contact lens.  Furthermore, Emily Dredge has a vivid shock of blonde hair, which would make her standout and whilst she has a wig with her, there are never any shots of her wearing it.  Even if you don't use the wig, why wouldn't you get a haircut or dye your hair? The Hunters have the most recent photographs of the fugitives so it's only logical to change your appearance as soon as possible.

The brothers start the episode strongly.  Davinder, knowing that the Hunters are likely to hack into their email account, sends an email to his brother saying that the two should hide in Caister-Upon Sea, as nobody would expect us to hide there. (Caister-Upon-Sea is largely a white community) Once you've read this email, delete it immediately." Although one of the Hunters makes the very good point that "people don't appreciate that when you click delete on an email or a photo, it isn't really deleted.  It's still there, you just can't see." This perfectly summarises one of the unwritten rules of the internet: once something is on the internet, it's on the internet forever.  However, Davinder's email is a trap designed to lead the Hunters on a wild goose chase, whilst they take refuge within the Sikh Community in Manchester.  From here, there plan is to hide in plain site.  It's a good plan and it works.  The Hunters fall for the trap and ask whether people in Caister-Upon-Sea have seen the Singhs.  Here, Davinder's talk of Islamophobia and stereotypes is shockingly brought to light when a man shown a photo of the brothers says "is this something to do with ISIS? Somebody should behead those bastards before they behead somebody else." 

However, the Singhs are still hiding successfully with the Mancunian Sikh Community and their plan is going swimmingly, until they make the very risky move of phoning home.  Both brothers have their own families and they use the same burner pay as you go phone to call home.  Of course, the Hunters are monitoring the communications of the family's loved ones and are instantly alerted to their presence.  The Singhs decide to travel up to Glasgow to stay in a safehouse with a surveillance expert who quickly chastises them from using their phones.  Despite his reprovals, the Singhs phone home once again which means they have to leave Glasgow.  However, they decide to take sanctuary for a few hours in a friend's shop, which they arranged by calling him before-hand.  This leads the Hunters right to them and the Singhs are caught hiding in the backroom of the shop, where there is no escape.  After seven days on the run, the Singh brothers were caught.

Status: Caught 

Time on the run: Seven Days

Ricky Allen

This episode also returns to the man, the legend, Dr Ricky Allen who is still hiding in the highlands of Scotland.  Ricky Allen is a ball-buster, a man who likes winding people up and this episode shows how ballsy he can get.  In an elaborate scheme, he lures the Hunters to a bothy in Scotland, where he then spies on them in the nearby bushes.  It is a risky plan, but it is one that works and Ricky Allen doesn't get caught.  It is his audacity and his intelligence that makes Ricky one of the more endearing and likeable characters on the show.  This episode also shows the seemingly infallible Ricky Allen beginning to crack under the pressures of being on the run, when he uses a payphone to call home for his daughter's birthday.  Furthermore, he also has one of his friends use his credit card to take money out from an ATM for him.  Despite, how both events alert the Hunters to his presence and an intense search of Ricky's house and interviewing his wife, Ricky Allen still manages to evade the Hunters.  After fourteen days on the run, Ricky Allen still manages to elude the Hunters.

Status: At large

Time on the run: Fourteen days 

Emily Dredge and Lauren English

The episode also very briefly mentions Emily and Lauren who are still on the run and still bickering.  This time, the two are arguing over what their next move should be.  Emily thinks that they should break their pattern of heading north by heading back down south, which sounds very logical, but Lauren thinks they should continue heading North.  Thankfully, this is all we see of the pair and their whereabouts remain unknown.

Status: At large

Time on the run: 12 days

The Verdict

This episode is every bit as tense and nail-biting as the previous one, especially when the Hunters are closing in on the Singhs and you're waiting for some Deux Ex Machina to rescue them from the backroom of a shop.  I also really liked the Singhs and their reasons for going on the run.  The two brothers are also very likeable.  Their devotion to their families and community made them However, what made this episode really good is Ricky Allen's antics, where he is messing around with the Hunters.  Essentially laying this trap to say "fuck you" to the Hunters, Ricky Allen's audacity injects a lot of humour into the show.  You want him to succeed, as it is obvious how much he loves screwing with the system and how much he enjoys doing it.  What made this episode really good was how there was very little of Emily and Lauren.  Their constant bickering made them very tiresome to watch and it was a welcome release to see them largely left out of this episode.  

Top three tips for being on the run

1. Always have an escape route planned.  If the Singh brothers hadn't hidden in a backroom of a shop with no secondary exit, perhaps they would still be on the run now.

2. Change your appearance! Dye or cut your hair, wear contacts, shave your beard.  I have long hair, but if I ever went on the run, then I would be straight in the barber's for a short back and sides.

3.  DO NOT PHONE HOME! It almost caught Lauren, Emily and Ricky Allen and it catches out the Singh brothers.  The government will be monitoring all outgoing and incoming communications from your loved one's phones.  In fact, just don't phone at all, the government can monitor all mobile communications even from pay as you go mobile phones. 

Sandra Cooley, Elizabeth Varsy, Harinder and Davinder Singh have all been caught, but Ricky Allen and Lauren English and Emily Dredge and seven more fugitives are still on the run.  Will anyone make it to 28 days?