Some Like it Hot review

Some Like It Hot Review

Number 105 on the top greatest films of all time is Billy Wilder's 1959 Some Like it Hot

Set in 1929, Jerry (Jack Lemmon) and Joe (Tony Curtis) are two musicians who are down on their luck. Working to pay off their debts, the speakeasy they are playing in is raided by Prohibition Agents. A talent agent finds them work in Illinois and when they go to a garage to borrow a colleague's car, they bear witness to “Spats Columbo” (George Raft) massacring “Toothpick Charlie,” and his men, for betraying the location of the Speakeasy to the cops. To escape detection, Jerry and Joe take a gig in Florida, but the catch is that the band they're playing with is all women, meaning they have to dress up and act like women. Things get more complicated when both men become attracted to Sugar Cane (Marilyn Monroe) the ukulele player of the band.

Some Like it Hot has come to be known as one of the greatest comedies of all time and it was very easy to see why. There were some genuinely moments within the film, which is partially due to Jack Lemmon. Lemmon is a great comic actor and this really shone through, especially in the moments when both Lemmon and Curtis were in drag. Here we got to see how much trouble they were going through to avoid detection from the mob. From trying to walk in heels, to Joe disturbing Jerry's carefully placed brasserie and fake breasts, it was one laugh after the other. It also helped that both actors were incredibly charismatic, which also shone through. Jack Lemmon always ended one of the punchlines to his jokes with a very cheeky smile. Tony Curtis' character Joe was the straight man of the two and the pair bounced well off each other. These qualities also made the characters quite endearing and sympathetic. They're a little goofy, but ultimately good-hearted, which also left them plenty of room to develop. They begin as irresponsible womanisers, but transform into men who begin taking life more seriously.

As for the conflict that the two experienced, I read on IMDB that Billy Wilder wanted the film set in Prohibition to give the characters adequate motivation to dress in drag. Columbo's killing of Toothpick Charlie was a reference to Al Capone's orchestration of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. I think the name “Columbo” could be an allusion to Columbo family of New York. At the end of the film, Columbo and his men attend Florida, not because they've tracked down Jerry and Joe, but because of a meeting with the other mob bosses. However, this was a trap, as the bosses ended up killing Columbo for causing too much noise. Although, of course, this isn't how Capone died, but it's no secret that he did generate a lot of unwanted attention with the press. As far as villains go, Columbo was a bit “run of the mill,” but he didn't need to be anymore than this and Raft played him, as he needed to.

If the film falls down anywhere, it would be the more romantic sections. Whilst Jerry and Joe both initially compete for Sugar Cane's affections, Joe eventually comes out on top. And it is the scenes with Joe and Sugar together that, I felt, bogged down the film. I feel that things became overly-sentimental, especially when Sugar was speaking about how all of the men in her life let her down. For me, the main conflict was with Joe and Jerry trying to outwit the mob and the scenes with Sugar distracted from this. Also, Marilyn Monroe's performance didn't help either. From what I read on IMDB, she was a nightmare to work with, from how she would turn up to set hours late or continually fluff her lines, making her quite deserving of the title: “the Blonde Bombshell.” Her performance of Sugar felt quite forced.

The Friendzone

This article is all about the slippery little topic known as the “friendzone.” What I imagine is one of the most talked-about, controversial and annoying issues in history.  Firstly, I would like to preface this article by saying that I have never knowingly been put into the friendzone- every time that I’ve been rejected, I actually haven’t stayed friends with my rejector, so I don’t have any first-hand experience with the infamous friendzone.  But I do still have opinions about it based on what I’ve heard.  

Now if you’re a girl who’s rejected a guy, then I’m sure you’ve heard, at least once in your life, “I can’t believe she put me in the friendzone,” or “nice guys finish last” or “girls only like bad guys.” Hearing stuff like this just irritates me and I’m going to expose all of the myths concerning the friendzone for what they really are: unsubstantiated, socially constructed bullshit.  Now, whilst I acknowledge that the friendzone is a real concept, it certainly isn’t something to get your panties in a twist over.

Firstly, we’ll start with one of the most common myths relating to the friendzone: “she rejected me, because I’m too nice.” Before we get into this ‘too nice’ crap, let’s explore some other reasons she might have turned you down.  She likes somebody else.  She’s never thought of you in that way or shock-horror she doesn’t like you!!!!!!!!! Too many guys think girls are contractually obliged to date every single guy who asks them, when they’re under no such obligation.  I mean guys, do you give every single girl who’s liked you a chance? I doubt it.  I sure as shit haven’t, because guys, just the same as girls are under no moral obligation to date every single girl that likes them.  Guys, just like girls, have every right to friendzone people.  Oh wait, James? What’s that? Girls can be friendzoned too? You’re goddamn right they can.  The only difference is that girls don't whine about it.

Now it’s no secret that girls are attracted to confident men.  And by confident, I mean men who are assertive, independent, persistent, determined; men who know how to have fun and how to blow off steam, not some little punkass puny crybaby who’s too scared to take a risk with the girl they like.  Think of Back to the Future, for example.  Marty’s father only wins over his mother, when he finally confronts his fears and insecurities and gives Biff what’s coming to him.  People of both genders are attracted to people who are confident and secure within themselves, not nervous, insecure wrecks who love to whine about things.  People who know who they are and are comfortable in their own skins.  People who take initiative and try to change things, not people who constantly complain about their situations and what put them there.  After all, everyone loves a rags to riches story.  Celebrities like Robert Downey JR. are adored for overcoming the challenges in their lives, rather than whining about them.  So remember guys, when girls reject you for being too nice, this isn’t an excuse for you to start complaining, but a reason to begin changing the things that you don’t like about yourself. 

Nice guys finish last.  It’s actually true and the reasons for it are very logical.  Confident “bad guys” finish first, because they’re not afraid to go for what they want.  It’s another reason why girls friendzone guys.  Unless you have a limitless amount of patience, chances are you’ll grow tired of waiting for something that might never happen.  We live in a society where we can buy virtually anything at the click of the mouse and therefore an attitude of instant gratification has arisen.  We no longer want to wait for rewards, but rather we want them instantly.  Furthermore, “nice guys” who label themselves as such, aren’t really that nice.  Rather they’re egotistical jerks who expect to be rewarded for being nice.  Whatever happened to kindness is its own reward or the code of chivalry, even if the majority of it actually focused on knights only fighting other knights and serving their king and country above all.  If you always expect yourself to be rewarded for being nice, then this just makes you needy and desperate and therefore unattractive.  You’re the equivalent of a cute little puppy following a girl around: cute and cuddly for sure, but not someone who emanates confidence and security.

Thirdly, girls only date bad guys.  What a load of crap.  If you think girls only date brainless douchebag quarterbacks or organised criminals, then you’ve been watching too many movies.  As I said before, girls like confident guys who are assertive and aren’t afraid to chase their dreams.  These only seem to be the “bad guys,” because these guys don’t care about what others think of them nor are they trying to live up to other people’s expectations; they have their minds set on one thing and nothing is going to stop them from achieving it.  It makes perfect sense for a girl to be attracted to a guy like this.  Hell, I would be attracted to a guy like this.  This does not mean that ALL girls like bad guys.  Rather they like the confidence, the assertiveness and the security that these “bad guys” emanate.  And of course, the same goes for guys.  In season 3 of the Sopranos, Tony Soprano justifies his attraction to his new goohmah Gloria by arguing that she, unlike her immature younger predecessor, has actually struggled in life and has overcome challenges rather than just being a little spoilt brat throwing tantrums when she doesn’t get her way.

So, in summary, if you think you have a chance with a girl then go for it.  I’ve seen so many situations where guys wait too long to make a move and get friendzoned because of it.  My advice is strike whilst the hammer’s hot; if you think there’s a spark then act on it.  Don’t wait around.  Don’t wait until she forgets you or until the relationship stagnates.  Just do it.  And if it doesn’t work out, then who cares? Instead of wallowing in self-pity and whining, pick yourself up and move on.  If you end up in the friendzone, you put yourself there and it’s up to you to get yourself out.  Don't just whine about it like a little bitch; grow a dick and a pair of fucking balls and actively work to ensure you're never put in the friendzone again.  Hell, some girls might find this resolution and determination attractive.  After all, if you don’t have the balls to risk everything for the girl you like, do you really deserve to have her?

The Miserable Mill Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

The Wide Window Review

Dear Reader,

if you are reading this review, then I have the dreaded fear that you are still refusing to heed my warnings. For I write these reviews, not to document the happy times of the Baudelaire orphan lives, of which there are few, but because they have to be told. Yet they are so Very Frightently Disastrous, that I am almost too afraid to release them for the general public, as they are so upsetting. Therefore, if you have the moral disposition to read this review, I congratulate you for finding it on the deep web, but I also urge that you tell nobody what you read, as this fourth installment of the Baudelaire lives is too sad to be read.

Before we get into the main content of this week's episode, let's jump straight to the main subplot and biggest mystery of the series thus far: who are “Mother” (Cobie Smulders” and “Father,” (Will Arnett.) Reason stood that they were initially the Baudelaire parents who had actually survived the fire and were looking to get back to their children. Personally, I thought that they were Kit and Jacques Snicket, which I was terribly wrong about. Yet this episode we find out that they are the parents of Quigley, Duncan and Isadora. Book readers will know instantly who these characters are, but for those who don't, I won't spoil it for you, as we fail to discover anything else out about these characters. There was a little misdirect that could have fooled some people into thinking that they were the Baudelaire parents, but this seemed like too much of a deviation from the source material to actually be the case. Whatever the signficance of these characters, they soon meet a sticky end as their home is burnt down. We see two of the children at the end of the episode, but not their parents or sibling. Did they perish in the fire? We'll have to find out next time.

Now onto the meat and gravy of the actual episode – an expression which here means, the most significant piece of this episode of the Baudelaire lives, and has nothing to do with “meat or gravy.” The episode picks up where the last one picks off. The Baudelaires have snuck away from Mr Poe, hitchhiking in the back of the van heading towards Lucky Smells Lumbermill. Mr Poe is besides himself with panic, decrying that this is a catastrophe and, hilariously, “off-book,” which is a reference to how the source deviated from the canonised material. I'm loving all of these intertextual jokes, which keep the show refreshing. Intertextuality isn't a device often shown on television and it doesn't always work, but when it does work, like on this show, it works brilliantly.

We pick up on the Baudelaires who have just made their way to the Lucky Smells Lumbermill, which is where we see more deviations from the books. Upon entering the mill, they are found by Charles (Rhys Darby) who runs the mill and takes them to see his partner Sir (Don Johnson), who is the opposite of Charles. Charles is the latest in the longline of adult characters who despite being well-meaning are incapable of doing anything useful, whereas Sir is grumpy, strict and ruthless. He immediately puts the Baudelaires to work for trespassing in the Lumbermill, despite how they are just children. He also reveals that the reason that the town of Paltryville, where the Lucky Smells Lumbermill is based, is so run down is because the Baudelaire parents burnt down the town. The only buildings to survive are the lumbermill and Dr Georgina Orwell's Optometrist's office, which I'll discuss later.

The Baudelaires are sent to the dormitory where they meet their coworkers who are all downbeat, depressed and hostile to the Baudelaires, because of how their parents burnt down the town. This is all but Phil who is an optimist, who always finds a way to look on the bright side of life – a phrase which here means that can he always see the good side of everything. For example, if he had been tied to a cross with a young man called Brian who had been mistaken for Jesus, he would start happily singing, instead of crying, which is how most people would react.

Meanwhile, we find out that Count Olaf is hot on the heels of the Baudelaires, having tracked them down to the Lucky Smells Lumbermill. We also find that he is working in cahoots with Dr Georgina Orwell who is just as evil and ruthless as Olaf. It's revealed that Orwell and Olaf were once lovers, and I quite liked how their relationship was fleshed out like this. In the books, it's not always entirely clear, why the two are working together, but I feel that the TV series clears this up. It was also nice seeing Olaf interact with an evil person who isn't part of his theatrical troupe, but actually an equal of his. Sure, the Hook-Handed man is disguised as Foreman Flacutono, but it was nice to have a break from the rest of Olaf's henchpeople. Georgina Orwell was played by Catherine O'Hara, who played Justice Strauss in the Series of Unfortunate Events film and I think she's great in this. In the film adaptation, she didn't really have any time to develop or work with the character. However, with Dr Orwell, she received two episodes to really flesh out the character.

Olaf and Orwell's past relationship is shown in a black and white flashback, as well as are some scenes where Lemony Snicket is doing his usual dissection of popular expressions, and I loved the monochrome filter. It really helped to accentuate the noir tone of the TV series, which I've also adored.

Although the Baudelaires' labour at the lumbermill is difficult, they run into trouble when Foreman Flacutono trips Klaus over, causing his glasses to break. This is when he has to be taken to Dr Orwell who hypnotises him. Lemony Snicket takes us on another aside, as he explains how hypnosis works. However, what is more interesting that in the background, the film Hypnotists in the Forest is playing, which stars Jacquelyn, Mr Poe's secretary and assistant to the Baudelaires. Seeing her on the screen made me realise that she's not had any substantial role in the last couple of episodes, which I find highly disappointing. Her addition was also novel to the TV series and it looked like it would be another interesting mystery to solve, yet it completely fizzled out into nothing. What is her signficance? I hope we find out later on.

When Klaus is hypnotised, he causes an accident which leads to Phil's leg being broken and the Baudelaires being warned that if another accident is caused, they will be sent away from the mill to live with Shirley, which is Count Olaf's latest disguise. In another flashback, we find out that Shirley, who is acting as Dr Orwell's receptionist, has brokered this deal with Sir. After Klaus is unhypnotised and Violet informs him what has happened, the three decide to sneak into Dr Orwell's office and discover her evil plot. I'm also really enjoying how resolute and stoic the Baudelaire orphans are. I said it in my last review, they don't complain, they don't go around in self-pity, but rather they take it upon themselves to try to change their situation. We saw it at the end of the last episode, where they hitchhike to Lucky Smells out of their own volition, to try to find some answers the mysteries that are surrounding their lives.

However, when spying on Dr Orwell, the Baudelaires find that she is hypnotising Charles to poison him against the Baudelaires and convince him to send them to Sir. This made little sense to me, as Sir has already been established as a ruthless, cruel character. I don't think he needed any motivation to send the Baudelaires away, especially since the motivation comes from Charles, whom is much friendlier to the children. Honestly, it would make more sense if the cruel-hearted Sir was trying to convince the kind-hearted Charles to send the children away.

Also, the Baudelaires realise that Dr Orwell is also hypnotising the employees at the Lumbermill, which explains why they haven't left, despite being paid in coupons and fed with gum. This does clear up a plot hole that the book leaves, but it doesn't explain why the Lumbermill workers are so miserable. We see that they are immensely downtrodden, especially in a scene when they bitterly explain how they are paid in coupons to the Baudelaires. Surely if they're being hypnotised to remain in the Lumbermill, they'd be hypnotised to remain happy there.

Anyway, whilst Charles is hypnotised, he is tied to a log, which Klaus, also under hypnosis, is commanded to send into a sawing machine. Violet intervenes in time, finding the correct words to unhypnotise Klaus, Charles and the Lumbermill workers. In the ensuing chaos, Dr Orwell accidentally falls into the incinerator, Count Olaf and the Hook-Handed man escape, the workers revolt against Sir, who also has a narrow escape. Finally, Mr Poe catches up with the Baudelaires, due to his wife's experience as an investigative journalist. He takes them to the boarding school: the Prufrock Prepatory School, where we also see two of the children of “Mother” and “Father.” This is a return to the established canon, and I'm not sure I like it. When the Baudelaires ran away from Mr Poe, I thought that this would be another subplot, which would take a few episodes to resolve. However, Mr Poe's wife finds the children with the utmost of ease. I do realise that the writers were seeking to lampoon this exact point, but I don't think it worked. It felt like an obstacle for the sake of an obstacle. It bore no significance on the plot and just felt quite forced.

Yet the ending of the episode made up for all of its shortcomings. The episode concluded with a brilliant musical number titled That's not how the Story goes. It was absolutely hilarious, as we saw Lemony Snicket, Count Olaf, the Baudelaires and Mr Poe, singing in tandem about how we should never expect happy endings, as that's not how life works. It ties in brilliantly with the pessimistic tone of the series. However, I am afraid that now I have to end this review with some unfortunate news. I have to wait a whole year for season 2.

VFD and Literary References

Verified Functional Dictionary

Very Fancy Door

Vigorous Fire Defence

The letters on Dr Orwell's eye exam sign read VFD

At the beginning of the episode, Snicket dissects the expression “we're not out of the woods,” by referring to Hansel and Gretal, Little Red Riding Hood and also Henry David Thoreau's novel Walden.

Dr Georgina Orwell is an obvious reference to George Orwell.

Klaus says Samuel Beckett's quotation: “I can't go on. I will go on.”

Klaus also takes note at how the eyeglass logo of Dr Orwell's office looks similar to a symbol within the Great Gatsby.  

Stalag 17 review

 Number 202 on the top 1000 films of all time is Billy Wilder's 1953 war-film Stalag-17.

J.J Sefton (William Holden) is just one of six hundred and thirty sergeants being held prisoner in a German WW2 POW camp. He is a cynical, jaded loner who stays apart from the rest of his men. When an escape attempt that leads to two of his fellow prisoners being shot dead, he is quickly suspected of being a collaborator.

Admittedly, I wasn't looking forward to watching this. I thought that because it's a war film, it would be depressing, hard-going and difficult to watch. However, I was surprised to find it had plenty of laughs and light-heartedness. A lot of that was down to William Holden who was great as J.J Sefton. Sefton is your standard wise-cracking smart-arse. He is also enterprising often bartering with his guards for luxuries, as well as improvising a distillery, organising mouse-races for gambling, as well as other activities to keep the other prisoners entertained. Holden played the role well, stopping Sefton from becoming overly-cynical.

Billy wilder has done such a wide array of films over the years from noir to rom-coms to screwball comedies that it was no surprise that Stalag-17 succeeded in the way it did. It had the same off-beat humour as Some Like it Hot but also the drama of Sunset Boulevard.  Originally adapted from a stage-play, Wilder was able to keep that same theatrical feel, while making it suitable for the screen. He made everything bigger and better.

If the film fell down anywhere, it would have been the supporting cast. Although some of them like the German guards were funny in their own right, mostly they all blended into one. I did have trouble distinguishing the different characters. I did get mixed up between Lieutenant James Dunbar (Don Taylor) and security officer Frank Price (Peter Graves.) Other than Sefton, the only other character I really remember is Sefton's loyal, if naive aide Cookie (Gil Stratton) who also narrates the film.

Overall, I did enjoy Stalag-17. It was an entertaining war film with a great turn by William Holden.

Running Scared review

 Number 849 on the top 1000 films of all time is the neo-noir crime thriller 'Running Scared.'

Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker) is a low-level mafioso present at a drug-deal gone wrong. A group of masked, dirty cops turn up and a shoot-out happens. Gazelle and his other mobsters shoot dead all the cops. Gazelle is then tasked with hiding the gun. He takes it home and hides it in the basement. It is later discovered by his son Nicky (Alex Neuberger) and his son's best friend Oleg Yugorsky (Cameron Bright.) Oleg steals the gun and uses it to shoot his abusive, Russian mobster stepfather Anzor Yugorsky (Karel Roden.) Gazelle is in a race against time to find Oleg and the gun before his mob, the Russian mob and the corrupt coppers.

Who decided this should be on the top 1000 films of all time? Was it a group of twelve-year-old boys? Because it looked like it had been written, filmed, edited and directed by a group of twelve-year-old boys. It was all so immature and juvenile. I'm talking gratuitous violence, cliched characters, absurd plot developments, ridiculous action scenes, terrible dialogue, objectified women - Joey's wife Teresa (Vera Farmiga) spent much of the film with her thong poking out of her jeans - and the effects, filters and grainy colour scheme that look like they're out of a 90's rap video.

Let's break these down in more detail. The film starts badly with the drug-deal going wrong. The corrupt coppers turn up and the violence ramps up. Gangsters and ex-coppers are flying across the screen in slow-motion. We see bloody mists and weird filters. It all just looked ridiculous. But this was nothing compared to the final sequence where Gazelle confronts the Russian and Italian mob at an ice-hockey stadium. The Russians hold him down on the rink and have one of their players shoot pucks at his face until he tells them what he wants to know. It was all just so laughable. And of course there was another of these stupid filters - this time, a blue-light filter. Eventually this breaks down into another chaotic shoot-out where you have no idea what's happening and don't know who is shooting who.

I did criticise Teresa's character, but that's not a criticism of Farmiga, but rather her writing. She is immediately portrayed as a sex object. Her introduction is her rubbing up against Gazelle on the washing machine with her senile father in the living room and son in her basement. And as previously stated, she then spends the rest of the film with her thong sticking out of jeans. It didn't seem like a very empowering role for Farmiga, but I think she did the best she could. 

In fairness, she did have some agency. It's just a shame it happened with such a crazy plot development. When Oleg is on the run after having shot by his stepfather, he is kidnapped by these two paedophiles Dez Hansel (Bruce Altman) and Edele Hansel (Elizabeth Burke.) They take him to their flat where they're going to film a snuff film. He is later rescued by Teresa who murders the two paedophiles.  But this was just absurd. It comes out of nowhere and the vivid colour scheme didn't fit into the grainy visuals of the rest of the film. Obviously, I'm sure this stuff does happen, but it just didn't fit into the film. I do wish they had given Farmiga much better material. She was very much a cliche.

But so were the rest of the characters. Gazelle is your standard hot-headed mobster, Chaz Palminteri is your corrupt cop and the Italian and Russian mobsters are complete run-of-the-mill. And there was also the weird side character of Lester-the-Pimp. Oleg stumbles upon the pimp abusing one of his workers. He was just another silly addition to an already bloated cast. The only character I really felt any sympathy for was Oleg's mother Mila (Ivana Milicevic.) Unlike most of the other characters she actually had some depth. She worked as a prostitute in Moscow before her pimp brought her to the United States. After getting pregnant, she is told to abort her child. She refuses and her pimp sends Anzor to kill her. Instead he marries her. Unlike everybody else, I actually felt sorry for her.

The ending was also super cheesy. There is a fake-out death with Joey Gazelle. He and Farmiga share lots of tears, but I didn't feel anything. Both characters were complete cliches and it didn't help that he and Farmiga lacked any real chemistry. Other than them having sex and yelling at each other, you never see any real relationship or any reason why you should root for them.

I've been working through this list for years now and I've seen a lot of films that I can acknowledge as being good films in their own right, but not for me. Running Scared is one of the first films I've watched that I can say was objectively bad.

Top ten times the Academy got it wrong

 By now you should that I have some hot takes about the films that appear on IMDB's top 1000 films of all time. You can check out my lists on some of the most overrated films ever.  But the hot takes don't stop there, as I will be counting the top times that the Academy got it wrong whether that's awarding or even nominating a film or an actor or actress. This list is in no order but chronology.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Number 333 on the top 1000 films is Kevin Costner's epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.' Yet that isn't its only accolade for it also won the 1991 Best Film Oscar.

Yes, you read that correctly. It beat the likes of Goodfellas and Awakenings to win the Academy's most prestigious award. How? This three-hour long film is beyond tedious. Costner's wooden performance did nothing to help matters at all. And to all the critics saying it contains a white saviour complex, I challenge you to stay awake long enough to provide evidence of that. If it were up to me, then I would award the Oscar to Awakenings. Both Robert De Niro and Robin Williams excelled in that.

JFK (1991)

Oliver Stone's epic political thriller ranks 306 on the top 1000 films of all time. It focusses on the investigation following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Again, it stars Kevin Costner. Again, it is a three-hour snooze-fest. Thankfully, it didn't receive a Best Picture Oscar, but it was still nominated. Why? It is a bloated, over-long, unfocussed affair that is bursting to the brim with absolutely anything that is related to the Kennedy case. It quite rightly lost to the Silence of the Lambs, but it shouldn't have been in the running in the first place.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Terrence Malik directed this Vietnam war-film to 694th on the top 1000 films and to a Best Picture nomination. But just like JFK, I am puzzled as to why it was nominated.

It is just plain pretentious. Malik seemed more interested in philosophising and arty camerawork than in telling an interesting story. It's a war film, right? So, why don't we see any war happening?

It is also unfocussed with too many cameos and not enough main characters. It ultimately lost to Shakespeare in Love, but I think its fellow nominee Saving Private Ryan explored the theme of war much more effectively.

Crash (2004)

Paul Haggis' Crash ranks 383rd on the top 1000 films.

Crash won the 2005 Best Picture Oscar. And I am definitely not alone in thinking this was the wrong decision. The concept was admirable - an exploration of race relations in Los Angeles, but the execution left a lot to be desired.

Crash was a contrived, convoluted mess that rushed and over-simplified its key themes and ideas. The far simpler Brokeback Mountain should have won instead. But Hollywood just wasn't brave enough to celebrate a film about two gay cowboys.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Michael Clayton ranks low on the top 1000 films at 977th. It stars George Clooney who plays a fixer un-masking a cover-up at his New York law firm.

Michael Clayton received a number of Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor/Actress. I don't think it deserved any of them.

It was a clinically, cold film which is severely lacking any heart. Although that does make sense since it is about lawyers. George Clooney's lacklustre performance did little to help things.

The Fighter (2010)

David O'Russell's biographical sports-drama ranks in as 408th on the top 1000 films.

This film follows the lives of two boxing brothers played by Mark Wahlburg and Christian Bale. Melissa Leo plays their mother and she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Although she was good, I would argue her co-star Amy Adams, who was also nominated, was even better. Amy Adams should have won instead.

She was the one redeeming feature in a film that I didn't care for at all.

Argo (October 2012) 

Ben Affleck's directed this biographical history thriller to the 445th place on the top 1000 films, as well as the Best Film Oscar.

Don't get me wrong. This is a fine film, but is it really Oscar-worthy? Is it better than its fellow nominees like Django Unchained, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook or Zero Dark Thirty. I'm not sure about that. Sure, it's thrilling enough, but then the tension dissipates in an overly-sentimental conclusion.

And while Ben Affleck is a good director, he is a rather wooden actor. Argo definitely would have been better if it had a different performer in the lead role.

Lincoln (November 2012)

Steven Spielberg's biographical drama ranks as 836th on the top 1000 list. It also netted Daniel Day-Lewis his third Best Actor Oscar win.

I haven't seen My Left Foot, but I can attest that he was magnificent in There will be Blood. Does the same magnificence transfer over into Lincoln? I'm not so sure. It certainly doesn't help that the film is 150 minutes long with a massive cast. 

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Abraham Lincoln, but I'm really not sure that his performance was Oscar-worthy. It lacked the same depth that I've seen in his other roles. I would have much rather seen Denzel Washington win his third Oscar for Flight, but we know that the Academy loves a biopic.

Captain Phillips (2013)

Paul Greenglass' Captain Phillips ranks as 302nd on the top 1000 films.

Tom Hanks stars as the eponymous Captain Phillips - a shipping captain taken prisoner by Somali prisoners.

Captain Phillips was nominated for a number of Oscars including Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor, but not Best Actor. It was a brilliant performance, so why wasn't Tom Hanks nominated. This has to be one of the most egregious snubs in Oscar history. In Captain Phillips, Tom Hanks plays an everyman who becomes an unlikely hero. The Academy loves a biopic, so why wasn't Hanks nominated?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Being released in 2022, EEAAO is seven years too late to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time. However, it still swept the Oscars winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screen, Best Editing and Best Supporting Actress.

I take issue with the Best Supporting Actress win. Jamie Lee-Curtis won this Oscar for the role of IRS inspector Deirdre Beaubeidre. While Michelle Yeoh and Key Huy Quan were well-deserving of their Oscar-wins, I can't say the same for Jamie Lee-Curtis. She was good, but definitely not Oscar-worthy. It didn't have the depth I would expect to see from an Oscar performance. I would argue that her co-star Stephanie Hsu, who was also nominated for the same role, should have won the award instead.

Have I missed out anything? Gone with the Wind? Shakespeare in Love? Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive? Don't worry. A second list will be coming soon enough. 

Top ten films too traumatic to watch again

 There are some films that are so bad or boring that you can never face watching them again. You can see my list of those films here. But there are also some films that are so traumatic or depressing or upsetting that it's far too painful to watch them again.

Most of the films I'm about to mention feature on the top 1000 films of all time. I'm watching and reviewing them here. This list is in no particular order.

Requiem for a Dream

This is the only film on this list that I've been brave enough to watch twice. The first time was in 2016. The second time was in 2022. I went six years between the first and second watch. And that was not enough time.

Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, Jennifer Connelly and Ellen Burstyn give brilliant performances as drug addicts in New York. Darren Aronofsky's direction offers a brutal, unflinching look into this dark world. You will not find any happy endings here especially with Ellen Burstyn's character. Her performance was heart-breaking. I would count this film as one of my favourites of all time even if it is too traumatic to watch for a third time.

This is England

British white nationalism is as pervasive and dangerous now as it was back in 1982 where This is England is set. Following a gang of skinheads, we witness a horrific look into how they can brainwash the youth with their propaganda.

But what makes this film so scary is its realism. We're not talking zombies or demonic puppets, but real humans with real hatred in their hearts. Nowhere is that more present than with Stephen Graham who was magnificent as Combo - leader of the skinhead gang. He was so terrifying that he had trouble finding work after the film. I know I will have trouble watching the film again.

Precious

This is a powerful, but stark look into family abuse. It follows Precious (Gabourney Sidibe) a young black woman who was not only raped by her father, but also psychologically abused by her mother (Mon'ique.) Do you see what I mean about it being a rough watch?

Like This is England, it shows its villains as being incredibly cruel, but also incredibly human. It's horrible to watch, but you can't also look away. Mon'ique gave an Oscar-winning performance, but Mariah Carey was also surprisingly good in a supporting role. And, of course, Gabourney Sidibe was the star of the show. 

This is a film I won't be strong enough to watch again anytime soon.

Grave of the Fireflies

When you think of Studio Ghibli, you think of the adorable Totoro or the wonderful world of Spirited Away. You don't think of this heart-breaking tale of World War Two Japan.

Seen through the eyes of sixteen-year-old Seita and his little sister Setsuko, we see how they struggle to survive amidst the twilight years of the war. It is a tragic story that ends predictably tragically, but it is no less gut-wrenching. It made me cry after all.

It is also one of my favourite films of all time, but it is one of the few Studio Ghibli films that I won't be watching over and over again.

Amores Perros

If I were to describe why I wouldn't watch this film again, I would give you one compound word: dog-fighting.

This disgusting practice is central to the film's plot. It plays out in shocking detail. As an animal and dog-lover, this was distressing to watch. It's also difficult to root for characters who willingly enter their dogs into these fights.

Thankfully, Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's later films: 21 Grams and Babel are far easier watches.

Blue Valentine

Although this film isn't traumatic in the sense of depicting violent subject matter, it is still one of the bleakest films I've ever seen.

We follow Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) as their marriage and relationship self-destructs. Cue lots of shouting and tears and very little reason to smile while watching this film. And very little reason why I would want to watch it again.

Manchester by the Sea

Similarly to Blue Valentine, Manchester by the Sea was depression personified. It stars Casey Affleck as a man trying to move on after a house fire kills his entire family. Affleck was well-deserving of the best Actor Oscar, but the film's tragic storyline would surely win the Oscar for most depressing film ever.

The Celebration

This Danish film made for a deeply uncomfortable watch. At a birthday party for the aging patriarch of the Klingenfeldt-Hansen family, we see the whole affair descend into chaos as the whole family goes to war with each other. Cue shouting, arguments, casual racism and nasty people being nasty to each other. It's not a celebration. And there was nothing comedic about it, despite it being labelled a black-comedy. I did not enjoy watching this at all.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

This American classic was also an uncomfortable watch for similar reasons to the above. It was so just relentlessly depressing. Paul Newman and Liz Taylor star as a couple who spend the entire film yelling at each other and everybody around them.

Homophobic attitudes of the time saw the removal of a key storyline that would have added much needed meaning to all the shouting. Otherwise this was an uncomfortable watch.

Midsommer

Ari Aster's horror film is too modern to feature on the top 1000 films of all time, but I still hated watching it. Florrence Pugh stars as Dani - a young woman attempting to get over the death of her family by holidaying in Sweden with her boyfriend and friends. There they find an idyllic cult, but everything is not what it seems.

While I can respect the craft, I found this film intensely disturbing. It freaked me out and I can never watch it again. I'm sure this is just me, as I have heard others say it is boring, dull and tame compared to some other horror films. I'm sure those same people would say I'm a wimp, which would be true. But this film still made me deeply uncomfortable.

None of this is to say these films are bad, but they were either so traumatic, upsetting or disturbing that I could never watch them again. Did I miss any films? Let me know in the comments.

A Time to Kill review

 Number 969 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joel Schumacher's 1996 legal drama 'A Time to Kill.'

Based on John Grisham's book of the same name, A Time to Kill focusses on the relationship between white Mississippi attorney Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) and his black client Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson.) After Carl Lee's ten-year-old daughter Tonya (Rae'ven Larrymore Kelly) is brutally raped and almost murdered by two racist rednecks Billy Ray Cobb (Nicky Katt) and James Willard (Doug Hutchinson.) Carl Lee takes the law into his own hands and shoots them dead. Brigance decides to defend him. He is aided by his old mentor, the alcoholic Lucien Wilbanks (Donald Sutherland) and law student Ellen Roark (Sandra Bullock.) But Brigance is up against stiff competition as district attorney Rufus Buckley (Kevin Spacey) takes up the case for the Cobb family. Billy Ray's brother - Freddie Lee (Kiefer Sutherland) also resurrects the Mississippi KKK chapter to exact his revenge on Carl Lee.

Joel Schumacher is so well-known for almost killing the Batman movie franchise with the abysmal Batman and Robin, it is easy to forget that he has made other films. A Time to Kill is one of these films. It's just as cheesy as Batman and Robin, but it is a million times better. That is a low bar and it's certainly not perfect, but it's watchable enough.

A lot of that is down to the star-studded cast. To be honest, I don't think McConaughey was anything special. Brigance is your classic, intelligent, handsome clear-cut hero - there's not much more to him than that. But I thought Samuel L. Jackson was great. He's so well known for either action roles or over-the-top, eccentric oddball, it was refreshing to see him in a more human role. He played it well conveying a brilliant vulnerability. Carl Lee is an obviously sympathetic character. His daughter is raped and left for dead. She is attacked because she is black. He only did what any father would do. Is that so wrong? 

According to Spacey, it is. Men must not be allowed to take the law into their own hands. Spacey shone, as he always does, playing a slimy lawyer, who only takes the case to build his own public profile. And he does that Southern drawl so damn well. I couldn't help but be reminded of one of Spacey's most famous roles: President Frank Underwood on House of Cards. Kiether Sutherland was also enjoyable as the villainous Freddie Lee Cobb. Hell-bent on revenge, he starts up the local KKK chapter and terrorises everybody involved in the trial. Granted all the roles I've seen Sutherland in are villains/morally dubious, but he does them well.

The only character I was unsure about was Ellen Roark. An ACLU activist and law student, she helps Brigance pro bono, so to speak. Yet she was such a poorly written character. It seemed like Sandra Bullock was only cast because she was hot and not because of her great acting ability. As she doesn't really have a chance to do much except to riffle through cabinets and have sexual tension between her and Brigance. Perhaps her character is there to tempt Brigance into an extra-marital affair and put a strain between Brigance and his wife. But these ideas never came to fruition. An affair between the two is teased, but Brigance always stops himself before things go too far. But this is never something that makes it home to his family. In fact, rather than Roark, it is the KKK leaving burning crosses outside of Brigance's home that drives a wedge between him and his wife. She and her daughter soon leave for their own safety. And so does any potential for narrative tension.

If the intention was to force some sexual tension then it failed dramatically. And if it wasn't then what was the point of the character? Why would you squander Sandra Bullock's acting ability - she is a best actress Oscar winner? Why would you put two young hot people like Mconaughey and Bullock together if they're not going to get it on? Sure, he might need a paralegal, but why does that have to be somebody like Bullock. He character seemed so contrived. Also Bullock was in her thirties while filming - too old to be playing a law student.

The ending also seemed too contrived and cheesy. Brigance *spoiler alert* convinces the jury of Carl Ray's innocence, but his method is what troubled me. He effectively tugs at heart strings rather than using the law. He asks the jury to close their eyes and to imagine the rape and attempted murder of Tonya. He ends by saying "imagine if she was white." Obviously race is a presiding issue and Tonya suffered a horrific hate crime, but as, Spacey spends much of the trial protesting, it isn't Tonya's rape that is at issue, but Carl Lee's murder of her rapists. During Brigance's impassioned speech, Spacey doesn't object once, nor does Judge tell the jury to strike it from the record. This was all too difficult to believe.

I also found it troubling that Freddie Lee and the other KKK don't face any proper consequences for their actions. Sure, we see them being quietly confronted by the cops, but nothing more. Freddie Lee left a burning cross outside of Brigance's house, he beats his secretary husband's to death, he tries to shoot Brigance and he kidnaps Roark, takes her to the woods, strips her and leaves her tied to a tree. Yet his actions are effectively brushed under the rug. All I needed was the coppers clasping him in irons and reading him his Miranda rights.

Also there was a mysterious man operating through the film. He warns Brigance's family of the burning cross through a shadowy phone call. But was the person's identity ever revealed? Was it the same man who rescued Roark or was that just a stranger?

So yes, this film is cheesy, unrealistic and relegates Bullock to playing little more than a sex object, but I do think it is well worth a watch. Look past the cheese and you'll find an entertaining and gripping thriller. Just a shame that Schumacher followed this up with Batman and Robin.