Sven vs. The Movies

#62 Fight Club

2012-02-20T13:10:00.001Z

(1999, David Fincher)

“I felt like destroying something beautiful”

Now, I’ve got a bit of a dilemma here. I’m apparently not allowed to talk about Fight Club. And yet I have to review it since I watched it. What do I do?

I mean, I certainly can’t describe how this features Edward Norton as an unnamed narrator with severe insomnia who finds minor relief by attending support groups for diseases he doesn’t have. When this fails due to the presence of a mysterious woman named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter), he ends up meeting a man named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) before his apartment burns down. I could say more, but let’s just say it involves the narrator and Durden setting up a new form of therapy for men, but I really can’t talk about it.

Now, I probably shouldn’t say this, but Fight Club was poorly marketed when it was released. It was made out to be a movie about men punching each other when in actual fact it’s a movie about anti-consumerism. It’s about the loss of identity through corporate sponsorship and how chasing money is making people profoundly unhappy. Which is probably why the big corporate studios failed to find a way to market it properly.

I didn’t tell you this, so keep this quiet, but Fight Club is a pretty decent movie. It has a lot to say about modern society, even now, ten years on. But sometimes it feels as if it’s over the top in its message. It feels like it’s constantly cramming the idea that earning money and buying anything at all is a horrible idea and anyone who does it is a horrible person. It seems to claim that in order for us to be truly happy, we need to beat each other to a pulp and live in a world without law.

But maybe this is the point. While sometimes this message is uncomfortable, there is a subtext that the man spouting off this “wisdom”, Tyler Durden, is an unhinged maniac. Brad Pitt’s performance of him is fantastic, a drastic improvement over his previous work with David Fincher. He carries a certain kind of smugness around with him, designed to make him look cool and charming, but underneath it, Pitt plays it with subtle hints that if you dare say the wrong thing to him, he’ll stab you in the face.

It’s just a shame that this side of the message – that an extremist opposition to consumerism is just as destructive and harmful as what it’s opposing – can be easily lost in the slightly glorified violent fight scenes and the fact that Durden seems like such a cool guy. This, again, may be the point, but the fact that the seemingly brainwashed members of Durden’s “Project Mayhem” later in the movie seem to resemble the groomed members of certain real life terrorist cells, it shows that the subtleties could easily be lost on the very kinds of people likely to fall into Project Mayhem. It’s slightly terrifying.

Fight Club is weird though. It walks the line between being genuinely clever and merely being pretentious. Occasionally it’s hard to tell exactly which side of the line it’s on. Some of the editing techniques are clever, but others, while impressive, just make you feel like Fincher would just leave it be. There’s also instances of slightly dodgy-looking CGI effects, such as a shot where the camera pans out of a rubbish bin. I also still have no idea what the relevance of the penguin “spirit animal” seen early on in the film is. The twist at the end, however, is a very good one, not that I’m going to go into it too much here. Like I said at the start, I can’t really talk about Fight Club.

However, what I can say is that it’s a very well-made movie that is worth a watch, although at times it can be a little difficult. But persevere and you’ll find something that is certainly one of the cleverest movies of the late 90s.

But I never said any of that, OK?

Starring Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Helena Bonham Carter, Meat Loaf & Jared Leto

Written by Chuck Palahniuk (novel) & Jim Uhls

Produced by Art Linson, Cean Chaffin & Ross Grayson Bell

Music score by The Dust Brothers

Favourite Scene: The reveal of the twist. Particularly in the flashbacks it generates and how it completely reshapes those scenes.

Scene That Bugged Me: The CGI panning shot out of the bin. Apparently it was included in the edit at the 11th hour literally as it had finished processing. It shows.

Watch it if: You realise the satire behind what's going on

Avoid it if: You plan on talking about Fight Club. DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB! GOD!

Similar Movies

#9 American Beauty

#17 Requiem For A Dream

#22 Trainspotting

#37 Amores Perros

#61 Rosemary's Baby

2012-02-18T12:39:00.001Z

(1968, Roman Polanski)

“He has his father’s eyes”

Rosemary’s Baby is frequently held up as one of the greatest psychological horrors ever made, inspiring countless horror franchises since its release, from movies such as The Omen to video game series Silent Hill. But just how good is it?

It tells the story of newlywed couple Guy (John Cassavetes) and Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) as they move into a new apartment in New York. There are numerous tales of mysterious disappearances and suicides in the apartment building, but this fails to discourage them, as the place seems wonderful. They befriend their neighbours, the Castevets, an elderly couple who seem friendly, if a little nosy. However, happy home life fades away after Rosemary gets pregnant mysteriously and Guy’s acting career suddenly takes off out of the blue. Rose begins to question if there’s something wrong with the baby and what the neighbours may be hiding from them.

Rosemary’s Baby is not a perfect film. It’s a fantastic concept, particularly as it plays on a very real source of fear in reality by using pregnancy as the source of its horror. However, the execution is a little dated, and while some aspects of the movie still hold up and work wonderfully, other elements feel like they could do with a dramatic overhaul.

My first issue with the movie came in the opening scenes, which seemed to rush through the exposition of actually getting the couple into the apartment. Much of the acting felt rushed and unemotional, as if the opening scenes were necessary but Roman Polanski just wanted them done with as soon as possible. We’re not given much time to really identify with the characters as a result, but fortunately the movie does recover from this as it progresses.

My second issue may be down to more to differences between standards in the 1960s and now than anything else, and this is down to the discovery of the pregnancy. Following a particularly creepy nightmare where she appears to be raped by a demon and waking to discover that she’s covered in large scratches, Rosemary’s reaction seems incredibly understated. It becomes even more bizarre when Guy claims the scratches are from him, and that he impregnated her while she was passed out. And she is fine with this, simply because they’d been planning on having a baby anyway and he is her husband so it’s somehow allowed. This was actually one of the creepiest scenes in the movie for me, but probably not in the way Polanski intended. Implied marital rape is apparently OK in this world, particularly as Rosemary is very happy to be pregnant following this, and while she and Guy do grow distant, it’s because of his career taking off, not because he apparently raped her while she was sleeping. Seriously? This wouldn’t fly today, and certainly if it were remade, I imagine this implication would be where the horror would really kick off, not when the bigger revelations sneak in later on.

Of course, barring these issues, the movie does succeed at generating a very effective creeping sense of horror and discomfort. Rosemary’s pregnancy is not a pleasant one, and the sense of paranoia that grows in her mind spreads through to the film as a whole. We question character motives just as much as Rosemary does. We’re thrown into as much confusion as she is. And best of all, everything is hinted and left fairly ambiguous, which of course builds suspense.

Not to mention the horrors presented in this movie, Satan-babies aside, are actually very real fears. There are so many things that can go wrong with real life pregnancies that the idea of basing an entire horror movie around one is perfect. But there’s also fears of being able to trust people around you, and the very real possibility that someone close to you might abuse you in some way. By playing on all these fears, the movie does succeed in being very uneasy. It’s not outright terrifying, but it does have a way of getting under your skin.

Ultimately, a movie with a good concept and some very good execution in parts, but feels very dated, and suffers a little from society’s changing values. This is a rare occasion where a remake could be beneficial, rather than unnecessary.

Starring Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans & Ralph Bellamy

Written by Ira Levin (novel) & Roman Polanski

Produced by William Castle

Music score by Christopher Komeda

Favourite Scene: When Rosemary’s realised that something’s up with her doctor’s explanations and plans to go see someone else, resulting in her arguing with her husband. Definitely one of the best acted scenes in the whole movie.

Scene That Bugged Me: The aforementioned pregnancy explanation. “Oh those scratches. That was me. I raped you while you were asleep.” “Oh OK, honey, what shall we have for breakfast?” WHAT

Watch it if: You believe that babies are the work of the devil

Avoid it if: You’re pregnant. Simple as that

Similar Movies

#59 & #60 The Terminator & Terminator 2: Judgement Day

2012-02-17T13:07:00.002Z

(1984/1991, James Cameron)

“Come with me if you want to live”

Now consisting of four movies, a TV series (Sarah Connor Chronicles) and an assortment of spin-off media, the Terminator franchise is one of the most well-known sci-fi action series in existence; however, its quality has widely varied. Terminator Salvation (starring Christian “Batman” Bale) was a little hit and miss, and the less said about Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines, the better. But what of the first two?

The Terminator is set in 1984, the year of its release, and features waitress Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) discovering that two women with her name have been murdered by a mystery assailant, and she has every reason to believe she’s next. She eventually runs into a mysterious assassin (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who does indeed try to kill her, but she is saved by Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). Kyle informs her that both he and Ahnuld are from the future, where a war between man and machine is being endlessly fought. Arnie is a machine known as a Terminator, and he’s been sent back to kill Sarah before she can give birth to her son John, the leader of the human resistance, and Kyle has to protect her.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day has largely the same storyline, only now there are two Terminators – the original model (again played by the Governator) and a new liquid metal prototype, the T-1000 (Robert Patrick and a truckload of CGI), and this time the target is John Connor himself as a child (Edward Furlong). However, SPOILER ALERT the original Terminator this time is taking Kyle’s role as John’s protector. He’s been reprogrammed by John Connor in the future to protect John Connor in the past. Got that? Trust me, it gets a lot more confusing.

The Terminator is a decent movie that’s not without its flaws. It feels very much like a product of the 1980s, with all the big hair and terribly synthesised soundtrack that implies. It’s also a massive slab of cheese, what with its generic action movie clichés and one-liners. It’s incredibly dated, particularly with some of the dodgy stop motion effects towards the end of the movie, which genuinely do look like they were constructed from models rather than looking like they’re part of the actual scene.

But guess what? It’s also incredibly FUN. Arnie is in full-on Ahnuld mode here, even with his minimal lines, and the action sequences make for some truly enjoyable cinema. In addition, the storyline actually holds together well, and while its ending raises some serious chronological issues, it at least sticks to its own internal logic, something that many other big blockbuster action movies fail to do.

It’s not a particularly smart movie, but who cares? It’s impossible to not have a good time watching it unless you’re some kind of humourless cinema snob. And that is all that can really be said about it.

But Judgement Day? Oh boy. Where Terminator went wrong, Judgement Day corrects the mistakes. And where it went right? Everything is amped up to 11.

Those effects that were so problematic in the first movie? Gone, replaced with greatly improved CGI effects, particularly where the T-1000 is concerned. Impressively, they still look good 20 years on, which is practically ancient history where CGI is concerned. Robert Patrick blends seamlessly with his computer-generated counterpart, and consistently feels like it’s genuinely there. There aren’t many early 90s uses of CGI which can say the same thing, so hats off to James Cameron for pulling it off so successfully.

At the same time, just when you thought Arnie couldn’t be any more entertaining, he goes and does it anyway. By switching from the role of the villain to the hero, he gains a whole ton of entertaining one-liners and significantly more badass moments. His first scene sees him walking into a biker bar, demanding one of them give him his clothes and motorcycle before beating up half the customers then ripping a shotgun straight from the owner’s hands as it’s being pointed at him. The scene clearly shows we’re dealing with a different Terminator here, and Ahnuld never lets up.

However, there are some issues. The T-1000, marketed as the even more dangerous Terminator disappears for much of the middle of the movie, when the Connors and Arnie go to try and shut down the Skynet project, and when he comes back you can almost see James Cameron sitting in his office saying “oh shit, we had that liquid metal guy! Better write him back in.” If he’d remained a persistent threat for the entire movie it would have made things better, but his absence is pronounced.

Similarly, the plot gets even more confusing and tangled here. Everything that happens now is dictated by events in future, although those events are also dictated in the present, to the point where everything just hurts to think about too much. Which is probably why there’s so many shots of Arnie blowing stuff up, just to prevent people thinking too much and causing their brains to malfunction.

Judgement Day is certainly the better movie of the two. It’s certainly one of the best Arnie vehicles in existence, as its mind-bending, time travel plot is a little more intelligent than most of his well-known work, but also because it’s just so good at being an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Stuff blows up, people get shot, and Arnie throws out catchphrases and one-liners from every direction, but it’s all so tightly directed and pieced together that there is never a dull moment. The first movie is fun, but the second movie is a blast from start to finish. It’s a rare example of a sequel being significantly better than its predecessor, and that alone wins it favour with me.

The Terminator movies might not be the smartest movies out there, but they’re entertaining, and that’s what really matters in movies most of the time. Judgement Day is definitely unmissable, but the first movie is required to be up to date with what’s going on, so watch both.

Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn, Edward Furlong & Robert Patrick

Terminator written by James Cameron & Gale Anne Hurd, Judgement Day written by James Cameron & William Wisher

Produced by Gale Anne Hurd (Terminator) and James Cameron (Judgement Day)

Music by Brad Fiedel

Favourite Scene (Terminator): The scenes where The Governator repairs himself. A definite success story for the SFX department, unlike…

Scene That Bugged Me (Terminator): That stop motion Terminator skeleton is laughably bad. It looks good when they switch to the animatronic models, but dear god those stop motion effects are just awful.

Favourite Scene (Judgement Day): The aforementioned biker bar scene. It sets the tone for the entire movie, and it’s awesome

Scene That Bugged Me (Judgement Day): The scenes of the future nuclear blast always seemed a little awkward for me. They seem to break the flow of the movie and feel like they’re trying too hard to elicit an emotional response from the audience

Watch them if: You want to live

Avoid them if: Ahnuld's accent annoys you. In which case, you could probably get away with just watching the first one

Similar Movies

#4 The Matrix

#6 Aliens

#18 Batman

#58 Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

2012-02-16T12:37:00.001Z

(2000, Ang Lee)

"A sword by itself rules nothing. It only comes alive in skilled hands"

Wuxia. A genre of Chinese literature and cinema that concerns traditional stories of noble martial arts warriors on epic quests that got popularised in the West with a little movie known as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, directed by Taiwanese director Ang Lee.

Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun-Fat) is an accomplished Wudang warrior, but he wishes to retire from his warrior life. He entrusts his good friend Yu Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) to deliver his sword, the Green Destiny, to Sir Te in Peking as a gift. While in his company, Shu Lien meets Jen (Ziyi Zhang), the daughter of Governor Yu, who is also visiting. Jen is about to undergo an arranged marriage, but she is envious of Shu Lien’s warrior lifestyle and wishes to escape her life. Soon, a mysterious masked stranger steals the Green Destiny, with the most likely culprit being Jade Fox, a woman who murdered Li Mu Bai’s master, and so begins an epic adventure with plenty of stunning martial arts.

In fact, the impressive martial arts sequences are what made the movie so memorable. As well as traditional displays of martial arts with swords (and in a later scene, improvised weapons), Ang Lee combined much of it with wire work, giving the fighters a graceful, weightless look. It would have looked impressive enough for the normal fight sequences, but they went all out, utilising the technique for all it was worth. Characters fight on rooftops before wall running and jumping in ways that would impress hardcore parkour practitioners. It’s then taken to its logical extreme when two characters fight while balanced on bamboo plants, in what has become one of the movie’s most famous shots.

It’s such a shame that these effects are wasted on what is ultimately a fairly generic plot. Obviously, the movie is channelling ancient Chinese legends, so the simplistic, dated nature of the storyline has a legitimate reason for it. However, it does little to modernise the theme. While the nature of gender roles in China is examined through Shu Lien, Jen and Jade Fox, little is done to challenge them. While yes, this movie is about the martial arts above all else, it could have gone further to break down the gender roles and make things a little more interesting. As it is, the plot is overly simple, to the point where sometimes it’s easy to get a little bored when the fighting stops.

There’s also a flashback sequence to round out one of the characters, but it seems to jump out at the viewer in a way that’s disorientating and slightly awkward. It also goes on for way too long, causing us to lose sight of the main plot a little. It could have been shortened down considerably and kept the movie going without too much trouble.

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is an entertaining enough movie though. While its plot does suffer, as a piece of entertainment it is wonderful. Many know this as “that movie with the flying Chinese warriors” and if you’re here for those sequences, you will not be disappointed. But don’t expect much more from this. It’s a shame, because it could have done so much more with its concept than it actually did.

Starring Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, Ziyi Zhang, Chang Chen, Lang Sihung & Cheng Pei Pei

Written by Wang Du Lu (book), Wang Hui Ling, James Schamus & Tsai Kuo Jung

Produced by Bill Kong, Hsu Li Kong & Ang Lee

Music score by Tan Dun

Favourite Scene: BAMBOO FIGHT! It’s that impressive. You will believe someone can stand on a flimsy giant stick and swordfight simultaneously.

Scene That Bugged Me: Jen’s flashback. It feels like it drags on longer than necessary, and flies out of the blue a little.

Watch it if: You like seeing people literally fly across rooftops

Avoid it if: You want more than just some fancy action sequences

Similar Movies

#7 Princess Mononoke

#57 Audition

2012-02-15T12:58:00.002Z

(1999, Takashi Miike)

“I was waiting for your call”

Remember Videodrome? Specifically, remember my particularly scathing attack on the completely nonsensical nature of the movie and how it all seemed to have been made up as it was filmed by a heavily drugged-up David Cronenberg? I stick by my opinion, not least because I have now found another mind-bending film with something to say about hyper-violence. However, unlike Videodrome, this movie actually manages to make some degree of sense in amongst the weirdness.

Audition is a highly misunderstood film. For those who originally went to see it when it first came out, before all the hype caught up with it, they probably thought they were watching a simple romantic melodrama before suddenly it all takes an unexpected turn for the worst. But then the hype caught up with it, and portrayed it as a gruesome torture porn extravaganza; a dark, twisted horror movie that doesn’t let up for a second. It’s neither. It’s something else entirely. I haven’t figured out exactly what yet, but it’s certainly something else.

Shigeharu Aoyama (Ryo Ishibashi) is an aging widower who gets encouraged by his 17-year old son Shigehiko (Tetsu Sawaki) to remarry. Although reluctant, he mentions this to his friend and colleague, TV/film producer Yoshikawa (Jun Kunimura). Yoshikawa suggests holding a fake film audition to help Aoyama meet his new wife. Aoyama immediately falls for the quiet, enigmatic Asami Yamazaki (Eihi Shiina), and plans to ask her to marry him. However, after they take a weekend away, things take a dark turn, leading Aoyama to discover some mysteries from Asami’s past and discover a dark side to her that he never expected.

Initially the movie is incredibly slow, and seems like a slightly dreary story of a lonely old man that may end up moving down some clichéd path that leads to a generic happily ever after ending. However, once the audition kicks off and Asami enters the picture, things start sliding off-kilter. Brief shots that show Asami sitting in an empty apartment with little more than a phone and a mysterious sack sneak in. Aoyama’s dates with her feature bizarre jump cuts. And then as soon as they hit their weekend away, all melodrama is gone, replaced only with a creeping sense of unease as the facts begin to unfold.

Or so it seems, because after this point is where, thanks to the hype, I expected the movie to turn into a Saw-style torture porn flick, with an hour of gruesome mutilation and murder. It doesn’t. It instead steers straight down Lynchian Mind-Screw Street and refuses to change course. And oddly, it bettered my expectations. It made me realise that all the horror in the movie is a steadily growing sense of uncomfortable “wrongness” rather than anything particularly bloody and gruesome.

What’s more, the “facts” we gain on Asami are thrown into question by the movie’s final half-hour. At the risk of spoilers, the movie throws up a jumble of distorted and confusing scenes at the viewer at a fairly speedy pace, and everything ends with a general feeling of “what the hell just happened?” It’s genuinely shocking and unnerving, and while initially it all seems random, it begins to make a bit of sense when the clues are pieced together.

Audition is not without its faults. The mind-screw nature of the plot is open to interpretation and could easily mean nothing just as much as it seems to mean something. Also, the acting is a little poor at times, particularly in the slow portion of the movie. Asami, in particular, is a little awkward. While she was supposed to seem shy and demure, there were instances where she just seemed to be lazily reading off a script rather than emoting. She shines when she’s being creepy, but when she has to act “normal” it tends to fall apart. A lot of the secondary characters are underdeveloped too, especially since there seems to be hints to a backstory for the secretary, but unfortunately it never fully materialises.

Audition isn’t what the hype makes it out to be. It’s something a little bit more fascinating than that. It does have its fair share of gruesome torture and horror, but ultimately, there’s more to it than that. It’s definitely a movie that sticks in the mind, but due to its confusing structure and graphic final half-hour, it’s also definitely not going to be for everyone.

Starring Ryo Ishibashi, Eihi Shiina, Tetsu Sawaki, Miyuki Mitsuda, Renji Ishibashi & Jun Kunimura

Written by Ryu Murakami (novel) & Daisuke Tengan

Produced by Akemi Suyama & Satoshi Hukushima

Music score by Koji Endo

Favourite Scene: The date scenes with the odd jump cuts. It's the first sign that something is seriously wrong.

Scene That Bugged Me: Asami sits watching her phone in her empty apartment. Then the mysterious bag in the background moves. Felt less shocking and more a cheap jump scare tactic.

Watch it if: You need a reason not to hold an audition for a new girlfriend

Avoid it if: You’re expecting a happy romantic comedy

Similar Movies

#9 American Beauty

#13 Ring

#17 Requiem For A Dream

#27 Videodrome
#61 Rosemary's Baby

#56 Inception

2012-02-14T09:42:00.001Z

(2010, Christopher Nolan)

“Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate”

When we last saw Leonardo DiCaprio here on this blog, he was set adrift in the icy cold waters of the north Atlantic following the sinking of the Titanic. By complete coincidence, Inception starts with DiCaprio washing up on a beach.

For those who don’t remember, Titanic was a historical re-telling of the sinking of the titular “unsinkable” ship back in April 1912. A woman named Rose relates a tale of her experience on the ill-fated vessel, a tale of doomed romance as Rose tries to shake off the shackles of upper class society and escape from her unwanted fiancé when she meets a rogue traveller named Jack, who was played by Leonardo DiCaprio.

DiCaprio returns here in Inception as Cobb, a master of a technique known as extraction, a technique designed to remove ideas from someone’s head by infiltrating their dreams. At the beginning of the movie, we find that Cobb’s latest assignment has failed, but the subject of the extraction (a man named Saito, played by Ken Watanabe) approaches him instead with a new mission: plant an idea in someone’s head, AKA the titular “inception”.

Aiding him is a ragtag team consisting of his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), forger Eames (Tom Hardy), newly-recruited “architect” Ariadne (Ellen Page) and chemist Yusuf (Dildeep Rao). The plan is to convince Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) not to take over his dying father’s business, meaning they can’t gain a monopoly on the market. However, in entering the subconscious world, Cobb brings along some emotional baggage of his own in the form of his ex-wife Mal (Marion Cotillard), whose presence threatens the entire team.

Much like the last Christopher Nolan movie we looked at, Inception is an intricate web of storytelling and can be kind of confusing to follow. If you remember, Memento was about a man named Leonard Shelby who had a condition known as anterograde amnesia, which prevented him from forming new memories, but he had conditioned himself to remember things using Polaroid photos and notes. He was on a mission to kill the man who killed his wife, and the whole film ran backwards. Well, this is similar, in the sense that there’s a concept of a dream-within-a-dream, which happens on multiple levels. In essence, we end up with a plot that consists of three small plots intertwined and happening simultaneously with the same characters. Following this? No? Don’t worry, it takes some time to get used to.

The way everything is constructed is fantastic. The film itself feels very dream-like, with scenes skipping through to the important action and rarely showing how characters get where they need to be. In fact, early on it’s hard to keep track of exactly where the characters are, but in a good way. And at the end, it’s easy to feel disorientated, not unlike the feeling of waking up from a very strange dream. However, where it differs from a dream is in the fact that it all adds up and makes sense in the end, where such a tangled mesh of subplots could have fallen down dramatically. Everything relates to something else somewhere in the film, and even some of the more confusing concepts have a consistent logic of their own.

In addition to its clever plotting, the special effects really bring the dream-like feeling to life. Paris folds in half, a hallway spins and rotates as gravity does strange things due to outside interference, and buildings explode and crumble around characters. Even more impressive is that very little of this was achieved with CGI, which makes it all the more effective since what we’re seeing is essentially “real”, fulfilling the dream-like illusion.

The movie is also a non-stop thrill ride. It hits the ground running as soon as it begins, and doesn’t stop. It doesn’t wait for us to catch up, we need to follow along as best as we can. This sounds like a criticism but it isn’t. By not explaining the method of actually getting into someone else’s dream, for example, we’re not tied up in too much waiting around for the movie to finish its explanation. We learn as the movie progresses, and it keeps the movie fresh and exciting.

There is one criticism though. Aside from Cobb and his relationship with his wife, the characters are severely underdeveloped. We barely know anything about Arthur, Ariadne, Yusuf or Eames, and all we know about Saito and Fischer is that they’re in charge of large rival corporations. It’s slightly disappointing, and even the dreamlike state the movie exists in fails to justify this lack of characterisation, and a little more depth on this front may have improved the movie. It’s entertaining, sure, but it’s hard to connect with much of the cast.

However, Nolan has produced a fantastic piece of work here. It’s clearly a labour of love for him, and his enthusiasm pays off in producing a stunning blockbuster movie that isn’t afraid to use its brain.

Starring Leonardo Dicaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger & Michael Caine

Written by Christopher Nolan

Produced by Emma Thomas & Christopher Nolan

Music score by Hans Zimmer

Favourite Scene: The entire hotel sequence is hugely entertaining and clever, even if it does frequently pop up in the Inception meme.

Scene That Bugged Me: Nolan, why did you do that to us right at the end? WHY?!

Watch it if: You want to go deeper

Avoid it if: You’ve come just for some action. Prepare to be confused

Similar Movies

#4 The Matrix

#34 Being John Malkovich

#55 Se7en

2012-02-13T12:08:00.002Z

(1995, David Fincher)

“The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part.”

Serial killer fiction is alarmingly common, particularly where the killer has an especially complicated plan for his murder sprees. There could be a number of psychological reasons for our fascination with murder mysteries, but really, if it produces movies as good as Se7en, who cares?

Morgan Freeman plays Detective William Somerset, a world-weary cop heading towards retirement (no, we’re not heading towards that trope). His last case sees him paired up with rookie detective David Mills (Brad Pitt), and they discover that a serial killer is starting a gruesome series of murders based around the seven deadly sins. They’ve already discovered the victims of Gluttony (an obese shut-in who’s been fed until he burst) and Greed (a criminal lawyer bled to death after removing a pound of flesh) and now it’s a race against time to find him and stop him before he commits his final five murders.

Se7en is a bleak movie, and David Fincher throws us into a decaying, amoral world with dilapidated structures and shades of grey everywhere. There is no brightness here, and barely any happy scenes. The art direction is gritty and even when we’re not in murder scenes, there seems to be grime everywhere you look, even in Mills and Somerset’s apartments. It effectively sets the tone for everything we’re going to see.

One thing that did bug me about this movie though was Brad Pitt. His acting is incredibly obnoxious, and while this suits his character, it does get annoying to watch. It constantly feels like Pitt’s overdoing it. It also fails to fade in scenes involving his wife, where he continues to seem smug and self-righteous, even when he’s supposed to seem loving. Fortunately, the other performances help paper over this, with Morgan Freeman not only being as good as he usually is, but also because he’s so good at telling Pitt to shut up. Kevin Spacey’s top secret performance is also fantastic, but let’s not go into that too much at the risk of spoilers.

The plot is pretty clever. The thematic killings are well thought-out and logical (in a twisted sort of way), although the film’s logic seems to stutter a little bit in the final moments of the film. However, it remains tense and exciting throughout, which is important. It also succeeds in letting the results of the killings (bar Gluttony and Sloth) remain unseen, or at least stay incredibly blurred, allowing the audience to fill in the blanks themselves, making things creepier.

Se7en is a brilliant movie, although not without its faults. As far as serial killer movies go, however, it’s definitely one of the best out there, and certainly better than its many imitators.

Starring Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, R. Lee Ermey & John C. McGinley (and Kevin Spacey, but shh)

Written by Andrew Kevin Walker

Produced by Phyllis Carlyle & Arnold Kopelson

Music score by Howard Shore

Favourite Scene: Any time Morgan Freeman told Brad Pitt to shut up or calm down. I like to believe it wasn’t their characters, but just Freeman getting frustrated.

Scene That Bugged Me: Oddly, it wasn’t one of Brad Pitt’s many moments of over-the-top acting. It was actually an incredibly out-of-place scene involving Somerset visiting a library while classical music played. It seemed so out of sync with the tone of the movie.

Watch it if: You want to see how inventive the killings can be

Avoid it if: You don’t want to have to wait until the very end of the movie for Morgan Freeman to start doing a voiceover

Similar Movies

#17 Requiem For A Dream

#32 Memento

#37 Amores Perros

#45 No Country For Old Men

#54 Spirited Away

2012-02-12T15:13:00.001Z

(千と千尋の神隠し- Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi)

(2001, Hayao Miyazaki)

“Nothing that happens is ever forgotten, even if you can’t remember it”

While Princess Mononoke was the movie that gained Studio Ghibli, and its prestigious director Hayao Miyazaki, significant critical reception in the West, it was his follow-up, Spirited Away, that really gained him public recognition, leading to the translation and distribution of the entire Ghibli catalogue as a result. And it’s easy to see why. Spirited Away is quite possibly one of the best animated movies ever made.

It tells the story of Chihiro (voiced by Rumi Hiiragi/Daveigh Chase in Pixar’s dub) , a ten-year old girl who’s moving home and school, and very unhappy about this. On the way, her parents take a wrong turn and they find themselves in what appears to be an old abandoned amusement park. However, it turns out to be a fantasy world, and she and her family aren’t welcome there. Her parents are turned into pigs, and now to try and escape, she has to negotiate to work for Yubaba, the sorceress who owns a bathhouse to the gods. Along the way, she makes friends and learns to fend for herself in this strange new land.

And this is what makes Spirited Away such a good movie. Despite the many fantasy elements, this is a coming-of-age story at its heart. When the movie starts, Chihiro is slightly spoiled and whiny, and by being thrust into this strange world, she learns the skills that will hopefully help her should she get back to the real world again. She goes from being scared and helpless to independent and strong, and in a world of Disney Princesses, this is exactly the kind of heroine young girls need. Not a helpless damsel waiting for her prince, she is proactive and determined to save her parents from being turned into bacon. She survives the world through her own initiative and through exercising her best qualities, such as her kindness and selflessness. Sure, she gets help along the way, but no one saves her, and her ultimate escape comes from her own intelligence and bravery.

As well as the strong characterisation of its lead, the movie looks fantastic. It is a Ghibli production, so this is to be expected, but it seems they’ve excelled themselves here. The world Chihiro finds herself in is vibrant and exciting, and the characters are full of life. In addition, the animation is incredibly complex and detailed, with even strands of hair meticulously animated where necessary. It’s a masterpiece, and really shows off Ghibli’s capabilities. Even the minor use of CGI is fantastic, blending seamlessly into Miyazaki’s world where it could have easily looked tacky.

The only real major issue I have with Spirited Away is that it’s heavily reliant on a lot of knowledge of Japanese folklore. Some elements of the world are barely introduced and while they may make sense to a Japanese viewer, the average English-speaking viewer might be a bit lost. For example, it’s notable that the dub explicitly introduces a character as “the Radish Spirit” but the Japanese seemingly assumes the audience knows exactly what it is. It’s a bit of a problem because a Japanese viewer may understand it completely on first viewing, but it may take a Western viewer repeated viewings to fully grasp the concepts. Obviously this is just a regional issue rather than an issue with the film specifically, so it’s not that major.

Otherwise, this is a fantastic children’s movie. Not only does it depict its young female protagonist in a positive, fairly empowering way while still retaining her femininity (again, in direct contrast to the Disney Princesses) but there’s also a very well-crafted story with messages about avoiding greed and materialism and the importance of friendship and self-identity. It also has Miyazaki’s trademark lack of any obvious villain. It seems that Yubaba would fulfil this role, but under the “evil sorceress” mask we see a woman trying to balance a difficult management career with raising a child, so it’s hard to seriously dislike her. All in all, a wonderfully layered movie that raises the bar for children’s animation. Hell, it raises the bar for animation in general.

Spirited Away proves that Miyazaki is more than the Japanese Walt Disney. In fact, it proves that Disney really needs to pick up their game to catch up with him.

Starring the voices of Rumi Hiiragi, Miyu Irino, Mari Natsuki & Yumi Tamai

Dub starring the voices of Daveigh Chase, Jason Marsden, Suzanne Pleshette & Susan Egan

Written by Hayao Miyazaki

Produced by Toshio Suzuki

Music score by Joe Hisaishi

Favourite Scene: Chihiro faces down the No-Face simply by not being as greedy as the staff of the bathhouse. It’s better than it sounds, trust me.

Scene That Bugged Me: So, Chihiro’s parents are willing to walk into some abandoned place and just start eating food that just so happens to be sitting there? OK, fine, you go do that stupid thing, we’ll be over here staying out the way.

Watch it if: You want to know how to survive should your family turn into pigs

Avoid it if: You’d be likely to take No-Face’s gold

Similar Movies

#3 Little Miss Sunshine

#7 Princess Mononoke

#12 Amelie

#25 Pan's Labyrinth

#53 The Usual Suspects

2012-02-11T23:43:00.002Z

(1995, Bryan Singer)

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn’t exist”

Trying to sum up The Usual Suspects in a quick and simple manner isn’t easy. First off, due to the flashback-style nature of the story, it’s hard to know exactly where to start. The plot’s got a million twists and turns and leaps around all over the place so it’s hard to summarise it here. But I suppose I have to.

An incident has happened in the San Pedro docks. A boat has been set ablaze, and a lot of people have died, all for a supposed drug deal. The only survivors are a comatose Hungarian crew member and a fraudster with cerebral palsy named Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey). Kint is brought in to find out exactly what’s happened. He tells a story that all began with a line-up in New York rounding up the usual suspects of the title on suspicion of being involved in a hijack. This group – consisting of Kint, Michael McManus (Stephen Baldwin), his partner Fred Fenster (Benicio Del Toro), Todd Hockney (Kevin Pollak) and supposedly now-straight Dean Keaton (Gabriel Byrne) – together devise a scheme to show up corruption in the police force, eventually leading to them receiving an assignment from legendary crime lord Keyser Soze.

The Usual Suspects is a very intriguing crime thriller. There are a million things going on at once here, and yet it all works. There’s the theme of Keaton trying to fight his criminal instincts and go straight, there’s the account of the actual crime jobs they undertake as part of the movie, there’s the mystery of what happened on the boat and what led the group there, and ultimately, tying everything together, there is the legend of mysterious crime lord Keyser Soze. Who is he? Where did he come from? Where is he hiding? And what is he planning?

The plot is exciting, but it’s not perfect. There are a few holes in the way events pan out. For a start, the basic idea of the group getting together to commit a few criminal jobs seems a little implausible, particularly as plans begin to be made while they’re still being held in custody. However, it’s likely that this is because the story is being told through a flashback via an unreliable narrator. The police are already suspicious of Kint because his story allegedly changes every time he tells it and he initially seems unwilling to help, so it makes us suspicious of his story. It’s a theory that sticks right to the end, so it’s possible some of the minor plot holes can be glossed over this way. Particularly when the twist reveals itself.

Ah yes, the twist. The Usual Suspects contains one of cinema’s most notable plot twists, and it’s a very good one. It’s difficult to talk about the film effectively without giving the game away, but I’ll continue to try. What I will say is the twist is effective because of just how many clues are hidden away in plain sight throughout the movie. While initially it comes as a huge, unexpected shock, repeated viewings show that Singer and co. have been dropping hints towards it for the entire movie, they’re just easy to miss entirely, not least because of the sleight-of-hand employed to lead us to make a different initial opinion.

In addition to its rather clever plotting which gets more impressive the more it’s examined, the execution is fantastic too. On a technical standpoint, the shots and the pacing are spot on, which is what makes the original misdirection work as well as it does. The acting is also brilliant. Benicio Del Toro has incoherent dialogue throughout the movie, but this is a deliberate decision on his part, and in fact suits the character perfectly. Only issue I had was in Pete Postlethwaite’s performance as mysterious lawyer Kobayashi. He constantly had a bizarre accent that was impossible to place. I assume it was designed to make the character seem a little unusual, but all it achieved with me was making me sit there thinking “pick an accent and stick with it!” and proved a distraction.

Overall, The Usual Suspects was an exciting rollercoaster of a movie with a satisfactory twist. Probably not for anyone who can’t stand crime thrillers, but definitely one of the best crime thrillers out there.

Starring Stephen Baldwin, Gabriel Byrne, Chazz Palminteri, Kevin Pollak, Pete Postlethwaite, Kevin Spacey & Benicio Del Toro

Written by Christopher McQuarrie

Produced by Bryan Singer & Michael McDonnell

Music score by John Ottoman

Favourite Scene: The twist. Quite possibly one of the biggest “OH CRAP” moments in cinema history.

Scene That Bugged Me: Kobayashi’s introduction. First of all, what accent is that? Secondly, you’re clearly British, why do you have a Japanese name? Yes, this gets explained a little in the twist, but it still bugged me.

Watch it if: You want to find out who Keyser Soze is

Avoid it if: Benicio Del Toro’s mumbling puts you off

Similar Movies
#45 No Country For Old Men

#52 Groundhog Day

2012-02-02T02:21:00.002Z

(1993, Harold Ramis)

“What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn’t one today!”

OK, campers, rise and shine, today is an especially exciting day. Yes, that’s right, it’s Groundhog Day! And the question on everybody’s chapped lips is will the groundhog see his shadow? And also, will Bill Murray ever stop living the same day over and over again?

Yes, Groundhog Day, that well-known movie where weatherman Phil Connors (Murray) lives the same day over and over again. Everyone knows this movie, so I’m not going to waste my time reviewing it. Sorry to disappoint you, but I have better things to do.

Yes, Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray as…wait, hang on…

Oh, I see what you’re doing. Ha ha, very funny. You still expect me to review this? It’s the movie that became a cultural phrase to describe something incredibly repetitive. Everyone knows it. Everybody’s seen it. It’s pointless for me to review it. Goodbye.

Oh Jesus. No. Look, it’s pointless. In fact, just to spite you, I’m going to review a different Bill Murray movie. Groundhog Day isn’t even my favourite movie out the ones he’s done, you know, and a film that is one of my favourites wasn’t added to the 1001 Movies for some inexplicable reason. So to spite you, I’ll review that instead.

Lost In Translation (2003, Sofia Coppola) stars Bill Murray and Scarlet Johansson as two strangers who meet while staying in Tokyo and develop a rather intimate friendship due to their mutual feelings of isolation so far away from home. Murray plays an out of work actor, Bob Harris, who in Tokyo filming adverts for Suntory Whiskey. Johansson is the wife of a hip music photographer.

Fine. I’ll do the damn review.

In Groundhog Day, Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, Pittsburgh-based weatherman. A surly, misanthropic fellow, Connors hates having to produce news stories about the Groundhog Day celebrations in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania every year. Aiming to get out of town as soon as possible, he finds himself trapped in the town by a sudden blizzard, and wakes the next morning to find that he’s also trapped by a persistent time loop that forces him to relive the day over and over again. Over the course of the movie, he discovers what he can do with it, and ultimately reforms and becomes a better person for it.

Conceptually, the movie is brilliant. The idea of living the same day over and over again has many levels on which it can be explored, and many of them are brought up here. Do you live like there’s no tomorrow, since there isn’t, and recklessly throw yourself into hedonism? Do you test the relationships you have with people by saying things you wouldn’t normally say out of fear of upsetting them? Would you despair and merely try to kill yourself, only to find that even that is impossible, meaning you’re stuck in a fate worse than death? Or would you try and correct all that you did wrong?

It’s unfortunate, then, that Groundhog Day fails to explore enough of these aspects and devolves into a fairly awkward love story. Sure, those themes are brought up, but they’re only brief sections in a movie that boils down to Phil ultimately trying to win over his colleague Rita (Andie McDowell), an aspect of the plot that’s given far too much weight considering the other possibilities that could have been explored here.

When the real implications of what can be done are brought in, the movie is brilliant, not least because Murray is fantastic as usual. His acting when he kidnaps the groundhog or tries to evade police in a high-speed chase is top notch. Even the ways that Phil ends up helping people work well as it shows a deep understanding of how he can “correct” the day. But when that romance plot steps in, it seriously spoils things.

Maybe it’s a personal thing, simply because I failed to connect with McDowell’s character in any way at all. She felt boring, especially when Phil attempted to learn more about her. Because of this, Phil’s attempts to win her over felt pointless to me. What’s more, I felt that the movie would have benefitted from showing us more of how he helped the residents of Punxsutawney overall, rather than constantly focusing on his attempts to win a single woman over. We only see a glimpse of this towards the end of the movie during his redemption as a better person, and this could have been strengthened by taking a look at some of the deeper stories beforehand, fleshing out the residents as greater characters. The furthest this goes is in his minimal efforts to save the life of a homeless man, but this plot thread ultimately goes nowhere.

Groundhog Day is a good film with a good concept and some very funny moments, but ultimately it gets so bogged down in a fairly generic romantic subplot that it becomes painfully obvious how much more it could have achieved had it dropped that focus.

Now stop that.

Starring Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell & Chris Elliot

Written by Danny Rubin & Harold Ramis

Produced by Trevor Albert & Harold Ramis

Music score by George Fenton

Favourite Scene: Phil gets drunk with a couple of small town hicks in a bowling alley. The rambling conversation leading to the eventual police chase is easily the most entertaining part of the whole movie, and even manages to touch on some of the smarter aspects of the concept at the same time.

Scene That Bugged Me: The second Phil starts focusing his efforts on winning over Rita. Seriously, Phil, she's dull! What the hell?! Why so obsessed!?

Watch it if: Bill Murray. That's it, just Bill Murray

Avoid it if: You find Andie McDowell's character just as dull as I did

#51 Let The Right One In

2012-01-27T12:55:00.002Z

(Låt den rätte komma in)
(2008, Tomas Alfredson)

“I’ve been twelve for a long time”

The last movie we looked at involved a young boy befriending a paranormal being. Let The Right One In does the same, only this time things are considerably less family-friendly. Instead of a sweet little film about a cute, happy alien, this is a Swedish horror movie about a vampire.

Twelve-year old Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) is a loner, bullied at school by his peers, who spends much of his time alone in the courtyard of his apartment complex. One day, a young girl, Eli (Lina Leandersson), moves into the apartment next door, and he begins a slightly awkward friendship with her. However, as the film progresses, it becomes apparent that Eli is actually a vampire and her “father” is a serial killer who procures her “food” for her.

With little knowledge of the film, it’s easy to peg Let The Right One In as an attempt to cash in the current lucrative vampire romance genre, following in the footsteps of the Twilight franchise. But any cursory glance will tell you that this is not a Twilight clone, and to call it so would be doing it a massive disservice. Where Twilight is directionless and lacks any chemistry in its central relationship, Let The Right One In is a genuinely moody experience with the ability to get under your skin. Plus its central vampire character is actually a vampire and not a prancing sparkle-fairy.

Oddly, the movie isn’t all that scary. Instead, it carries a sense of creepy unease, a sense that something isn’t quite right with the world. Perhaps this is because we’re essentially seeing the world through Oskar’s troubled eyes. This also explains why much of the killing is presented with an almost detached indifference. One major death scene in the movie is presented briefly before a door closes and Oskar, witnessing the situation, calmly walks away as if nothing’s wrong, and it’s this scene that sums up the entire movie’s attitude. Handled badly, this could make us as the audience indifferent too, but instead it’s fascinating.

The central relationship between Oskar and Eli is fantastic. The two characters have a genuine chemistry, even more impressive since it was both actors’ first movie role (and to date, Leandersson’s only role). The two have an awkward relationship due to the mystery surrounding Eli, but there’s always a subtle connection bubbling under the surface that both actors successfully convey despite their inexperience.

On the negative side, some of the subplots didn’t feel like they worked as well as they should have done. The residents of the neighbourhood who notice the murders feel underdeveloped, and so it’s hard to connect with a man mourning the loss of his best friend or another character undergoing emotional turmoil when she realises her encounter with Eli has turned her into a vampire too, simply because we don’t really know these characters. This may be a flaw of the original book’s author writing the screenplay. The subplots are most likely expanded on in the novel, but with the limited time available in the movie, they feel rushed.

Ultimately though, Let The Right One In is a fantastic horror movie. It’s a much-needed antidote to the millions of generic slasher flicks pouring out of Hollywood, and its romantic elements are tied in perfectly with the horror (unlike that other vampire movie that shall remain nameless). It’s slow, and it’s detached, and for that it’s effectively creepy.

Starring Kare Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson & Per Ragnar

Written by John Ajvide Lindqvist

Produced by John Nordling & Carl Molinder

Music score by Johan Soderqvist

Favourite Scene: Both instances where Eli and Oskar save each other. It sums up how far their relationship has come. Also features the aforementioned killing scene that ends up behind closed doors that I found so effective.

Scene That Bugged Me: Local resident Virginia gets turned into vampire, then gets attacked by cats. Ends up being unintentionally hilarious. Seriously, cats.

Watch it if: You really do want to let the right one in. This is the right one. Let it in

Avoid it if: You want your vampires to sparkle more

Similar Movies

#13 Ring

#50 E.T. The Extra Terrestrial

2012-01-26T13:55:00.003Z

(1982, Steven Spielberg)

“E.T. phone home”

Yes, it’s Spielberg time again. After our last depressing look at the work of everyone’s favourite popular director, let’s take a look at something more light-hearted.

E.T. is the antidote to the numerous alien invasion movies floating around out there. Instead of an evil race of monsters, this movie provides a cuddly, likeable alien that befriends a small child. It’s essentially a kids’ movie, but don’t let that put you off, since this is what kids’ movies should be like.

As you may already know, E.T. is about a young boy named Elliot who encounters a strange being in his garden shed. It turns out to be an alien from another planet, stranded here accidentally when his people had to take off in a hurry. He quickly becomes friends with the alien, but he tries to keep it a secret from all the adults around him, particularly as a number of shady government agents are hanging around looking for it. Now Elliot has to help E.T. find his way back home again.

As I said, this is basically what all kids’ movies need to be like, but sadly aren’t. The story is simple, but not stupid. The characterisations are childish but not irritatingly silly. The tone is sweet without being saccharine. Spielberg did everything right here. It’s a movie that will enchant children, but will also hook in the adults in the room too, which is exactly how a good kids’ movie should work.

There are a couple of reasons as to why it works. First of all, the special effects wizards did a fantastic job on E.T. himself. He is adorable. Even when we vaguely see the silhouettes of his people at the start of the movie, they’re likeable. Their movements are cute, and their noises are cute. It seems impossible for any of these creatures to be menacing. And because of this, we like him, and we connect with his plight.

The second reason it works is that Henry Thomas is a fantastic actor. Child actors are very hit and miss most of the time, but Thomas is flawless. He not only plays the wonder of meeting E.T. well, he also manages to pull off the more serious, adult issues he faces successfully, particularly in his torment over his parents’ recent divorce. It’s a minor plot point, but the divorce aspect really rounds out Elliot’s character, and he acts appropriately. In fact, not once is he made to spout off lines that no real kid would actually say, as is far too often the case in other family movies.

It’s hard to criticise E.T. in any real way. It’s an adorable family film with a well-scripted story and a tear-jerking final act. If I must level criticism (and I must), it’s only really with the 20th Anniversary version I watched for the purposes of this review, where a few shots added in a CGI E.T. in place of the puppet. And yet, the added CGI effects looked somehow worse than the original puppet, despite it being supposedly an advancement in film-making. Far too often the CGI would look blatantly fake, where an awkward puppet actually contributed to E.T.’s endearing nature as he bumbled around looking a bit strange. However, this is easily avoided by not watching the 20th anniversary edition (which I wish I’d realised my copy was beforehand).

Obviously, I love E.T. It’s the perfect family movie, and one of the best kid-friendly movies ever made. If you have kids, sit down with them and watch it. If you don’t, watch it anyway and pretend you’re a child. That works too.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have something in my eye…

Starring Dee Wallace, Peter Coyote, Drew Barrymore & Henry Thomas

Written by Melissa Mathison

Produced by Steven Spielberg & Kathleen Kennedy

Music score by John Williams

Favourite Scene: E.T. gets drunk. Could have been unbearably silly, became brilliantly funny and endearing.

Scene That Bugged Me: Elliot shows E.T. all of his Star Wars toys. Yes, Spielberg, you’re friends with George Lucas, you don’t need to keep pointing this out with an endless stream of Star Wars references.

Watch it if: You need to entertain your kids but secretly want to entertain yourself too

Avoid it if: You like your alien visitors to be more violent and murderous

Similar Movies

#36 Edward Scissorhands

Movie Connections
#2 Raiders Of The Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg)

#49 Fargo

2012-01-23T10:43:00.003Z

(1996, Ethan & Joel Coen)

“There’s more to life than a little money, you know. Dontcha know that?”

Last time, I complained about having to write reviews for comedies. Technically, this is another one, but things are a bit different here. Fargo is a black comedy based around a crime thriller, so really I should be able to say more about it than just a straight comedy, right? Ya, you betcha.

Fargo is about Jerry (William H. Macy), a down on his luck car salesman who makes a deal with two crooks (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) for them to kidnap his wife. She has a rich father, and he wants some money from him, and the ransom money from a fake kidnapping seems like the best way to go. However, the crooks aren’t that brilliant, and soon people start dying, sending the whole scheme into a downward spiral. Meanwhile, heavily pregnant police sheriff Marge (Frances McDormand) is on the hunt for the crooks, throwing another spanner into the works.

Now, this is usually held up as the key example of what a Coen Brothers movie should be like (unlike the last Coen Brothers movie we looked at), and it is definitely a sign of the directors on the top of their game. This is a fantastic movie, and I have very little to criticise.

The Coens have blended the worlds of thriller and comedy seamlessly, to the point where one genre couldn’t exist here without the other. While the thriller elements are suitably bleak and very dark, the story wouldn’t work without the comedic elements because it’s so absurd. It’s a silly crime caper, but the deaths are starkly serious. There’s also a huge contrast between the violent crime committed and the incredibly laidback attitude presented by Marge and her officers, cheerfully greeting each other in their Minnesotan accents and eating donuts while talking about murder.

Acting-wise, the movie is perfect. William H. Macy is brilliantly hapless without being overdone. Peter Stormare is creepy as hell as the mindless psychopath of the duo, while Steve Buscemi is typically weaselly as the “funny-looking” one (a brilliant running gag, which makes me think no one but Buscemi was in line for the part). But it’s Frances McDormand who excels above all. She plays Marge as a perfect comedy character throughout the movie, amusing to watch but not over-the-top, but then gets an emotional moment during the climax of the movie, which really rounds out her performance significantly. Even more impressively, she manages to keep the distinctive accent going in the process, which is probably what won her an Oscar.

Are there flaws? I looked, but I struggled to find any. Well, there was a little awkward subplot involving an old friend of Marge’s who is slightly obsessed with her that seems to go nowhere, but it rarely gets in the way, and the only major scene dedicated to it is funny enough to prevent derailing the entire movie.

What about the violence? Is it excessive and could that be viewed as a negative? Well, no, it’s not excessive. It’s brutal at times, such as when Stormare shoots a police trooper in the head and blood splatters all over Buscemi, but these moments are handled well. Rather than squirting fake blood all over the screen constantly, the few moments where this happen are effective at making us realise how badly things are going out of control. Sure, it’ll still put some more sensitive people off, but it’s far from gratuitous. Even the notorious twist in the climax isn’t as gory as you’d expect, even if there is a foot in a wood chipper.

As should be obvious, I love Fargo. A thoroughly enjoyable crime caper, and everyone needs to watch it. RIGHT NOW.

Starring Frances McDormand, William H. Macy, Steve Buscemi, Harve Presnell & Peter Stormare

Written by Joel & Ethan Coen

Produced by Ethan Coen

Music score by Carter Burwell

Favourite Scene: Marge investigates the first scene of multiple murders, and every moment is brilliant, from the laidback way she and her officer discuss the bodies to the random bout of morning sickness she suffers during the investigation.

Scene That Bugged Me: Marge meets her old friend Mike. This is a subplot that doesn’t really add much to the movie at all. Why, Coens? I almost said this movie was perfect!

Watch it if: You have any real interest in cinema whatsoever

Avoid it if: Those Minnesotan accents grate on you a little

Similar Movies
#9 American Beauty
#45 No Country For Old Men
#53 The Usual Suspects

Movie Connections
#3 Little Miss Sunshine (character of Stan Grossman referenced)

#48 Meet The Parents

2012-01-22T10:14:00.001Z

(2000, Jay Roach)

“I love you, Dad, but you can be a real jerk sometimes”

I’m going to confess something. I struggle to review comedies at the best of times. With a lot of non-comedy movies, I find it much easier to analyse cinematography, sound design, acting quality, script quality and possible symbolism. Maybe I don’t go too in depth at times, but it’s easier to slip into it. I certainly enjoyed doing it for movies like Black Swan or Trainspotting.

But for comedies, I only have one criteria – does it make me laugh? If the answer is yes, it’s a thumbs-up. If the answer is no, then it’s one of the worst movies ever made. A comedy that doesn’t make you laugh rarely has anything else to fall back on, whereas other genres can always find a way to stay entertaining. How many bad horror movies can become brilliant comedies, for example?

But also, comedy is one of the worst things you can examine in any real detail. Examine a thriller, or a drama, and your analysis can help improve a film, adding dimensions to things that other people might not have noticed. But examine comedy, look at why the jokes work, and the whole thing stops being funny. It dilutes the experience.

So, now I’ve padded this review with as much complaining as possible, let’s try and give my opinion on Meet The Parents.

Meet The Parents stars Ben Stiller as Greg Focker, a male nurse, who’s very much in love with his girlfriend Pam (Teri Polo). Greg wants to propose to her, but finds out that in her family, it would be best if he got her father’s permission. And so, Greg agrees to spend time with her family for a few days in the lead-up to her sister’s wedding. However, her father, Jack (Robert De Niro), seems to take an instant disliking to him, and so Greg has to spend the entire time trying to impress him. Shenanigans happen, and hilarity ensues.

Sooo…is it funny? Yes. Oh, you want more? OH GOD. OK, so it is funny, but sometimes the humour is a little juvenile. Obviously, as many may have guessed, there are a number of jokes involving Greg’s surname and the fact that he’s a male nurse. Sometimes these jokes get tiresome, but other jokes remain entertaining, particularly when they concern Jack’s over-protective conservative ways.

In fact, De Niro is what makes this movie so special. Not exactly famed for his comedic acting abilities, De Niro is seen more as a serious actor best known for playing crime lords or stern authority figures (OK, he is here too, but shush), but here, he shines. This isn’t some Leslie Nielsen-style straight man delivering silly lines performance either. This is full blown comedic acting, right down to cooing over a well-trained cat. And it works so ridiculously well. Maybe it’s because it’s De Niro acting so silly that makes it so entertaining, but what the hell, he’s great at it.

Otherwise, this would just be Ben Stiller playing a weaker version of his character from There’s Something About Mary with slightly less adult jokes, and as a result, it would be a little bit average. Stiller is on top form, of course, but it feels very samey for him, as does much of the movie. In addition, the plot does feel very predictable, even with the wacky mishaps, and that in and of itself is a slight disappointment. It doesn’t even play around with the romantic comedy conventions, it just plays them straight and throws in a joke about Greg being dragged off a plane on suspicion of being a terrorist (again, feeling like a joke recycled from Mary, although it was smarter there).

As stated, I hate reviewing comedies so I have little else to say here. Stiller puts in a good performance, but it’s De Niro that steals the show. Plenty of moments that made me laugh, but the saccharine, predictable plot drags things down a little, and some of the jokes are just plain dumb.

Starring Robert De Niro, Ben Stiller, Blythe Danner, Teri Polo, James Rebhorn, Jon Abrahams & Owen Wilson

Written by Greg Glienna & Mary Ruth Clarke (story), Jim Herzfeld & John Hamburg (screenplay)

Produced by Nancy Tenenbaum & Jane Rosenthal, Robert De Niro & Jay Roach

Music by Randy Newman

Favourite Scene: The sniping jealousy of Pam’s ex-boyfriend (played by Owen Wilson) was highly entertaining. Helped that Wilson seemed to be deliberately trying to make him as insufferably “perfect” as possible

Scene That Bugged Me: The reveal of Greg’s real name. It wasn’t enough to give him the ridiculous surname of “Focker”, was it?

Watch it if: You wish Robert De Niro was your dad

Avoid it if: The idea of actually meeting your partner’s parents terrifies you, this will scar you

Similar Movies

#11 There's Something About Mary

Movie Connections
#11 There's Something About Mary (Ben Stiller)

#46 & #47 Three Colours: Blue & Red

2012-01-21T09:51:00.001Z

(1993-4, Krzysztof Kieslowski)

“If only I could help”

“You can. Be.”

(Trois Couleurs: Bleu, 1993)

(Trois Couleurs: Rouge, 1994)

The Three Colours trilogy was a concept trilogy created by Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski based around the three ideals in the French motto – liberty, equality, solidarity – and named after each of the colours of the French flag. Only Blue and Red were placed into the 1024 movies I’m now working from, but I’ll still reference White in some way due to the way the whole trilogy links together.

The first film is Blue, which follows Julie (Juliette Binoche), the widow of famous composer Patrice De Courcy. Following the car accident that killed her husband and daughter, she tries everything she can to cut herself off from the world and remove all memory of her family life from her mind. She sells off their old house, destroys many of their possessions and even tries to wipe out all record of her husband’s compositions. However, as the film progresses, she finds herself unable to fully shake off the memory of her husband and slowly discovers the importance of connecting with other human beings.

Of the three, this movie was definitely the one that felt the most “arty” and enjoyment of the film relies entirely on how well you react to that. Kieslowski makes some unique choices in how to present this movie, from unusual shots of seemingly unimportant items to the clever use of music to represent Julie’s memories of her husband. Quite often, usually when Julie is forced to confront her own emotions, the screen will fade to black and play excerpts from her former husband’s unfinished score. Initially, it seems like an odd choice, but as the movie progresses, it begins to make a lot of sense, and a very effective way of tying the score into the plot.

Kieslowski also kept things very minimal and subtle, with small visual cues and character actions helping to tell the story rather than overblown set pieces or overtly emotional outbursts. It felt very much like a movie that rewards repeat viewings, since it seems to hide many little clues to things everywhere. Adding to this rewarding experience is Binoche’s performance. Largely carrying the movie on her own, and spending most of that time having to express Julie’s inner turmoil could have been disastrous, but Binoche pulls it off perfectly. For the entire movie I felt I could sense what was going on in her head simply through the subtle body language in her performance.

If anything bugged me about Blue, it was the bizarre subplot of Julie finding a mouse in her apartment. In the grand scheme of the movie, it felt largely unnecessary, serving only to add filler to conversations later in the movie. What’s worse, it’s a subplot that doesn’t even get resolved. The last we see of it is when Julie leaves a cat in the apartment, just adding to the feeling of pointlessness.

The second movie in the trilogy is White, which we won’t be spending much time with. The anomaly of the three, it’s more comedic than the other two, features less of the subtleties that make the others so compelling and features a male protagonist. It’s also largely in Polish rather than French. Definitely the weakest of the three, I failed to get drawn into the story as much as I did with the others, and I can see exactly why it was left out of the Movies You Must See list.

So let’s move onto Red; in my opinion, the best of the three movies. It stars Irene Jacob as Valentine, a model living in Geneva. When she accidentally runs over a dog, she tries to return it to its owner, a retired judge named Kern (Jean-Louis Trintingnant), who doesn’t want it back. After discussing the nature of his hobby of listening in on his neighbours’ phone conversations, he eventually warms to her, and they develop a small friendship.

This film left me with an incredibly warm feeling, and really tied up the entire series (and not just because its final scene featured the main characters from all three movies). The chemistry between Valentine and Kern is superb, and the two are constantly believable as reluctant friends. It helps that Valentine is an incredibly likeable character thanks to Jacob’s performance, and I found myself instantly warmed to her almost as soon as she first appeared.

It’s also stylistically a bridge between the previous two. While Blue was very arty and White was a lot more conventional, Red sits nicely between the two. Much of the unusual editing choices Kieslowski applied in Blue are here (most noticeable when the camera pans over an entire bowling alley just to show us a broken pint glass) but also, once the actors gets talking to each other, he tends to just leave them to it, and is all the better for it. It’s very easy to get sucked into their discussions, and even feel quite cosy in them, a fact I particularly noticed when the calm serenity of one scene is literally shattered when someone breaks a window.

The only issue I had with Red was a subplot with a different character that seemed to have nothing to do with the story at large. However, this subplot redeemed itself later when it seemed to parallel Kern’s younger life, turning it from rambling filler to an incredible artistic choice.

Overall, the trilogy was fascinating and held my interest. The subtle connections between the three (most notably a brief crossover scene between Blue and White) were very effective at bringing the three different stories together. It does have a strong feel of French art cinema at times though, so your ability to like the movies depends entirely on your open-mindedness when it comes to arty films.

Certainly, Red is the best of the bunch, with Blue a close second, but the entire trilogy really needs to be viewed as a whole, which is why it’s a slight disappointment White was excluded from the list.

Trois Couleurs: Bleu starring Juliette Binoche

Trois Couleurs: Rouge starring Irene Jacob & Jean-Louis Trintingnant

Written by Krzysztof Kieslowski & Krzysztof Piesiewicz

Produced by Marin Karmitz

Music score by Zbigniew Preisner

Favourite Scene (Blue): Loved the inventive use of music when Julie attempts to destroy her former husband’s music.

Scene That Bugged Me (Blue): The whole mouse subplot. Felt a little too much like filler.

Favourite Scene (Red): Following his admittance of his questionable hobby to his neighbours, the judge and Valentine have a discussion in his home. The whole scene feels very cosy and intimate.

Scene That Bugged Me (Red): Was there really any need for the camera panning over the bowling alley to show a random broken glass? Even with its supposed symbolic meaning, it feels pointless.

Watch them if: You appreciate subtlety

Avoid them if: The mere idea of an “arty” movie freaks you out

Similar Movies

#12 Amelie

#45 No Country For Old Men

2012-01-20T13:01:00.004Z

(2007, Ethan & Joel Coen)

“The crime you see now, it’s hard to even take its measure”

Four months I been doing this reviewing movies lark. I watch the movies, then say what I think of ‘em. Most Internet reviewers either examine brand new movies or look at terrible movies due to the ability to drag humour of it. Not me. I examine the supposed classics, and pick them apart. Some folks don’t understand that, but I got a duty to do. I gotta make sure these movies are as fit for human consumption as folk say they are. Sometimes this is harder than you think. For older movies it’s easier to tell if they’re classics. If they hold up in today’s strange world of explosions and drugs and near-hardcore sex scenes, then they’re classics. But these new movies are an entirely different breed. How can a film be a classic when it’s only 5 years old?

Take No Country For Old Men for instance. Directed by them Coen boys, Joel and Ethan, this is a tale of a weary old sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) and the latest investigation he has to do. A man named Moss (Josh Brolin) has gone and got himself into a spot of bother, you see, stealing some money from the site of a literal Mexican standoff and fleeing. Now he’s got himself a tail, a man named Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), one of the meanest bastards you’ll ever meet. Kills indiscriminately, y’see. Very dangerous man. Yep, that sheriff’s sure got a tough time ahead of him.

Truth be told, first time I saw this movie I wasn’t too impressed. Don’t know why, but just couldn’t follow it. But I wanted to like it, having enjoyed the Coens’ older work, and watching it a second time for this here review, I began to appreciate it. A very dark and moody film, this here movie ain’t pulling no punches. There’s no happy endings here, and everyone suffers. Now, this ain’t no Requiem For A Dream level of moodiness, you understand, just very pessimistic about the state of the world. And the Coens do a fantastic job of expressing this.

To bring home the tension of the cat-and-mouse shenanigans that hold together the plot, everything’s pretty damn tense. There’s barely any noticeable music score, putting us as the audience entirely in the shoes of the poor fella who’s been chased. Everything relies on the performances of the actors here, and boy, are they something. Josh Brolin does a fantastic job at carrying us through his scenes, but the real star here is Javier Bardem, who is damn creepy as Chigurh. Everything he does gives off a cold, calculating vibe, like you don’t know what the hell he’s gonna do next. His performance makes it easy to see why being stalked by him isn’t something you want happening to you.

The ending is also left completely open, meaning you can go wondering exactly what the hell just happened, and where you think these fellas are gonna go from here. It can seem a little disappointing at first, but ultimately it works. And while the Coens have gone and thrown in a whole bunch o’violence, it’s used pretty darn well, often ending long periods of tension, rather than the entire two hours filled with gruesome blood splatters that’ll keep you up at night.

However, it ain’t perfect. The movie was taken almost word for word from the novel it was based on, and as a result the structure isn’t really suited for a movie. Lengthy passages of exposition that made certain things make more sense can’t naturally be translated into the visual language of film, and it does feel like something’s been lost in translation. In particular, there are a lot of rambling scenes with Tommy Lee Jones that don’t seem to add much to the plot. Yeah, sure, they create a sense of the sheriff suffering from a troubled mind and questioning whether or not things were better in them good old days, but they do seem jarring in the middle of all the killing. The final scene especially feels awkward, and when the end credits began rolling I certainly felt disappointed that the film ended where it did.

No Country For Old Men is definitely an interesting experiment in storytelling, but ultimately at times it still says fairly formulaic for the genre, and doesn’t feel enough like Coen Brothers movie to be truly effective. Personally, I don’t feel they make ‘em like they used to.

Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem & Josh Brolin

Written by Cormac McCarthy (novel) & Joel & Ethan Coen

Produced by Scott Rudin & Joel & Ethan Coen

Music score by Carter Burwell

Favourite Scene: Oddly, a seemingly out of place scene with Chigurh in a petrol station felt like the best scene, if just because it gave us an interesting look into his character.

Scene That Bugged Me: Moss’ death is highly disappointing, since it happens offscreen and it’s not entirely sure who’s actually responsible. Bit of a let-down really.

Watch it if: The coin said you should

Avoid it if: You think things were better in the good old days

Similar Movies
#53 The Usual Suspects
#55 Se7en

#44 Big

2012-01-19T11:53:00.001Z

(1988, Penny Marshall)

“I wish I were big”

How many people reading this have felt that life was unfair when they were a child? Who out there felt that parents were bossy and controlling, and that everything would be better when you grew up? How many wished that they could skip the rest of childhood and become an adult? Well, as Big proves, sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for.

The movie that essentially made Tom Hanks a star, this is the story of Josh, a 13 year old boy. In attempting to impress a girl at a carnival, he finds he’s too short for some of the “scarier” rides and can’t get on them. Frustrated, he ends up making a wish on a cheesy arcade machine that he could be big. The next morning, he wakes up to find that he’s been aged into adulthood, and is forced out of his home by his mother, who believes he’s an intruder who has kidnapped her son. Now he has to adapt to his new life by taking on a job at a toy shop and dealing with adult problems.

I had trouble reviewing this movie to be honest. As iconic as it is, particularly in the famous giant keyboard scene, I found the experience rather bland to be honest. There were a few decent moments, but overall the film just seemed to lack something, and it failed to drag me in as much as it should have done.

There were good moments, and as a comedy, it did successfully make me laugh a few times. The keyboard scene is genuinely impressive, for a start, if a little cheesy in the way it plays out. Hanks plays the grown-up Josh brilliantly, acting just like a kid and making it really easy to believe he’s a child in a man’s body. Watching him play with toys and fail to pick up on hints adults would be more likely to is hilarious. But this is where my appreciation for the film ends.

It’s not a bad film, by any means. It just feels like a very average family movie with little to sell it on besides the keyboard scene. The concept itself isn’t even that original, particularly as it was one of five movies released around the same time about body switching and being thrust into another life you don’t entirely understand. While there are funny moments, there seem to be more moments that just fall flat, and far too often the movie has a tendency to descend into schmaltzy nonsense, particularly in the ending.

While Hanks is fantastic, some of his co-stars are lacking, although it’s hard to tell if this is because they weren’t working with much to begin with. Elizabeth Perkins as Josh’s adult love interest Susan feels unrealistic and bland. She shifts into her attraction to adult Josh far too quickly, particularly as she’s presented as fairly cold early on, even seemingly dismissing Josh’s ideas outright. John Heard’s stressed-out businessman character is one-dimensional and utilised poorly. Robert Loggia as the slightly eccentric toy shop owner (based off the founder of FAO Schwarz) is good, but doesn’t show up as much as I’d like him to.

Big is ultimately a bit of a mess, drawing off an interesting concept but failing to deliver it as well as possible. There are some minor attempts at exploring the massive differences between childhood and adulthood, and allusions towards adopting some childlike qualities in adult life. Unfortunately though, it doesn’t go far enough, culminating in the film being little more than a slightly generic family movie. Not awful, just average.

Starring Tom Hanks, Elizabeth Perkins, Robert Loggia & John Heard

Written by Gary Ross & Anne Spielberg

Produced by James L. Brooks & Robert Greenhut

Music score by Howard Shore

Favourite Scene: The famous big keyboard scene, largely for being the most memorable scene of the entire movie, and probably the only reason the film’s even remembered at all.

Scene That Bugged Me: Much of the romance between Josh and Susan. I mean, he’s in an adult body, but he’s still a kid. It felt weird!

Watch it if: You wish you were big

Avoid it if: You want a little more than a fancy giant keyboard scene

#43 Schindler's List

2012-01-18T14:23:00.002Z

(1993, Steven Spielberg)

“The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf”

So we’re back on the Holocaust. Yes, once again we have a dramatized version of a true story from World War II concerning the treatment of Jews. First we looked at The Pianist, but before that, there was this.

This is the story from the other side of the fence. Not from the perspective of one of the many Jews caught up in the oppression, but from the perspective of one that helped them. This is the tale of Oskar Schindler, a German businessman who ended up saving the lives of 1,000+ Jews during the war. Initially exploiting the cheap slave labour the ghetto Jews provided, Schindler later witnesses the atrocities committed by the Nazis and realises that he can help save them by making them workers in his factory. And eventually he produces a list of Jews he wishes to “buy” from the Nazis, a list that saves the lives of everyone on it.

Heralded as a masterpiece on release, Schindler’s List is a truly personal work for Spielberg, and one that apparently he found difficult to make emotionally. It definitely shows, as the stripped-down black and white documentary style it’s filmed in is complete contrast to films Spielberg is usually known for. This style helps remind us that what we’re witnessing actually happened. Maybe events were altered for narrative effect, but the people and places existed, as did the overarching story.

Did the film deserve its accolades? Of course. Spielberg’s personal interest in the subject means that it’s handled in a very delicate way, not sensationalised for Hollywood’s benefit. What’s more, scenes are often set using simple title cards over very realistic establishing shots, reminding us that we’re not here to be entertained; we’re here to learn and understand what happened.

The performances are fantastic. Liam Neeson as Schindler is brilliant, walking the line between a greedy opportunist and charitable humanitarian perfectly. Ben Kingsley is superb as Schindler’s Jewish secretary and assistant. Ralph Fiennes as German officer Goeth is good, although his accent is sometimes questionable and his acting does slip almost into Bond Villain Mode from time to time.

However, Spielberg’s personal interest in the project means that there are some issues with Schindler’s List. Far too often the movie feels like it’s forcing an emotional reaction out of its audience. While the Holocaust was a genuinely depressing period of history and the millions of people who died in it should be mourned appropriately, there are moments where the film is almost demanding the audience to be sad about it, rather than just showing us the events and letting our reaction be entirely natural. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the closing scenes, where a roundup of the surviving Schindlerjuden (“Schindler’s Jews”) and their actors/family members pay tribute to the real Schindler’s grave, a scene that clearly was meant to be heartfelt but ultimately came off as mawkish and unnecessary.

In addition, not enough is given to Schindler’s moral transformation. We are made aware that he wasn’t always a perfect humanitarian, but his switch is too quick. He goes from a callous womaniser and ruthless businessman to the Jews’ personal saviour practically within a single scene. It’s hard to believe a man who initially protested Germans shooting his Jewish workers due to how much it cost him would suddenly turn into Jesus in a single conversation. While the events of the story are true, it seems more likely that the real Schindler would have had a more natural progression into saviour mode rather than an overnight switch like the movie seems to portray.

As an attempt to draw out the real events of the Holocaust and present it in an interesting manner for a cinema audience, Schindler’s List does succeed, but it is lacking in a few areas.

Starring Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley & Ralph Fiennes

Written by Thomas Keneally (book) & Steven Zaillian

Produced by Steven Spielberg, Gerald R. Molen & Branko Lustig

Music score by John Williams

Favourite Scene: Schindler saves a whole crowd of children from being sent to Auschwitz by claiming to the Germans that they are “essential workers” in his munitions factories. The fact that it works shows both how the Germans viewed the Jews and how well Schindler knew he could manipulate them to help save them.

Scene That Bugged Me: As stated, the epilogue felt mawkish and over sentimental, like the movie was beating you over the head with its message.

Watch it if: You want to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself

Avoid it if: You’re a neo-Nazi

Similar Movies

#21 The Lives Of Others

#28 The Pianist

#35 Grave Of The Fireflies

Movie Connections
#2 Raiders Of The Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg)

#42 Black Swan

2012-01-13T13:58:00.002Z

(2010, Darren Aronofsky)

“Surprise yourself so you can surprise the audience”

A movie about ballet? Really? Why would I want to see a movie about ballet? Wait, Natalie Portman gets it on with Mila Kunis? Well, that’s won me over. FILM OF THE YEAR 2010!

There, got that out of the way. Yes, there have been numerous mentions of the Sapphic love scenes involving the two female leads, but let’s be mature about this, shall we? Yes, it’s a movie about ballet, but no, it’s not just made interesting for non-ballet fans with a lesbian sex scene. If that was all that gave it the acclaim it received, then I would be seriously concerned about the mentality of your average film critic. No, this is a Darren Aronofsky film. We’ve met him before. In that happy little film about drugs and the fall of “the American dream”. So a film about ballet with lesbians? Oh, with Aronofsky on board, it’s so much more than that.

Portman plays Nina Sayers, a quiet but determined ballet dancer who has received word that she will be playing the Swan Queen in the latest production of Swan Lake. However, director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) isn’t convinced she can play the dual roles of the White and Black Swans effectively. She’s got the innocence of the White Swan down perfectly due to her timid nature, but she’s struggling to effectively portray the Black Swan. With increased pressure from Thomas, her overbearing mother and a rival dancer (Mila Kunis) threatening to take the part away from her, she teeters on the edge of mental breakdown.

The mental breakdown is portrayed perfectly throughout the movie, and like Requiem, the movie is unrelenting with it. Blurring the lines between Nina’s hallucinations and reality, we’re thrown into the same confusion as her. Minor blisters and scrapes morph into painful deformities, while everywhere she looks she sees reflections of a dark version of herself threatening to consume her. The whole descent into madness is directed as if it was a psychological horror movie, and in a sense, it is, except the only monster here is Nina’s own dark side.

Aronofsky’s direction here is brilliant. As well as the truly unnerving dark scenes, the ballet sequences are perfectly choreographed and the editing fast-paced and jarring enough to keep viewers on their toes. The acting is effective across the board too, although Portman is naturally the star here, pulling between the innocent and rebellious sides of Nina’s character perfectly.

There are some issues. The bitchiness of the dance company seemed a little overplayed and unrealistic. It gets to the point where you feel a group of dancers so at odds with each other would never get anything done. They’d be lucky to even put a production of Swan Lake on, let alone have it sell out. There are also problems with some of the horror elements of the film, particularly with Nina’s literal transformation into the titular Black Swan, which seems at odds with the otherwise realistic hallucinations happening here. It didn’t help that one particular shot seemed far too reminiscent of something similar seen in The Fly, which just proved to be distracting due to the very different tones of the two movies.

However, Black Swan is still very powerful. Blending the worlds of Tchaikovsky and Aronofsky together has created a weird but effectively dark movie about the perils of fame and the duplicitousness of the acting world.

Starring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis & Vincent Cassel

Written by Andres Heinz, Mark Heyman & John J. McLaughlin

Produced by Mike Medavoy, Arnold W. Messer, Brian Oliver & Scott Franklin

Music score by Clint Mansell, music from “Swan Lake” composed by Tchaikovsky

Favourite Scene: You want me to say the lesbians, but I’m better than that, thank you. No, it’s prior to that, where Nina finally stands up and rebels against her overbearing mother, even if she possibly does take it too far

Scene That Bugged Me: Nina pulls thick black feathers out of scratches on her back. OH GOD SHE’S TURNING INTO A BRUNDLEFLY! The weird knee-breaking that followed didn’t help.

Watch it if: You want to see the concepts of Swan Lake turned on their head

Avoid it if: You think it’s just lesbian porn with ballet

Similar Movies

#17 Requiem For A Dream

#19 The Fly

#27 Videodrome
#61 Rosemary's Baby

#41 Ferris Bueller's Day Off

2012-01-12T13:01:00.002Z

(1986, John Hughes)

"What are we gonna do?"

“The question isn’t what are we going to do it’s what aren’t we going to do?”

I think everyone’s always tried to get themselves a free day off school as a teenager. Hell, even as adults, we all usually want days off work. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is basically every teenager’s fantasy, the ability to sneak a day off school and enjoying yourself as much as possible without any major consequences.

Matthew Broderick plays the titular character, a charming, devious 17-year old with a plan to having the best day of his life, and to do so, he needs to take some time off school. Tricking his parents into believing he’s sick, he grabs his genuinely sick friend Cameron (Alan Ruck) and finds a way to pull his girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara) out of class, and together they go off and live it up. Meanwhile, uptight principal Mr Rooney (Jeffrey Jones) is determined to stop his plans by any means necessary.

The movie doesn’t have the most realistic premise in the world, as Ferris manages to get away with murder far too easily, and some of the characters’ actions are just plain silly. But that’s the whole point. The movie is fulfilling the fantasy I mentioned in the first paragraph. As viewers, we live vicariously through Bueller and just forget about the ramifications of it all.

Yet, while the actions themselves aren’t too realistic, the themes behind them certainly are. Initially Bueller seems self-centred and arrogant, as he selfishly drags his friends into his own personal escapade, but underneath all this there’s a theme of close friendship and the transition from adolescence to adulthood. At a few points there are hints that this may be Bueller’s last chance to have as much fun as possible with those he cares about before reality takes hold – which, in a way, makes the silly fantasy nature of the whole thing all the more effective. He even talks about the way his friendship with Cameron may not last as they move into college and jobs later in life, and Sloane picks up on there being ulterior motives to his plotting.

Of course, even without this underlying interpretation to give the film depth, the movie is highly entertaining. John Hughes gained a reputation for producing some seriously great 80s and early 90s comedy romps, and it’s clear from this exactly why, as it’s a stellar example of what he was capable of. The jokes are clever, and even when you expect what’s coming (Bueller hands the keys to Cameron’s father’s car to a shady looking garage attendant, guess what happens next?) the payoff is always able to raise chuckles.

It isn’t even the love letter to the 80s I was expecting. Much of the film remains timeless and could easily be happening during any era. There are plenty of 80s throwbacks in here, but mostly as background details, such as a Simple Minds poster in Bueller’s bedroom. The only thing that betrays the timelessness is the brief musical interlude during a parade scene, which feels like filler.

Of course it isn’t perfect. As stated, sometimes Bueller’s scheme seems far-fetched and based entirely on both his parents and Mr Rooney being a bit stupider than they’d ever be expected to be in reality. It was very similar to what was seen in another John Hughes-penned film, Home Alone, where Kevin’s schemes also rely on the stupidity of the adults around him. There are even frighteningly similar scenes involving a grown man sticking his head through a pet door. Sometimes the believability of these sequences is stretched to breaking point, particularly when Bueller passes by his father on a number of occasions and is ignored.

Overall, Ferris Bueller is a fun comedy with a few minor flaws that is ultimately an entertaining 90 minutes.

Starring Matthew Broderick, Alan Ruck, Mia Sara & Jeffrey Jones

Written by John Hughes

Produced by John Hughes & Tom Jacobson

Music score by Arthur Baker, Ira Newborn & John Robie

Favourite Scene: The car valets drive Cameron’s father’s fancy car through Chicago while the theme from Star Wars plays. What do you mean it’s not awesome?

Scene That Bugged Me: Like Being John Malkovich, a Charlie Sheen cameo distracted me by expecting him to say “winning” at any given moment. God knows how I’m making it through Platoon.

Watch it if: Bueller’s day was your dream in high school

Avoid it if: You actually liked high school

Similar Movies

#26 Breaking Away

#29 Back To The Future

#40 Tsotsi

2012-01-11T02:04:00.002Z

(2005, Gavin Hood)

“Decency? Do you know the word?”

Tsotsi is a movie from the emerging South African cinema movement. Taking its story from the streets of the impoverished townships left over from Apartheid, we follow the titular Tsotsi (Presley Chweneyegae) through the days that change his life forever.

You see, Tsotsi is a nickname, meaning thug, and this is what he is. Along with his friends he likes to steal from and injure innocent residents of the nearby communities. Due to growing up on the streets and receiving no education, he doesn’t know any other way to live his life, at least until the day he steals a woman’s car, inadvertently kidnapping her baby at the same time. Through the baby, he gains a sense of humanity and slowly begins to reform and question the moral choices in his life up to this point.

The movie’s lead is initially a very unsympathetic character. He says little, and his actions are mindless acts of intimidation and violence. But as the movie progresses, we get a little more insight into what led him to this life – his troubled childhood, his feral upbringing, his lack of education – and we gain more sympathy for him, and as he reforms, we connect with him more. In addition, Chweneyegae is a fantastic actor, expressing himself mostly through minimal body language and facial expressions. It’s impressive to see him bring the character to life so subtly.

However, the character development is minimal. We only really see one major snapshot of Tsotsi’s old home life and never really discover why he ended up living on the streets away from his family. Everything else is through jump-cuts which flash up during emotional scenes. However, this does work at showing us the direct emotional connection between his past and his current emotional reactions, particularly his reaction to finding the baby in the stolen car and his willingness to care for it despite being so heartless otherwise.

Scenes with Miriam, the mother that Tsotsi “recruits” to help him care for the baby are also particularly impressive. The quality of the acting here is fantastic, and Chweneyegae and Terry Pheto very naturally working off one another. Miriam is scared but sympathetic, while Tsotsi is confused, and it’s this mixture of emotion that makes the scenes work so well.

What works less well are the scenes with an old disabled homeless man that Tsotsi meets in the subway station. He follows the man and confronts him, accusing him of faking his disability. These scenes feel very disconnected from the rest of the movie, and while they aid in demonstrating Tsotsi’s emotional journey, they are still very out of place in the context of everything else, and in such a short movie, these scenes almost get in the way of everything else.

Overall, Tsotsi is a great example of an emerging film scene, demonstrating that South Africa has plenty of interesting stories to tell. It’s a little rough around the edges, but ultimately is a good, moving story of how people can change.

Starring Presley Chweneyegae, Terry Pheto, Kenneth Nkosi, Mothusi Magano, Zenzo Ngqobe, Rapulana Seiphemo & Nambitha Npumlwana

Written by Athol Fugard (novel) & Gavin Hood

Produced by Peter Fudakowski

Music score by Paul Hepker & Mark Kilian

Favourite Scene: The second time Tsotsi goes to visit Miriam, there’s a shifting in tone. Miriam appears more relaxed and seems to steal control of the whole situation from Tsotsi. It’s really effective.

Scene That Bugged Me: Tsotsi stalks the homeless man and there’s a scene culminates in him kicking over the man’s change box. None of it really seems to fit with the overarching plot.

Watch it if: You want to see what South African cinema is capable of

Avoid it if: You’re confused by the fact the movie’s in three languages. Yes, three

Similar Movies
#37 Amores Perros

#39 Lord Of The Rings

2012-01-09T12:47:00.003Z

(2001-2003, Peter Jackson)

"We wants it, we needs it, we must have the precious"

(The Fellowship Of The Ring, 2001)

(The Two Towers, 2002)

(Return Of The King, 2003)

In the fifth decade of the twentieth century of mankind, there was a man named J.R.R. Tolkien, who had finally completed his master work, a great tome of a novel he called The Lord Of The Rings. His publishers liked it, but refused to publish it in its existing form, for it was too long a work to put into a single volume. And so it was split into three smaller works, and in this form it travelled about the globe, spreading the word of Tolkien’s history of the fantasy world Middle-Earth. Tolkien himself felt that no film studio could ever place his work into cinemas; that his work was too expansive, too populated with strange mystical creatures that it would fail.

And yet, half a century later, a man hailing from the far-off land known as New Zealand heard these words and said no. The work would be made into a film, a great expansive film, one that would cover all the intricacies of Tolkien’s literature. However, much like Tolkien’s novels, Peter Jackson’s vision was split into three distinct movies, each based off one of the parts of the novel trilogy.

And now, based off a decree from the book of 1001 Movies, I, Sven, shall review these three movies as a whole, for reviewing them as individuals dampens the impact of the story itself. That, and the 1001 Movies book lists them as one film while simultaneously counting Star Wars as three. This remains a mystery to me. [This is why the Star Wars review has three numbers, while this only has one, I know, I'm confused too]

The tale is vast and contains many characters and creatures of various shapes and sizes, but centres largely on the young hobbit Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) of The Shire. Hobbits are simple folk, living their days drinking fine ale and eating fine food. However, one hobbit is not satisfied. Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) has long returned from his great adventures – as told in Tolkien’s prequel novel The Hobbit – and wishes to go out into the world again. Using a magical ring he obtained on his adventures, he turns himself invisible, allowing him to slip out of his birthday party, only to be confronted by the mighty wizard Gandalf The Grey (Ian McKellen). Bilbo flees, leaving the ring behind. Gandalf cannot touch the ring, and instead asks Frodo to throw the ring in the fire upon his return to the house.

It turns out the ring is The One Ring, a magic ring forged by the Dark Lord Sauron. Sauron is bound to it, and possession of it may lead to his evil power spreading over the land. As such, Frodo must take it, along with his friends Samwise (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), to the land of the elves so they might be able to use their wisdom to decide what to do with it.

In Rivendell, the great elf Elrond (Hugo Weaving) decides that the ring must be destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom, deep in the dark lands of Mordor, and so Frodo sets out to do this with a Fellowship of other travellers, including human fighters Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean), the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). And so begins the great Ring War, as men battle the Dark Lord’s orc forces in a great clash of good and evil.

Of course, the depiction of all this grandeur takes a very long time, and so embarking on a viewing of this tale takes tremendous patience. Each part of the trilogy takes up roughly three hours and the extended versions can stretch up to four. At times this length can feel like a chore, which is the film’s key downfall. It’s not clear if it’s the fault of Tolkien’s storytelling or Jackson’s attempts at bringing it to the big screen, but some parts of the movie feel like they drag on a little longer than necessary.

Perhaps this is down to the fact that Lord Of The Rings perhaps isn’t trying to tell a story, more offer an intricate account of an entire war, and the effects of the people living in the world at war. In a sense, it is as if every movie ever made about World War II was condensed into a single ten hour retelling. Only instead of the invasion of Poland, we have a hobbit putting on a ring, and instead of an atomic bomb, that ring gets thrown into a volcano. In this sense, it succeeds, as the world of Middle-Earth feels alive and vibrant, particularly in its visuals.

Practically the entire nation of New Zealand was transformed into the fantasy realm, with only a few CGI tweaks to add ancient castles and mysterious Elvish script. The design of the monsters and the races of the world are superb, from the lowliest hobbit to the mightiest Uruk-Hai orc warrior. And the battles are the true definition of the word epic, tightly choreographed and sprawling out with thousands of soldiers battling to the death.

But none of this would matter in the slightest if the characters within weren’t identifiable, and they are for the most part. Despite the high fantasy, much of the film concerns friendship, loyalty and honour. The travellers develop a tight bond, even when they end up separated, and this is most notable in Frodo and Sam, whose friendship is intensely close, and despite numerous trials, survives to give them both the strength to see their journey through to its end. But even then, we witness a close friendship develop between Legolas and Gimli, both of races that traditionally aren’t fond of each other.

We also see humanising aspects in the character of Gollum (Andy Serkis), a creature deformed and sent mad by the powers of the ring. He splits between good and evil rapidly due to his split personality, and his struggle between these two sides makes him an incredibly interesting character despite being rendered entirely in CGI.

The performances are also fantastic across the board, with almost every actor in the trilogy giving it their all. This is to be expected with old hands such as McKellen and Lee, but it can be seen in everyone. Well, almost everyone. Orlando Bloom, as usual with his appearances in anything, is consistently bland and usually consists of a single expression and tone no matter what the scenario. His performance is so bad it threatens to drag the whole film down, but fortunately the rest of the cast is strong enough to carry him.

But, as stated at the beginning, the films are so long that watching them almost feels like embarking on your own epic quest, so it requires a lot of patience. Sure, it’s probably quicker than reading the books, but at nine hours, it demands a lot of attention. A small complaint, sure, and complaining about Lord Of The Rings being long is like complaining that the sky is blue.

If you have the time to invest in it, Lord Of The Rings is an entertaining, if sometimes meandering, experience, and needs to be watched at least once.

Starring Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Sean Bean, Dominic Monaghan, Hugo Weaving, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Billy Boyd & the voice of Andy Serkis

Written by J.R.R. Tolkien (novels), Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens

Produced by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh & Barrie M. Osbourne

Music score by Howard Shore

Favourite Scene: Gollum’s debate with himself where he tries to force his evil side out is highly entertaining. Not bad for a CGI puppet.

Scene That Bugged Me: Aragorn pulling out a ghost army for one of the many epic battles. It just makes me imagine Aragorn playing an MMO and hacking it constantly so he can win everything all the time. BAD ARAGORN!

Watch it if: You have a day to kill and fancy watching some orcs gets stabbed

Avoid it if: You’re afraid of elves and wizards

Similar Movies

#7 Princess Mononoke

#14, #15 & #16 The Star Wars Trilogy

Movie Connections
#2 Raiders Of The Lost Ark (John Rhys-Davies)
#4 The Matrix (Hugo Weaving)
#5 Alien (Ian Holm)

#38 Ghostbusters

2012-01-08T20:45:00.003Z

(1984, Ivan Reitman)

“Who ya gonna call?”

I don’t really need to introduce Ghostbusters. Like many of the films I’ve already reviewed, it’s part of our cultural makeup, parodied and paid homage to many times before. It follows three scientists, Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), Ray Stantz (Dan Akroyd) and Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) as they start up a business designed to investigate and capture spiritual entities, otherwise known as Ghostbusters. Shortly after opening, New York begins to experience a wave of paranormal activity, sweeping up the residents of an apartment building, including Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), who Venkman seems quite fond of.

The film is a classic of the 80s, and is so beloved it spawned a sequel, cartoon spin-offs and several video games. It’s often quoted and referenced by many people, and its theme tune by Ray Parker Jr is an iconic song. But how much does it deserve all these accolades?

Well, Ghostbusters is very funny. The gags are frequent, and both Akroyd and Ramis were knowledgeable enough about the paranormal for all the jokes to be clever and not just cheap Scooby-Doo gags. Sometimes the humour isn’t perfect, occasionally suffering the odd bum line here and there, but it always picks itself back up quickly. But of course, much of the humour comes from Bill Murray, who is well-known as the master of deadpan sarcasm. Every line of his is fantastic, and as a result he steals the show. And thankfully, Ivan Reitman noticed, since he takes up so much screen time.

The plot isn’t too brilliant, consisting mostly of utilising a vague ancient civilisation to justify the weirdness going on, but at the same time it seems to be aware of this. It plays the plot just as silly as it seems, and rarely plays itself as anything deep and meaningful. Even when the Bible scripture is brought up, it seems to be there to provide banter between characters, and that’s as deep as it gets. The movie doesn’t try to be thought-provoking, it tries to be entertaining, and for this it’s commendable.

However, where the film tends to fall down is in its special effects. The ancient Sumerian dog deities are rarely ever believable, looking far too rubber while seated and awkwardly animated and unconvincingly overlaid while moving. Other ghosts or spiritual portals tend to scream matte painting or chroma key and never seem to truly interact with the real actors. Which is a shame because, despite the humour, the movie does seem to be trying very hard to make its own paranormal world as convincing as possible otherwise.

Ultimately though, Ghostbusters is a genuine classic, deserving of its status as a major part of pop culture.

Starring Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver & Rick Moranis

Written by Dan Akroyd & Harold Ramis

Produced by Ivan Reitman

Music score by Elmer Bernstein

Favourite Scene: Venkman tries to deal with a possessed Dana, and it’s clear that Bill Murray was having a great time with this scene. He’s almost laughing at the absurdity of it all himself.

Scene That Bugged Me: During a montage demonstrating the Ghostbusters’ growing success, Ray gets a blowjob from a ghost. Remember how I said some jokes fall flat? That was a major offender.

Watch it if: You ain’t afraid of no ghost

Avoid it if: Watching this will cause you to cross the streams. Don’t cross the streams. It would be bad.

Similar Movies
#29 Back To The Future

Movie Connections
#5 & #6 Alien & Aliens (Sigourney Weaver)

#37 Amores Perros

2012-01-07T12:52:00.002Z

(2000, Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu)

“You and that fucking dog!”

Amores Perros is three films for the price of one, all vaguely linked on three things. First, is a car crash that takes place during the middle of the film’s timeline, bringing the main characters of the three stories together into one place. The second is the theme of how love and relationships aren’t always beautiful and perfect. This explains the title, which translates to “love’s a bitch”. But the third theme, which makes the title a rather interesting pun, is the theme of cruelty to dogs. It’s an odd combination, but does any of this work particularly well?

The first of the three stories here is about Octavio, a young man whose brother is a violent criminal. Octavio recognises how much his brother abuses his teenage wife Susana, and is determined to take her away from him, due to his own interest in her. To raise the money to do this, he enters his brother’s dog into local dogfights, and slowly saves up the bet money this generates.

The second story is about Valeria, a vain supermodel who’s just received a contract with a major perfume manufacturer to appear in their ads. Then she gets involved in the story-linking car crash, leaving her crippled and stuck in a wheelchair. Shortly after this, her lapdog gets trapped under the floorboards of her apartment and is unable to help it due to her condition. This leads her to start taking her frustrations out on her new husband.

The third and final story concerns an aging hit-man, living out in the slums, and the conflicts he faces between his profession, his squalid lifestyle and wanting to reconcile with his estranged daughter.

The problem is, these three stories never seem to truly fit together as one big cohesive whole. They’re linked in some small ways, but generally they feel very separate, and as a result, it feels like three movies all crammed into 2 and a half hours and not been given the time they really deserve to develop. While technically much of the film does work and there are signs that the director cared about his work to a significant degree, the film just doesn’t hold together too well.

Part of this issue lies in how the three stories are structured. For the most part, we have each separate story told in its own segment, as if this were an anthology movie of some sort. However, where things go wrong is when little scenes from the other stories leak into what’s going on. Throughout the initial dogfight story, scenes involving the supermodel’s husband and the hitman both feature, but neither are given much context. They disrupt the flow of the first story, and the information told within these scenes gets lost before it’s needed later. This is especially obvious in the hitman’s story, where many subtle scenes necessary to understanding his character are buried within an entirely different story.

This kind of storytelling is fine, but it needs to be consistent. Either tell the three stories separately, allowing the audience to absorb all the information of one story and then spot the connections as they pop up, or constantly switch between the stories as the movie progresses, allowing viewers to piece everything together as they go along. As it stands, the few unrelated scenes distract from proceedings and make the film as a whole much harder to understand.

The individual stories themselves are fine though. The first is a harrowing tale of deceit and trying to escape a life of living on the breadline. The second is fantastic, and presents a woman who cares more about her own image and her lapdog than she does her husband, all with terrible consequences. The third story, however, is a little unfocused and confused. It never really balances his torment over his profession with his sense of loss for his family, and just feels a bit meandering.

Overall, Amores Perros is a good experiment, but is flawed. There is some good storytelling and some superb acting here, but it never really holds together as a single movie. A few more connections here and there would have improved things.

Starring Gael Garcia Bernal, Goya Toledo, Emilio Echevarria, Vanessa Bauche, Marco Perez & Alvaro Guerrero

Written by Guillermo Arriaga

Produced by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Music by Gustavo Santaolalla

Favourite Scene: The breakdown of Valeria and Daniel’s relationship was chillingly effective, and easily the best part of the whole movie

Scene That Bugged Me: So tell me, why is the hit man moving into torture?

Watch it if: You're here for that middle story

Avoid it if: You don’t like seeing dogs suffer

#36 Edward Scissorhands

2012-01-06T10:39:00.001Z

(1990, Tim Burton)

“Hell of a handshake you got there!”

Once upon a time, in a far off land of Suburbia, there was a mysterious castle on top of a hill. No one knew who lived inside this castle, until one day an Avon lady named Peg (Dianne Wiest) ventured in, where she met its sole resident: a man with terrifying looking scissors for hands (Johnny Depp). She found out his name was Edward, and saw that he was a gentle soul. She took him back to her home to introduce him to the world. As it turned out, this man was artificial, invented by the man who previously inhabited the castle (Vincent Price, in his final film appearance), who died prior to completing him, leaving him with his strange disfigurement.

The world was largely accepting of him, especially when he demonstrated his talents at hedge trimming and hair cutting. As he integrated himself into society, he also began to fall in love with Peg’s daughter Kim (Winona Ryder). However, not everyone liked him, including Kim’s abusive boyfriend (Anthony Michael Hall), and this led him into some serious trouble. This is the tale of Edward Scissorhands.

The story was devised by Tim Burton, based on his own memories of ridicule and isolation as a child, and as a result, the tale is definitely Burton’s personal masterpiece. His unique visual style is very much at work here, particularly in the designs for both Edward and his castle. Vincent Price’s appearance is very much Burton at work too, due to the director’s great love of the actor and the influence he had. Also, Johnny Depp’s in it and the music’s done by Danny Elfman. Of course.

Plot-wise, this is very much a fairy tale, but with a slight modern twist through setting much of it in the suburbs. Of course, this means there are elements of it that are a little lacking, such as any real explanation as to what exactly Edward is. Is he a robot? His bleeding would suggest otherwise, and yet it’s shown that he seems to have been developed from a factory machine. But still, it’s a fantasy tale, so maybe asking too many questions on these things is taking criticism too far. The plot isn’t ground-breaking in any way, though, as imaginative as Edward as a character is. It’s similar to that of Frankenstein in many ways, and this is kind of the movie’s weakness.

Where the film really excels is in the bizarre otherworldly representation of suburbia. Clearly drawn from Burton’s own experience at living in the suburbs, the houses are uniform and painted in a series of odd pastel colours, and everyone is overly interested in everybody else’s business. It’s an obvious caricature, but it works rather well. The news of Edward’s appearance gets around within seconds, and the way all the men in the neighbourhood uniformly file off to work in their identical cars, among other things, define the weird nature of suburbia in a strange, childlike way, making this a very real and modern setting to fit in nicely with the fairy tale inherent in Edward’s story.

Overall, Edward Scissorhands is a visual treat and a sweet little fairy tale, if nothing earth-shattering. Definitely some good family viewing to be had here though.

Starring Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder, Dianne Wiest, Alan Arkin, Anthony Michael Hall & Vincent Price

Written by Tim Burton and Caroline Thompson

Produced by Tim Burton & Denise Di Novi

Music score by Danny Elfman

Favourite Scene: Bill has a chat to Edward about teenage girls in his basement bar while drinking whiskey. Even if I did keep expecting him to tell Edward to “fuck a lot o’ women!” after Little Miss Sunshine

Scene That Bugged Me: Edward kills Kim’s boyfriend, in a way that seems entirely at odds with his gentle nature. I’d have bought it more if Kim had used Edward to kill instead, perhaps.

Watch it if: You want a good modern fairy tale

Avoid it if: You don't want to see Vincent Price die

Similar Movies

#9 American Beauty

#24 The Elephant Man

Movie Connections
#3 Little Miss Sunshine (Alan Arkin)

#35 Grave Of The Fireflies

2012-01-05T15:10:00.002Z

(火垂るの墓 – Hotaru no Haka)

(1988, Isao Takahata)

“Why do fireflies have to die so soon?”

This is the second film about World War II to appear on this blog, which is only scratching the surface of all the World War II movies that feature in the 1001 Movies. However, this one does not take the usual route of many of the other Anglo-American led movies on the list. This, being a Japanese production, takes their perspective.

It’s easy to forget that World War II was a horrific event for everyone involved. As a UK resident, much of the opinion of the war I encounter revolves around how tough it was living through the Blitz, how evil the Nazis were towards the Jews (see also: The Pianist), how horrific the attack on Pearl Harbour was, how hard it was for the Allied countries to get by, but how we overcame adversity to beat the enemy and save the world. But let’s not forget, the “enemy” suffered plenty of tragic losses too. Much like we suffered the Blitz, the firebombing of Dresden killed many innocents, including many who likely opposed the Nazi regime in some way. Not to mention the effects of the atomic blasts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But what about the real innocents caught up in that war? The children. There were children on both sides, but not one of them deserved to be involved, but they were. And this is where Grave Of The Fireflies comes in.

Set during the bombing of Kobe towards the end of the war, the story follows Seita and his little sister Setsuko as they struggle to survive in the harsh environment that followed. After initially moving in with their aunt, they leave when she becomes frustrated by their presence, leaving them to fend for themselves. And as the opening scenes depict, this doesn’t end well.

Grave Of The Fireflies is not a happy film. After all, this is the final days of the war for Japan, as they are fighting an ever-losing battle. Entire neighbourhoods are firebombed into rubble, while people starve and struggle to keep surviving with limited supplies at their disposal. It’s pretty obvious what will happen to Seita and Setsuko when they go out on their own. If the average working person can barely afford the essentials, how can two children do much better?

In true Ghibli fashion, the movie is a great feat of animation, although the level of detail usually reserved for producing Miyazaki’s beautiful fantasy landscapes is here used to great effect to show the harrowing effects of war. It feels wrong to describe the detail as being beautiful, but it oddly is, and is highly effective.

One comment that frequently gets levelled at Grave Of The Fireflies is that it’s impossible to avoid crying at its ending, and I’m not going to dispute that. This is a very tear-inducing movie. I would even go as far to say that if this film does not move you, then you are a heartless, soulless individual. It’s incredibly sad, but what’s more, it’s sad in a way that gets under your skin. It’s not trying to push you into being sad, it just has that effect. I even told myself I wasn’t going to cry while watching it for this review, but I did anyway. It’s that powerful.

Grave Of The Fireflies doesn’t really pass judgement on anybody who fought in World War II, or the necessity of the conflict, it merely shines a light on the innocent casualties who got caught up in the whole thing. It’s hard to put into words exactly how moving this film is, but it definitely necessary viewing, even if you’ll probably only watch it once.

Starring the voices of Ayano Siraishi & Tsutomu Tatsumi

Dub voices by Rhoda Chrosite & J. Robert Spencer

Written by Akiyuki Nosaka (novel) & Isao Takahata

Produced by Toru Hara

Music score by Michio Mamiya

Favourite Scene: Seita finds out his aunt has told Setsuko about their mother’s death, and he breaks down. Easily one of the most moving scenes in the movie because it silently expresses everything that must be going through his head at that exact moment.

Scene That Bugged Me: Nothing really, although the ending did make me cry, does that count?

Watch it if: You’d like a good weep

Avoid it if: You can’t quite accept the fact that the Japanese are no longer enemies of the West

Similar Movies

#7 Princess Mononoke

#28 The Pianist
#43 Schindler's List

#34 Being John Malkovich

2012-01-04T15:06:00.004Z

(1999, Spike Jonze)

“It’s my head!”

Imagine if you will there is a portal into somebody’s head. It allows you to see what they see, feel what they feel, think what they think. If I could choose whose head I could enter, I would most likely pick screenwriter Charlie Kaufman’s, a man who produces some of the most bizarre but most original movies out there. He has written a movie about a man getting his memories of his ex-girlfriend erased, told from the perspective of him seeing his deteriorating memories in reverse (Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind). He has written a movie about himself writing a movie about himself (Adaptation). And, of course, he has written this movie, in what is criminally the sole movie he has written that features in the 1001 Movies.

Being John Malkovich is about Craig Schwartz (John Cusack), a down-on-his-luck puppeteer. As money becomes tight, he takes on a menial filing job at the 7 ½ floor of a large building in Manhattan. The office is strange, situated between two floors with a ridiculously low ceiling. Oh, and it contains a door that leads directly in the head of actor John Malkovich (playing himself) for fifteen minutes before you’re thrown out at the side of the New Jersey Turnpike. Craig spins this into a business idea with co-worker Maxine (Catherine Keener), but things get very weird after Craig’s wife Lottie (a scarily unrecognisable Cameron Diaz) goes through and questions her sexual identity.

Quite frankly, this film is hard to fully describe. It’s hard to think of another film with even a remotely similar premise. From the surreal office building filled with quirky employees (a hard-of-hearing secretary and a lecherous boss among them) to the bizarre love triangle that directly involves Malkovich as a sort-of unwitting fourth party (don’t ask), this movie is weird, and if it had been handled badly it could have spun out into Videodrome-style nonsense.

Fortunately, the script is oddly coherent, and former music video director Spike Jonze manages to hold everything together. While the movie frequently makes you throw up your hands and go “WHAT”, its own internal logic sticks, and everything makes sense in a very strange way. Some aspects of the plot are never fully explained, admittedly, but some things – such as what on earth a portal into John Malkovich’s head is doing inside a Manhattan office building – are probably best left unexplained.

However, in its odd eccentricity, it’s quite difficult to really identify with what’s going on in the film, and the characters are almost all fundamentally unlikeable. Craig is a dowdy loser, Lottie is skittish and unpredictable, and Maxine is a bitch. Despite this, however, all the actors here do a phenomenal job, especially Malkovich himself, who parodies himself spectacularly.

The movie ends up being little more than an entertaining curiosity. It’s got some very funny moments, but the concept is so absurd that there’s little emotional weight behind this. It tries to create some, but ultimately you’re still just sitting there wondering what’s going to happen next rather than connecting in any meaningful way.

That said, while it is a curiosity, it is very worth watching in its sheer strangeness.

Starring John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener & John Malkovich

Written by Charlie Kaufman

Produced by Michael Stipe, Sandy Stern, Steve Golin, Vincent Landay

Music score by Carter Burwell

Favourite Scene: When Malkovich enters his own head. The results are fairly trippy, even if he does sort of turn into a Pokémon as a result.

Scene That Bugged Me: Why would you ask Charlie Sheen for advice, John? Why? No one would do that. I was also bugged by this scene since I kept expecting Sheen to say “Winning!”

Watch it if: You want to see through John Malkovich’s eyes

Avoid it if: The pseudo-lesbian love triangle…thing melts your brain

Similar Movies

#32 Memento
#56 Inception

#33 The Naked Gun

2012-01-02T21:25:00.003Z

(1988, David Zucker)

“Not one man on this force will rest one minute until he’s behind bars. Now let’s get a bite to eat”

It was my latest case. I had to watch a film called The Naked Gun, based around a short-lived TV show called Police Squad!, and review it for the Internet. I’d worked plenty of these cases before, but something about this one just didn’t add up.

The film concerned Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen), a cop whose friend Nordberg (OJ Simpson) has been attacked and put into a coma. Now he must find who did it and bring them to justice. Along the way he discovers an attempt to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II, who is on a royal visit. But as I watched this film, I realised that Drebin was a bumbling fool, and that the world he inhabited was a cartoon version of our own. This was no ordinary cop movie, this was a Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker parody movie. Some research told me that this was a direct result of Airplane!, the movie that made Leslie Nielsen a comedic actor. Wanting to do more comedy, he asked to work with the directors again. They created the show Police Squad before taking the concept and applying it to a full length feature, and this was the result.

As a cop movie, it failed badly, rarely taking itself too seriously and clearly skipping some of the necessary research. It also lacks any real sense of mystery since the villain is revealed early on. I suspected it didn’t want to be a straightforward cop movie, but I needed more evidence. On closer inspection, I noticed sight gags and strange puns in the dialogue, such as when Drebin and the chief walk into another room – the chief uses the door, but Drebin merely walks around the wall of the set. And then some of the events were absurd, like Drebin commandeering a learner driver to help him chase down a suspect. This was a silly movie, it turned out, and shockingly, it made me laugh.

Leslie Nielsen yet again pulled off the deadpan humour he demonstrated in Airplane, only with a little more slapstick. It was less tightly woven than ZAZ’s other major work, with the plot framing the jokes being incredibly flimsy, and the slapstick kind of affecting Nielsen’s ability to be entirely deadpan, which is where he excelled before. This isn’t to say the movie wasn’t enjoyable, it just wasn’t quite as smart.

This was a hard case though. I’d struggled with my Airplane! case, since many technical criticisms could easily be brushed away with reference to the fact the movie was a parody, and many of the same difficulties arose this time around. There was an almost unrealistic sense to the world of Naked Gun, a lack of continuity and poor characterisation. However, this was the entire point, and to use any of those criticisms misses the point entirely. It was a caricature, exaggerated for comic effect, and any “flaws” are most likely deliberate.

The conclusion I drew from Naked Gun was that anyone who enjoyed Airplane! is likely to enjoy this too. While not quite as well put together as the previous movie, it still provided plenty of laughs and still better than many parody movies that followed (including some atrocious examples from the ZAZ team themselves). I took my report down to the DA’s office and called the case closed, before handing in my badge.

It turns out it wasn’t a real badge anyway, and the DA didn’t even know who I was.

Starring Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, OJ Simpson, Ricardo Moltaban & George Kennedy

Written by Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker & Pat Proft

Produced by Robert K. Weiss, executive producers Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker

Music score by Ira Newborn

Favourite Scene: Anytime something silly happens involving the Queen.

Scene That Bugged Me: Why is Frank in Beirut in the first place? Never mind, that’s nit-picking in a film that doesn’t even need it.

Watch it if: You carry a big gun

Avoid it if: You’re here for “Weird Al” Yankovic

Similar Movies

#1 Airplane!

#8 Monty Python & The Holy Grail

Movie Connections
#1 Airplane! (Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker, Leslie Nielsen)

#32 Memento

2011-12-31T19:33:00.004Z

(2000, Christopher Nolan)

“Now, where was I?”

Anterograde amnesia: a condition in which the patient is unable to create new memories, usually as a result of some kind of head trauma. The patient can remember their identity and anything up to the incident that caused the condition, but otherwise cannot remember anything.

Memento is about a man named Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) who has this condition. After a break-in, during which his wife was raped and killed, his attempt to save her resulted in him being knocked out cold. The head trauma resulted in him getting a condition, known as anterograde amnesia, which prevents him from forming new memories, but has conditioned himself to remember things using Polaroid photos and notes. He is on a mission to kill the man who killed his wife.

Leonard’s jumbled memories as a result of his condition are represented through the story being told completely out of order. Alternate scenes are from different points in the timeline. Handily, director Christopher Nolan colour-coded the scenes, with scenes in reverse order in colour and scenes running forward in greyscale. It’s still slightly confusing though, which means that this is a film you really need to pay attention to. Which would be difficult if you had a condition known as anterograde amnesia, a condition that prevents new memories from forming, the very same condition protagonist Leonard Shelby has.

By telling the story out of order, we’re seeing each scene as Leonard himself sees it. Due to his condition, anterograde amnesia, he can only remember things for a certain period of time before experiencing a sort of mental blackout. And it’s these snippets of time we see, and as a result we connect with Leonard, but we never really get a true sense of the world around him. Even at the twist ending, we’re not sure if we can trust all the information we’ve been given. As the events of the movie unfold in their unconventional way, we’re introduced to the mysterious Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), but we’re never sure of their motivations. What’s more, we’re not even sure of Leonard’s motivations. Is his own information reliable? This confusion and disconnection from everything is what makes the film so effective, forcing the viewer to make up their own judgements as to what the real objective truth is. After all, if we can’t trust our protagonist, who can we trust?

If there is an issue with this film, it lies in Pearce’s acting. I always found his delivery really flat and somewhat unemotional. This could lie in the fact that Leonard has anterograde amnesia, a condition that means he is incapable of forming short-term memories, as a direct stylistic choice by either Pierce or Nolan to show how disconnected he is from the world. He shows little emotion because he’s not entirely sure what’s going on around him. He doesn’t remember enough of the situation to be able to react to new information like anyone else would. However, this gets silly in some scenes, such as when Leonard has a mental blackout in the middle of a chase and tries to figure out what’s happening to him. In this scene, regardless of what he remembers, he would still be terrified because there’s a man pointing a gun in his direction. Instead, his reaction is flat and lifeless, and almost unintentionally hilarious as a result. There are a few more minor examples, but that was certainly the most glaring one.

However, overall, Memento is a very clever film. There’s some clever editing and scripting going on here, and even little clues to the film’s twist which are easily missed until later viewings. It may leave you with a sense of confusion, causing you to walk away from the film wondering if you’ve missed something. But this is the point. It’s trying to emulate Leonard’s condition, trying to make the audience identify with what it must be like to have anterograde amnesia. And really, the story wouldn’t work any other way. The twist is, after all, in the middle of the story. It’s easy to see why this film put Christopher Nolan firmly on the film-maker’s map.

Unless you have anterograde amnesia, then you won’t be able to remember much of the film due to your inability to form short-term memories. I’ve told you all about that condition already, haven’t you? Sorry about that, you see, I have this condition…

Starring Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss & Joe Pantoliano

Written by Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan

Produced by Jennifer Todd & Suzanne Todd

Music score by David Julyan

Favourite Scene: Natalie screws with Leonard’s condition. Shows how truly flawed Leonard’s “system” is, and it’s fantastic.

Scene That Bugged Me: “Who am I chasing? Oh no, he’s chasing me” Said like someone who trying to figure out where they put their keys. I don’t care if you have a condition, Leonard! You have a man pointing a gun in your face! Be scared!

Watch it if: You’re able to understand a film backwards

Avoid it if: You have anterograde amnesia, which is a condition that prevents you from forming short-term memories. You’ll be even more horribly confused.

Similar Movies
#9 American Beauty
#17 Requiem For A Dream
#55 Se7en

#31 Titanic

2011-12-30T01:35:00.003Z

(1997, James Cameron)

“Not even God himself could sink this ship”

Until James Cameron’s own Avatar knocked it from its position, Titanic was the biggest film in history. It was the best-selling movie of all time, and also one of the most expensive. It made stars out of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, and set the standards for many blockbusters to come. But is it any good?

For those who don’t already know, Titanic is a historical re-telling of the sinking of the titular “unsinkable” ship back in April 1912. A deep sea expedition has been launched in the present day to try and recover artifacts buried along with the ship. After finding an old drawing of a woman wearing a much sought-after necklace, the woman in question, Rose (played in 1912 by Kate Winslet), comes forward and relates a tale of her experience on the ill-fated vessel. In amongst a straight account of the actual sinking, there is a tale of doomed romance as Rose tries to shake off the shackles of upper class society and escape from her unwanted fiancé (Billy Zane) when she meets a rogue traveller named Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Titanic surprised me in a way. Truth be told, I had never seen it before setting myself this challenge, largely because of hype backlash. I didn’t like how hyped up the film was. It felt like no film deserved that kind of praise and popularity, and I felt the movie couldn’t live up to it. So did it match up to hype? Of course it didn’t, but does that mean the film is bad? No, it’s a good film, but hardly the major event in cinema it was made out to be.

The main issue with Titanic is that it’s not quite sure where it wants to sit in regards to its plot. It tries to be social commentary, a period drama romance, and a major disaster movie all at once. As a result, none of these elements are really all that polished. The movie looks impressive, but the actual story is so muddled about what it wants to say about the sinking that it ultimately feels a bit hollow.

The romance story at the core of all this is, quite frankly, a little clichéd. It’s made especially bad by the fact the characters all generally lack depth. Jack is a perfect man whose entire role seems to be to make Rose swoon over him. He’s a scoundrel, but he’s caring, strong, resourceful, and has travelled the whole world. By contrast, Rose’s fiancé is the exact flip of this, an uncaring villain of a man who probably drowns puppies in his spare time.

The problem is, no added dimension is added to these characters. It would have been nice for Jack to exhibit some flaws in his character. At one point in the movie, he’s suspected of being a thief. If it turned out he really did have kleptomaniac tendencies, this would make him more interesting, but no, of course, the “stolen” items have been planted on him by the evil puppy-drowner and he’s innocent because he’s perfect. There’s also a scene where the fiancé almost shows some compassion, some realisation that he’s been hurting Rose and that he will lose her to Jack if he stays the way he is, but no, it’s all a ruse to make Jack back off before he goes and steals a small child so he can get on a lifeboat, probably before dumping the child in the Atlantic before the lifeboat’s barely been untied. Probably tied rocks to the child’s feet too, the dastardly fiend.

It’s this lack of depth that makes us not particularly care for the characters. It’s not all bad. Rose’s mother is a cold, heartless woman who does show some heart during the crisis, but it’s too little, too late. And Rose herself is generally bland, existing solely for the affections the two generic men. Winslet does a good job expressing herself within this bland shell, but it only just papers over the cracks.

However, in depicting the real events, in other words, the actual sinking of the ship, the movie does a fine job. The Titanic itself is meticulously detailed, from the grandest chandelier to the look of the funnels on deck. And when the ship sinks, the attention to detail regarding the real way the ship sank is spectacular. Even little details such as the ship’s band playing on and the couple huddled in their bed as water flows in come from actual details found in investigations into the disaster. If Cameron had chosen to stick to a historical retelling of the sinking, it may have been a more impressive movie for this reason.

As it is, the film is muddled and trying to do too many things at once. What’s more, at three hours long it feels dragged out. The modern day scenes feel largely unnecessary, and the same story could have easily been told without them. Certain scenes go on longer than needed, and even some minor conflicts are drawn out or pointless – for example, Jack and Rose rescue a small child trapped below deck, only for his father to emerge mere minutes later and take the child away again. It just feels like padding in a movie that’s already longer than it needs to be.

Overall, Titanic is very much like the ship it’s based on. An impressive feat, and a great technical achievement, but ultimately sinks under the weight of its own grandeur. Only in this case the iceberg is poor pacing and one-dimensional characterisation. A more focused dramatization of the ill-fated ship would have been much more effective.

Also, less Celine Dion would have been nice.

Starring Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher & Bill Paxton

Written by James Cameron

Produced by James Cameron & Jon Landau

Music score by James Horner

Favourite Scene: A frustrated Rose fights back against her domineering mother at long last, pointing out the selfishness of her mother’s desire for her to marry Cal.

Scene That Bugged Me: How does Jack know so much about how to survive a sinking ship? He’s constantly telling Rose how to survive as the ship starts going down, and it’s a little grating. He should be panicking like everybody else.

Watch it if: You’re interested in long-lost ships

Avoid it if: The mere hint of a Celine Dion song causes convulsions in you

Similar Movies
#20 Jaws

Movie Connections
#6 Aliens (James Cameron)

Sven Speaks: Some Changes

2011-12-25T11:16:00.000Z

There will some changes to the point of this blog. It's Xmas Day, and I actually received the latest edition of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die as a gift. What this means is that now I can add all the newer films post-2007 that feature in the latest edition, which is fantastic.

Problem is, due to the fact that obviously some films got taken out to make room for the likes of Inception and Slumdog Millionaire, this means that a few films I've already reviewed are no longer on the 1001 list (specifically, Princess Mononoke, There's Something About Mary & Amelie - Mary I can understand, the other two...not so much). This means that in order to shift from the old edition to the current, I need to disregard those reviews and essentially start again and/or re-number all my reviews and double check everything to see if it's all in the book. Naturally, I'm not doing that.

Instead, I'm merely factoring in the new additions alongside those films that featured in the earlier edition I started from, ie. I'm working from both books. Obviously, this means I am no longer working from the 1001 Movies, it's more like 1024 now. So the challenge has been increased, but this isn't stopping me, largely because the new additions include a ton of new films that I have yet to see but really want to (Inception, Black Swan, The Social Network, District 9, Let The Right One In). All this means is that this blog will keep going even longer than originally anticipated. Which is fine by me.

So a heads-up so that in a few years' time people don't start questioning why the numbers start going past 1001! Who knows, maybe by then I'll have ended up with an even newer edition with even more films!

#30 It's A Wonderful Life

2011-12-24T14:40:00.002Z

(1946, Frank Capra)

“You’ve really had a wonderful life. Don’t you see what a mistake it would be to throw it away?”

It’s A Wonderful Life is one of those films that keeps being repeated endlessly at Christmas, a staple for the holidays due to its message and the fact that events culminate on Christmas Eve. With exceptions, most Christmas movies tend to be overly sentimental mush with little redeeming value. Is Wonderful Life one of these exceptions, or is it a film worth avoiding when not unwrapping presents and stuffing yourself with turkey?

For anyone who tends to sleep through Christmas Day, the movie is about George Bailey (James Stewart), an upstanding fellow who is being prayed for one Christmas Eve because he is about to give up God’s greatest gift – life. But why would he do this? What follows is an examination of his life up that point, where his guardian angel appears to save his life and make him re-evaluate his importance by showing him what life would be like had he never been born.

It all sounds very sentimental, and essentially, it is. But Wonderful Life is more than just sentimental holiday fluff. Underneath all of it is an examination of the power of the individual, and the effect any one person can have on the people around them. By following his life, we see events first-hand before being properly shown their importance, and this makes the message all the more poignant.

For the first half of the movie, it’s biographical. Here is George Bailey, and this is his life, and what he did with it. No major pressures to make him seem important, we just sit back and get an insight into our character. And this is the film’s strength. We’re made to like George solely through his charming nature and by witnessing events that many of us may identify with, and thus as a result we identify with him too. He wants to travel, he flirts with a girl, he’s driven into taking on a job he doesn’t really want by a sense of duty. He’s an average man, and by spending this first hour with him, we learn a bit about him, meaning that when his breakdown happens, we sympathise with him, and when the revelations happen concerning his importance, it makes us as the audience contemplate our own importance in the grand scheme of things.

It helps that James Stewart plays him so well, and delivers fantastic dialogue with his co-stars, particularly with George’s wife, Mary (Donna Reed). The joking and flirting between the two is believable, and very funny. OK, due to the film’s age a few lines are a little cheesy or dated, but it ends up coming across as more charming than grating. It’s impressive that dialogue as old as this can still raise smiles all these years later.

On the negative side (I know, it’s Christmas, but the rules of the blog insist I find fault!) there is a certain sense of unfinished business about the whole thing. We know George wants to travel, and is broken up about not being able to do so due to taking over his father’s business and starting a family, but no closure is given over whether or not he’ll ever get to achieve this goal, giving a message that it’s better to give up your dreams and do your duty than to be happy. It almost states that personal happiness and happiness through helping others are entirely separate things that cannot exist together. While it’s possible that this was never Frank Capra’s intention, it certainly reads that way.

Also, the villainous miser Mr Potter (Lionel Barrymore) never really gets an ending. The film builds him up to receive some retribution for all the cruel things he’s done, but he just gets forgotten at the end of the movie. A little bit of punishment or karma would have been nice, particularly as it is his actions that push George to breaking point.

But overall, it’s still a truly heartfelt movie that is actually so much more than a holiday favourite. It’s no A Christmas Carol, but it’s definitely up there.

Starring James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Gloria Grahame & Henry Travers

Written by Frank Capra, Frances Goodrich & Albert Hackett

Produced by Frank Capra

Music score by Dimitri Tiomkin

Favourite Scene: Every moment of George and Mary’s walk home from his brother’s graduation party is entertaining, and is the first demonstration of the chemistry between the leads

Scene That Bugged Me: Not a scene, but the line “every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings”. The film itself does point out the absurdity of the concept in the same scene, although it then has to go and play the whole thing straight again at the end of the film.

Watch it if: It’s on TV this Xmas, which it inevitably will be

Avoid it if: You’re sick of festive favourites

Similar Movies
#12 Amelie

#29 Back To The Future

2011-12-23T17:19:00.006Z

(1985, Robert Zemeckis)

“Woah, Doc, this is heavy”

Back To The Future was a hugely popular movie of the 1980s, which is still loved to this day. It kick-started the career of Michael J. Fox and has become forever linked with the DeLorean, now one of the most iconic movie vehicles of all time. But how well has it stood the test of time?

In essence, Back To The Future is a fun 80s comedy about Marty McFly, a teenager living in Hill Valley, played by Michael J. Fox. He’s friends with Dr Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd), an eccentric scientist. Doc Brown one day informs him of an exciting new invention he’s been working on, which he reveals to be a time machine built out of a Delorean DMC-12. Due to a run-in with a group of Libyan terrorists that Doc Brown obtained plutonium for, Marty ends up accidentally travelling back in time to 1955, the year his parents met. After inadvertently preventing this event, Marty slowly begins to be erased from history unless he can correct this as soon as possible.

First off, BttF is very 80s: the fashions, the music, the dialogue. It feels very much like a product of its era; however, it doesn’t feel dated. Much like Trainspotting, it retains a strong aesthetic sense of the time it was made, but also still tells a story that can be enjoyed years on. Of course, in this case, the aesthetics are tied into the plot rather nicely as a direct comparison to the 1950s, and so it works all the more effectively.

The film is also highly entertaining. It makes no attempt to be a particularly heavy discussion on the quantum mechanics of time travel, nor does it consider the philosophical implications of the Butterfly Effect. Instead, it chooses to take these difficult scientific speculations and make a wacky comedy out of it. It plays around with the time travel concept, but keeps it as simple as possible. It exists purely to entertain, not to spark debate.

The dialogue is sharp, and very quotable, and the script is tight. There are a lot of clever moments here, such as when Marty talks about owning two TVs in 1955, prompting a general sense of disbelief, or the hijinks that arise from his interactions with his teenage mother and father. There are a million opportunities for things to fall down here with the convoluted love triangle and the time travel concept, and yet everything holds together perfectly.

There are some cheesy and unnecessary moments, mind. Suggesting that Marty invented Chuck Berry’s entire sound is one such event, as well as a few attempts to make Marty look like an especially cool teenager. There is also little explanation as to why a 17-year old would be hanging round with an eccentric scientist in the first place. But these moments do little to affect the overall enjoyment of the movie because everything else is so much fun.

It’s hard to dislike Back To The Future. I’m seriously trying to find fault, but everything is so minor, and when the film overall is as memorable and as enjoyable as it is, it’s a bit silly to recommend improvements. It achieves what it set out to do, and does so in a way that made it a justified classic.

Starring Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, Crispin Glover, Thomas F. Wilson & Claudia Wells

Written by Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale

Produced by Bob Gale & Neil Canton, executive producer Steven Spielberg

Music score by Alan Silvestri, songs by Huey Lewis & The News

Favourite Scene: Marty sits down to dinner with his mother’s family as a teenager, and slips up numerous times with lines about owning two TVs and having seen a 50s TV show before. It’s hilarious.

Scene That Bugged Me: There’s a big dramatic moment that suggests Marty still has something left to do before he’s fixed time, only for it to fizzle out moments later. It all seems a bit pointless.

Watch it if: You want to see some serious shit when a DeLorean hits 88mph

Avoid it if: You’re allergic to the 1980s

Similar Movies
#38 Ghostbusters
#41 Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Movie Connections
#10 Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis, Christopher Lloyd)

#28 The Pianist

2011-12-20T12:32:00.004Z

(2002, Roman Polanski)

“Spielman? That’s a good name for a pianist”

The Pianist is the story of Polish Jewish musician Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Holocaust survivor whose memoirs were the basis on which the film was built. Caught up in the middle of German occupation of Poland during World War II, Szpilman sees first-hand the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and travels across occupied Poland trying to stay alive.

The major thing to note about this movie is that it’s not so much telling a story as it is merely a set of events strung together. The biographical nature of the movie makes it clear that there is no beginning, middle or end to all of this, just a condensed retelling of 6 years of real events during this time. It doesn’t matter how the film ends, since we already know the war ends and that Szpilman lives merely by knowing it’s based on his own account of the terrible events. But what this film does so effectively is show the struggles of one man as he’s thrust into a world he didn’t want to be a part of.

Szpilman is played incredibly well by Adrien Brody, who for much of the second half of the film is acting by himself, relying entirely on body language to convey the thoughts and feelings of the titular musician. The fact that he can carry the movie so well while simply wandering through an abandoned hospital as a fading corpse of a man is proof of his acting prowess. But even with other characters, he shines. He’s likeable when interacting with his family and acquaintances in mildly happier times, and his extreme sorrow at being torn away from his family and home in later events is moving without going overboard.

The film is also beautifully shot. As Szpilman becomes more and more isolated, we begin to see him more and more distantly. The Warsaw ghetto is suitably grimy and hopeless. Even the Nazi atrocities, such as shooting weaker workers in the head indiscriminately or forcing large groups of Jews onto cramped trains to Treblinka, are shot effectively, clearly demonstrating the suffering being experienced.

Together, these are the two elements that hold the film together, which is good, because without them the movie would fall flat. There’s no real plot here, and while that may be the point due to the nature of the story being told, it does make the film occasionally feel disjointed. We’re rushed through 6 years of Polish history within the space of two and a half hours, and this can be felt at times as we leap from scene to scene. There’s very little time to better establish Szpilman’s family members, or to build on his relationship with those who chose to help him after he escapes the ghetto. It is understandable that with this length, some things are going to fall to the wayside, but it’s still a shame we don’t get to spend a bit more time with the support cast.

However, this doesn’t let the film down. It’s still a powerful film. It doesn’t try and force an opinion of the Nazis on the audience, instead letting us pass our own judgements (even though it’s hard to sympathise with the Nazi cause). It prefers to show rather than point fingers of blame. The film merely acts as a casual observer, and is all the more effective for it.

It’s a very slow film overall, but it does carry a great emotional weight. Definitely worth watching.

Starring Adrien Brody, Ed Stoppard, Emilia Fox, Maureen Lipman, Frank Finlay & Thomas Kretschmann

Written by Wladyslaw Szpilman (autobiography) & Ronald Harwood

Produced by Roman Polanski, Robert Benmussa & Alain Sarde

Music by Wojciech Kilar

Favourite Scene: The scene where Spzilman is discovered by Nazi officer Wilm Hosenfeld and told to play the piano is profound. He hasn’t played in months, even years, and so he loses himself completely in his playing, and so this is a major emotional moment for a man whose life is music.

Scene That Bugged Me: Szpilman's love interest is largely unnecessary. She didn't even exist, either, she was made up for the film. She may as well have never been created, since she pretty much disappears once Szpilman goes to the ghetto

Watch it if: You want proof a single actor can carry a film

Avoid it if: You're scared by all the Polish names.

Similar Movies
#21 The Lives Of Others
#35 Grave Of The Fireflies
#43 Schindler's List

#27 Videodrome

2011-12-15T15:38:00.004Z

(1983, David Cronenberg)

“It’s just torture and murder. No plot, no characters.”

OK, I’m going to just straight up say it. I always add a quote to these reviews, something that sums up something with the review and/or film. In this case, the quote may as well be my review. Because that’s pretty much all I have to say about it. That and the fact that I came away from Videodrome feeling completely lost and confused.

This head trip of a movie stars James Woods as Max Renn, a sleazy executive at Channel 83, a backwater satellite channel devoted to showing softcore pornography and hardcore violence, the kind of gritty stuff the mainstream channels wouldn’t touch with a ten foot bargepole. One day, he intercepts a pirate broadcast of a TV show depicting mindless torture, and he is determined to get it placed onto his channel, and seeks to locate its source. However, as he gets closer, he begins to experience strange hallucinations and a gaping vaginal hole appears in his torso. And that’s round about the time I lose track of what the hell is happening.

You see, Videodrome has a fantastic concept, and in these days of increased media manipulation (the Leveson Inquiry has been a big factor of raising the issue in the UK) a film like this could have seemed prophetic, as well as offering up a debate of where we draw the line with censorship. Except in practice, it’s a concept that’s poorly executed. Round about the halfway mark, the film loses all sense of coherence and devolves into weird special effects and obtuse nonsensical dialogue and events.

Films don’t necessarily need to lead you by the hand to be entertaining and watchable, but there still needs to be something to cling to in order to help you put the pieces together. Videodrome seems to lack this entirely. At the halfway point, everything stops making sense. It’s possible the entire movie from this point on is merely another of Max’s hallucinations, but the fact it does reveal a few sensible plot twists throws this theory into question too. It feels, largely, like Cronenberg was making it up as he went along.

The effects, it must be said, are effective. They’re suitably gory and creepy, but ultimately they’re used for nothing in particular. Max gets a giant vagina in his abdomen that can receive videotapes. A hand comes out of a TV holding a gun. Another gun fuses gruesomely to Max’s hand through spikes driven through his fingers. But ultimately these scenes are meaningless. They don’t seem to achieve anything in the grand scheme of things. There doesn’t even seem to be a grand scheme of things. I have no objection to ambiguous, seemingly nonsensical movies (I’m a big fan of David Lynch, for example), but when the film doesn’t seem to be able to make up its mind about what it wants to be representing, it feels frustrating.

Overall, it feels like the movie was made to elicit the same shock value that Channel 83’s critics within the movie object to, but rather than doing this cleverly in a satirical or knowing style, the whole movie just feels like a dumb b-movie but without the requisite hammy acting to make it watchable. In fact, James Woods is just that – wooden. As previously stated, there’s a good message in here somewhere, it just got lost along the way.

After how much I enjoyed The Fly, I was genuinely expecting something good here from Cronenberg, but I was massively disappointed.

Starring James Woods, Debbie Harry, Les Carlson, Jack Creley, Sonja Smits & Peter Dvorsky

Written by David Cronenberg

Produced by Claude Heroux

Music score by Howard Shore

Favourite Scene: I didn’t have one, sorry. I suppose Debbie Harry’s attractive enough to make her scenes watchable, but then again if that’s my reason, I may as well be watching a Blondie video. And the lyrics of “Rapture” make a lot more sense anyway.

Scene That Bugged Me: As soon as Max has a videotape inserted into his stomach vagina (seriously, I’m struggling to make it not sound ridiculously stupid) all sense of coherency flies out of the movie and never returns.

Watch it if: You’re now curious as to what I mean by a “stomach vagina”

Avoid it if: You’re baffled by the unexplained concept of “the new flesh”

Movies You Should Watch Instead
#4 The Matrix
#13 Ring
#19 The Fly
#57 Audition

#26 Breaking Away

2011-12-12T11:03:00.004Z

(1979, Peter Yates)

“I thought that was the whole plan. I thought that we were going to waste the rest of our lives together”

It’s summer, and a group of high school leavers are contemplating their futures. It’s a common scenario, one that many of us would have experienced at some point in our lives. Breaking Away is a film that takes a light-hearted look at this immense period of change and how it can end up shaping the rest of our lives.

The movie focuses on Dave (Dennis Christopher), a teenage cycling enthusiast fresh out of school. He’s obsessed with Italy and would love nothing more than to join one of the major Italian cycling teams. When not cycling, he wastes his time down at the local quarry, now flooded and used as a swimming hole, with his friends Mike (Dennis Quaid), Cyril (Daniel Stern) and Mooch (Jackie Earle Haley). The four of them want to stick together and hang out the way they’ve always done, but adult life is steadily creeping up on them.

The first thing that’s noticeable about Breaking Away is the fact that the story is a little disjointed; it kind of leaps around and things don’t happen in very rigid, filmic ways. However, this disjointed feel is oddly part of the film’s charm. It makes it feel like we’re looking into a real slice of life. While I did notice this odd leaping around quite often, not once did it bother me.

It’s possibly because the characters are so well written and so wonderfully performed. The dialogue feels realistic, with characters expressing their feelings in a very human, very non-saccharine way, and the humour is light, but effective. Gags don’t feel like they’re there because it’s time for a comedy moment, they’re there because the characters feel like joking around. It’s what makes the group of friends so identifiable. Each has their own aspirations and personalities, but not one of them feels like a fictional template.

Best of all is Dave’s father, a crotchety old-fashioned working class man who moans constantly about his son’s Italian obsession and refusal to knuckle down and get a job. He’s a wonderful comic character for much of the movie, but is also realistically portrayed in his comedy, never once going over the top. He’s also balanced with a few moments that demonstrate his genuine love for his son despite his complaints, but they are done in a way that perfectly fits his rigid old moaning persona.

Due to the way the plot is structured, there are a few issues with the plot as a whole. The end of the film does leave a great sense of “where do they go from here?” especially since it’s unclear as to whether or not the group will stick together or go their separate ways to pursue their own goals. While this is forgivable, keeping with the “slice of life” feel and allowing the viewer to make their own interpretations, what is less forgivable is the love story side-plot.

For a good portion of the film, Dave pursues a university student named Cathy by pretending to be an Italian foreign student, and so much of the film questions when Dave will inevitably be found out, and what will happen, but this is poorly resolved. This time, however, the slice of life doesn’t save the lack of real closure. The film sets itself up to reveal an ending to that thread at least, then leaves an ambiguous ending that hangs in the air rather uncomfortably, particularly when the end of the film rolls around.

The climactic race also suffers from issues. It’s clear how it will end, because films that end with a big sporting event always end the way you expect. However, the actual race scenes are well shot, and even with the predictability, they still feel quite tense. Even though my inner cynic was already repeating the inevitable ending over and over, I was sitting there going “GO ON DAVE! YOU CAN DO IT!” which says something, especially as I don’t even do that with real sporting events.

Overall though, Breaking Away is a quaint little film that doesn’t try too hard to impress, just gives us a light-hearted look into a section of working class America and the perils of trying to find your place in life. It’s possibly not for everyone, but I enjoyed it.

Starring Dennis Christopher, Dennis Quaid, Daniel Stern, Jackie Earle Haley, Paul Dooley, Barbara Barrie & Robyn Douglass
Written by Steve Tesich
Produced by Peter Yates

Favourite Scene: Dave and his father walk through the grounds of the university and have a heartfelt conversation about life and the society of their town. It expands the father’s character and warms us a little more to Dave at the same time.

Scene That Bugged Me: Cathy appears to Dave following his revelation that he’s not really Italian, and seems to forgive him, but it’s ambiguous, almost obtusely so.

Watch it if: You want to relive the post-high school summer between adolescence and adulthood

Avoid it if: You’re more a fan of motorbikes.

Similar Movies
#3 Little Miss Sunshine
#22 Trainspotting
#41 Ferris Bueller's Day Off

#25 Pan's Labyrinth

2011-12-11T12:19:00.005Z

(El Laberinto del Fauno)
(2006, Guillermo del Toro)

“Life isn’t like your fairy tales. The world is a cruel place”

Whenever somebody sees the words “fairy tale” it’s automatically assumed that the story, whether it’s in a book or a movie, is instantly for kids. And while more recent fairy tale adaptations have been aimed at the smaller among us, there is a surprising amount of gore and murder in the original texts. Which is clearly what Guillermo del Toro realised when he made Pan’s Labyrinth.

It’s 1944 in fascist Spain, five years after the Spanish Civil War. The film is set in an isolated military outpost, a converted mill attempting to hold off the rebel factions who are camped out in the surrounding woods. The outpost is led by the stern, ruthless Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez), who is intensely proud of himself and his family’s military history. He also has a son on the way, so he’s ordered his wife and stepdaughter to be moved onto the base so that his son can be born near his father.

But where does the fairy tale connection come in? Well, Vidal’s stepdaughter Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) is constantly losing herself in books, fairy tales in particular. As the movie progresses, the world of fairy tales begins to leak into the real world through a mysterious labyrinth near the base, home to a faun who claims that she is the lost princess of the fairy world and she needs to complete three tasks to return there.

One thing that you’d be forgiven for thinking is that this is a quirky family movie, but the mere mention of fascist Spain should be a major hint that it is far from family-friendly. The fantasy world seemingly exists as an escape for Ofelia, otherwise traumatised by the horrors of war and fascism around her, as well as her oppressive stepfather. This is a dark movie, and should be treated as such.

Visually, the movie is impressive. The fantasy imagery, particularly the makeup on the faun and monsters such as the horrific Pale Man, is stunning. There is great attention to detail in trying to bring the fairy tale world to life. But also, this attention to detail extends to the post-Civil War side of things, which does lead to some very impressive but very gruesome scenes. The film doesn’t spare us the horrors of war, it shows everything, specifically to show us the world that Ofelia is so desperate to escape from.

The story of fascist Spain is effective, a tale of intrigue and war that raises questions of loyalty and keeps you glued to your seat. The fairy tale plot, however, is a little lacking. There are a few minor plot holes and while there are some intelligent scenes, such as those in the lair of the Pale Man, it ultimately feels quite hollow. What’s more, the two stories don’t really gel together that well. There are some small parallels – the camp’s doctor makes a small speech about following orders that becomes quite apt in Ofelia’s choices – but overall the two are so separate they may as well be different movies.

But it’s also entirely possible that this is the point. The lack of connection could be what attracts Ofelia to escape to the fairy world, a world entirely disconnected from the terrible one she lives in. And as for the plot holes, this could be because the entire story is based on the flawed world of real fairy tales. Plus it’s vague as to whether the fairy tale world is real or all in Ofelia’s mind. If it’s the latter, the strange leaps of logic make sense as they are taking place in the mind of a child.

Pan’s Labyrinth is a very good movie with plenty of layers in the plots, but perhaps the two do not meet as well as they probably should.

Starring Ivana Baquero, Sergi Lopez, Maribel Verdu & Doug Jones
Written by Guillermo del Toro
Produced by Alfonso Cuaran, Bertha Navarro, Guillermo del Toro & Frida Torresblanco
Music score by Javier Navarrete

Favourite Scene: After witnessing far too many horrors at the hands of the Captain, the doctor finally takes a stand and tells the captain what he really thinks. It’s a brave move, but it’s hard to question the strength of the doctor’s personal ethics here. The performances are just excellent.

Scene That Bugged Me: Ofelia fails a task and is told she will never see the faun again, but then the faun reappears and gives her a second chance. This seems a bit out of nowhere and unexplained.

Watch it if: You want fairy tales to turn real

Avoid it if: You think it’s for kids.

Similar Movies
#4 The Matrix
#7 Princess Mononoke
#10 Who Framed Roger Rabbit
#54 Spirited Away

#24 The Elephant Man

2011-12-09T16:35:00.004Z

(1980, David Lynch)

“I am not an animal! I am a human being!”

In Victorian England, freak shows and curiosity exhibits were popular, displaying all manner of strange and wonderful examples of odd human beings, from dwarves to Siamese twins. The most unusual and subsequently one of the most famous examples of this was Joseph Merrick (incorrectly referred to as John in some texts, including in this movie), also known as The Elephant Man, so called because of numerous physical deformities such as an enlarged head and tumorous growths all over his body.

The movie is a biopic of this man, as played by John Hurt, detailing his life from the time he was taken out of a circus show and put into the care of Dr Frederick Treves (here played by Anthony Hopkins). Some liberties have been taken with the storyline compared to reality – particularly in regard to the timeline of events – but otherwise all events portrayed are taken from biographies and notes about the real Merrick’s life.

The first thing to note about The Elephant Man is that this is a relatively straightforward film, but is made by a director who is anything but straightforward in his style. David Lynch is known for his weird art films that rarely ever tell an obviously coherent story, so it’s surprising that this movie is not like that in the slightest. There are concessions to Lynch’s trademarks in a few short surreal dream sequences, but these are used to highlight Merrick’s inevitably tortured soul in what is otherwise a very simple, very sweet story.

The film moves very slowly, and in fact features very little conflict to drive the story along. While this sounds like the film could be a disaster, there is a great warmth to the portrayal of Merrick that helps move the film along. We identify with Merrick’s plight, and sympathise with man who is treated like dirt by many for his physical appearance, despite having a kind and intelligent soul within. He exhibits no malice towards others and just wants to live a happier life.

John Hurt is the main reason for all of this. Despite being covered in mountains of prosthetic makeup to allow him to transform into the “elephant man”, he still exhibits a range and depth of emotion from underneath it that help us see Merrick as someone who should be accepted for who he is rather than ridiculed and ostracised for his deformities. That Hurt can do this so effectively when we can barely see his face or hear his voice is a testament to his acting ability.

But the movie’s not perfect. The narrative isn’t particularly strong and events feel a bit disjointed at times. The few moments of conflict are often brushed over very quickly. Even events that were added for creative reasons to help create a stronger narrative could easily have been left out and not much would have changed. In addition, character development is poor. Treves, although played well by Hopkins, is a very bland character whose sole character conflict – whether or not he’s any better than the sideshow owners who previously held him captive – lasts for all of one scene and then is never brought up again. Some more exploration here would have been truly effective.

But ultimately, the film is very emotional and a rather suitable tribute to the life of this strange but wonderful man. It sets out to tug at the heart strings and, Lynchian dream sequences aside, succeeds admirably.

Starring Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt & Anne Bancroft
Written by Frederick Treves (book), Ashley Montagu (book), Christopher De Vore, Eric Bergren & David Lynch
Produced by Jonathan Sanger, executive producer Mel Brooks
Music score by John Morris

Favourite Scene: Merrick’s visit to Treves’ home is fantastic. We can truly see the joy that Merrick is feeling at finally seeing a “real home”

Scene That Bugged Me: Any time the movie wants to remind you David Lynch was behind it. Seriously, did we need a five minute acid trip involving a troupe of elephants and a screaming woman? At least there weren’t any backwards-talking dancing midgets, even though that could have been possible.

Watch it if: You want to see an ostracised man get his rightful place in society

Avoid it if: You don’t like people with big deformed heads

Similar Movies
#36 Edward Scissorhands

Movie Connections
#5 Alien (John Hurt)

#23 Deep End

2011-12-08T01:55:00.003Z

(1970, Jerzy Skolimowski)

“I love her”

“You perverted little monster”

British cinema of the 1960s and 70s was very fond of the sex romp comedy, with the likes of Carry On and Benny Hill setting the tone for a whole wealth of cheeky nudging films and TV shows, designed to titillate and amuse in equal measure. Deep End takes this sauciness and throws it into question by taking the genre a much darker direction.

It’s about 15 year old Mike (John Moulder-Brown), fresh out of school and taking on his first job as a pool attendant at a local swimming baths. Here he meets Susan (Jane Asher), his co-worker, a red-headed tease, who he finds very attractive. Initially the film heads down the sex romp path, with Mike being seduced by unattractive middle aged women in an attempt to gain some good tips, but then takes a darker turn when he becomes more and more obsessed with Susan, whose teasing merely pushes him further.

The problem is, the line between sex romp and dark stalker tale is blurred far too much for the film to be entirely effective. Mike’s obsession with Susan isn’t explored in very much detail; he just starts acting weird around her and begins stalking her to her meetings with her fiancé. While clearly this is all supposed to reflect the mind of a teenage boy, we see barely any hints of his growing attachment to her beside an extremely bizarre hallucination scene that seems to pop up out of nowhere. In addition, there are times where Mike flips between hating Susan’s lifestyle and loving her adoringly without question. While this makes sense from a teenage perspective (we’ve all been there) it’s handled so poorly we don’t really see much of a conflict running through his head that tears him between these two opinions, bar a scene where he sets off a fire alarm to vent his frustration.

In addition, the sex romp tone continues even when we’re heading down the darker path, as a scene where Mike stumbles into a prostitute’s bedroom by accident illustrates. It’s clearly meant to be a funny scene, but at the same time it’s far too easy to feel it’s out of place. The movie flip flops between the two tones so drastically that by the end of the movie you just end up confused about where the plot went. Also, the ending feels abrupt and out of place. It was clearly meant to be a twist, but it comes from out of nowhere and feels little bit of a cheap way to finish the story.

Which is a shame because the concept is a solid one. The “swinging sixties” is a romantic idealised version of London in those times, and it’s good to see a film attempt to deconstruct it and show a seedier side to all that free love. Jane Asher is also very good as Susan, and seemingly ad-libbed most of her dialogue considering how natural it feels. But this is the sole recommendation the film gets here.

The first movie of this blog to make me question why this is a film you must see before you die. A good concept, but one that is severely flawed in its execution.

Starring Jane Asher, John Moulder-Brown, Christopher Sandford & Diana Dors
Written by Jerzy Skolimowski, Jerzy Gruza & Boleslaw Sulik
Produced by Helmut Jedele
Music by Cat Stevens & Can

Favourite Scene: Mike and Susan have a conversation while hiding in the rafters of the baths. One of the few scenes that explains Mike’s feeling of connection to Susan, and it works.

Scene That Bugged Me: The ending. It feels so out of left-field that it makes it all the more apparent the movie hasn’t been consistent in its tone up to that point.

Watch it if: You want to see Jane Asher ad-lib about being hungry

Avoid it if: You’d rather the film picked a single idea and ran with it

Sven Speaks: An Update

2011-12-05T15:16:00.001Z

I'm still around, folks, just been a bit busy. Reviews are still being written, but at the moment I'm just waiting for some feedback on them. When I have that, I'll post them up. And yes, there is a Xmas movie coming, for those who are curious ;)

#22 Trainspotting

2011-11-30T12:39:00.005Z

(1996, Danny Boyle)

“It’s shite being Scottish!”

When Trainspotting came out in the mid-90s, it generated controversy from the moral guardians of the UK. Apparently, it was not explicit enough in its anti-drug message, that it somehow glamorised the drug scene; it was telling people to start taking heroin and mess up their lives.

Of course, this is all complete nonsense, as any cursory glance at the movie could tell you. It tells the tale of Marc Renton (aka Rent Boy, played by Ewan McGregor), a heroin addict, and his misfit group of friends – small-time pusher Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), the ultimate loser Spud (Ewen Bremner), and the violent, psychotic Begbie (Robert Carlyle). It’s a slice of life piece, showing a period of time in late-90s Edinburgh as the effects of the drug lifestyle begin to take hold.

It is true that Trainspotting doesn’t constantly hit the viewer with a “drugs are bad” message, and even at times Renton’s narration informs us that heroin is the best feeling in the world, but the point is, the message is there, it’s just not pushed into our faces. Why does the film need to tell us drugs are bad when the characters are living in squalor and filth? Why does it need to explicitly say drugs will ruin your life when a baby dies from neglect and the spread of HIV through unwashed needles is a plot point? And what is more effective at demonstrating the futile nature of the drug lifestyle than Renton reaching into The Worst Toilet In Scotland to retrieve heroin suppositories? The film doesn’t need to tell us anything, it shows us more than enough, and in cinema, showing not telling is the way to go to make a great movie.

In fact, this is what Danny Boyle does brilliantly here. He chooses not to directly judge the characters, and instead offers up an almost perverse look into the lives of these people and lets the viewer make up his or her own mind regarding their moral stance on the issue. And with scenes like the aforementioned toilet scene and Renton’s horrific hallucinations while he’s under a detox from the drug, it’s hard for anyone to argue that drugs are a good thing.

But, much like Requiem For A Dream, Boyle has slipped in parallels with more “socially acceptable” forms of addiction. We frequently see characters smoking, Renton mentions his mother is prescribed Valium (even referring to her as a socially acceptable drug addict in the process), and Begbie is a violent thug who never takes drugs, but is a habitual alcohol drinker. This parallel is more a subtle addition than Requiem’s direct subplot approach, but it’s there, creeping in the background.

Trainspotting isn’t as harrowing as Requiem, but by his own admission Renton is a very lucky man to not suffer the worst of the drug scene, although it is happening around him. But this is partially due to his desire to reform himself. It’s not clear if he has or ever will, however; the ending is ambiguous. Again, this is left to the audience to decide, and is all the more effective.

Trainspotting is generally considered one of the greatest British movies of the 1990s, and it’s easy to see why. It’s well scripted, well-directed, brilliantly acted and has one of the best soundtracks ever, taking some of the best of the Britpop and 90s UK rave scene, with some Iggy Pop and Lou Reed thrown in for good measure. Definitely worth watching, if you can get past some of the thick Scottish accents.

Starring Ewan McGregor, Robert Carlyle, Jonny Lee Miller, Ewen Bremner, Kevin McKidd & Kelly Macdonald
Written by Irvine Welsh (novel) & John Hodge
Produced by Andrew Macdonald
Music by Iggy Pop, Underworld, Brian Eno, Primal Scream, Sleeper, New Order, Lou Reed & Pulp

Favourite Scene: An early scene showing Renton’s non drug taking friends and family chastising him for taking heroin, while simultaneously drinking shots, smoking and eating junk food. It’s the key indicator of the subtle parallels with socially acceptable addiction.

Scene That Bugged Me: The toilet scene gets a bit too weird with the deep sea diving hallucination. Still not sure of its effectiveness.

Watch it if: You don’t need subtitles to understand the Scottish

Avoid it if: You’re a member of the Conservative Party.

Similar Movies
#17 Requiem For A Dream
#23 Deep End

#21 The Lives Of Others

2011-11-24T16:31:00.006Z

(Das Leben Der Anderen)
(2006, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)

“They’re bad people who put people in prison, says my dad”

World War II movies are a dime a dozen. However, less is made of what became of Germany after the War, particularly in regard to the Soviet-controlled East Germany. The Lives Of Others is one of few attempts to address that.

Set in East Germany a few years prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, State Security officer Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe) is assigned to put playwright Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) under surveillance; mostly for suspicions of plotting against the state, but also to find a way to get him out of the picture due to the Minister’s personal interests in Dreyman’s girlfriend Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck). However, over time, Wiesler becomes attached to his targets, and begins to sabotage the operation from within.

The Lives Of Others is a very human film, themed around the strength of the spirit and the power of art over emotion. Wiesler transforms from a heartless state robot into an emotional, warm human being over the course of the film. But what makes it work so well is that the shift is subtle, with nothing overly sentimental beating the audience over the head in order to grasp what’s happening. Lots of little simple moments of intimacy between the couple gently pick away at Wiesler’s cold exterior rather than one big heavy-handed tide of sentimental nonsense.

The way this works is through contrast and the superb acting from Mühe. We see little of Wiesler’s home life, but what we do see is a sad, lonely man living in a grey apartment alone; a cog in the emotionless communist machine. Even his feeble attempts at attaining the same kind of intimacy speak volumes, hiring a prostitute in one of the most emotionless sex scenes in cinema history. But Mühe plays this so well, barely changing his expression throughout much of the film apart from a slight raised eyebrow here, or a fractionally upturned lip there. He plays him stern and emotionless, but with an almost frail undertone.

The plot also never quite goes where you expect it to. Due to Wiesler being torn between duty and his new found feelings of warmth, it’s always unexpected where events will take us all next. We never quite know if he will succeed at saving Georg and Christa-Maria or if he’ll get caught trying. It’s this constant cloud of uncertainty hanging over proceedings that keeps the film going.

However, there are some minor issues. A little bit of research indicates that a solo surveillance operation was rare within the GDR, and therefore throws the realistic tone of the movie out of the window. However, the point isn’t to tell an accurate story of East Germany, it’s to show the power of hope and compassion, and how it can change people.

There is also an issue with not really showing enough reasoning for Wiesler’s change. It feels rather rapid, and there’s a feeling that in reality, his shell would be a lot tougher to crack. It’s entirely possible that his humanity existed underneath, but this isn’t explored in the movie. Either some insight to possible humanity underneath the stern exterior or a greater feeling of an extended period of time listening in on the couple would have helped make this feel a little more believable.

Still, The Lives Of Others is fantastic. Its ability to make us connect with an unfeeling robot of a man is enough recommendation in my book.

Starring Ulrich Muhe, Sebastian Koch, Martina Gedeck & Ulrich Tukur
Written by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Produced by Quirin Berg & Max Wiedemann
Music score by Stephane Moucha & Gabriel Yared

Favourite Scene: There’s a scene where Wiesler gets into a lift with a small child, and it’s here that we really begin to see his character change. It’s a short scene, but it says a lot.

Scene That Bugged Me: When Wiesler tries to conceal his report from his commander, I found it odd that the commander never noticed it. After all, he, much like the rest of the Statsi, are supposed to be experts at spotting these things.

Watch it if: You want to know what a small boy named his ball

Avoid it if: You want an accurate representation of the fall of the GDR

Similar Movies
#28 The Pianist
#43 Schindler's List

#20 Jaws

2011-11-22T14:06:00.006Z

(1975, Steven Spielberg)

“You yell shark, we got a panic on our hands”

Steven Spielberg is one of the world’s most successful directors, known the world over. The vast majority of his movies are huge successes, but let’s not forget the movie that was his first success. A film that not only jump-started Spielberg’s career, but practically invented the summer blockbuster in the process. It’s a film about a shark. It’s called Jaws.

Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) discovers the remains of a young woman on the beach. Her body has been torn apart, suggesting a possible shark attack. Amidst the mayor’s apparent refusal to close the beaches to prevent further incidents, shark expert Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) is brought in to investigate. Eventually, Brody and Hooper, together with the Captain Ahab-esque Quint (Robert Shaw) go on the hunt for the great white that’s been terrorising the coast.

Spielberg notoriously had problems making this movie, particularly as the mechanical shark they used kept breaking down and generally looked a bit rubbish, forcing him to merely allude to the beast rather than show it. However, this actually helps the tension rather than hinders it. We rarely ever see the shark, and all we know is that it’s big and it’s dangerous. Even the scenes where it attacks show little. The first attack is represented through the splashing and fighting of the victim on the surface, while later attacks are represented by little more than dark stains of blood in the ocean. The audience must fill in the gaps themselves, and this makes things worse.

However, although many viewers consider Jaws to be a terrifying movie, personally, it didn’t seem all that scary. Yes, it was suspenseful, and the attacks were effective, but ultimately, not that scary. This does not make the movie a failure, more that sometimes it’s dropped into the wrong genre.

But while the movie may not be too successful as a horror movie, it is successful in other ways. Scenes such as those showing a growing companionship on the boat between the team of shark hunters are brilliantly acted and show a great deal of chemistry with the actors involved. The scenes with the mayor are fantastic political commentary, with the mayor torn between doing what’s sensible and pleasing the voters to maintain his own position. Character-wise, this movie is fantastic.

However, it’s not perfect. Proceedings tend to move very slowly, and the sequence of events feels very disjointed. While much of the movie consists of some superb moments, the overall package isn’t so well put together. Reports that the film had been written as it was filmed seem plausible, as not everything gels as well as it should. For instance, the beach sequences seem recycled from each other, and Quint’s initial introduction seems a little out of nowhere before he disappears for far too long. Some more revision of continuity could have helped.

In summary, a movie with a number of effective parts, but falls just short of working as well as it should. Much like Bruce the Shark, in fact.

Starring Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, Robert Shaw & Murray Hamilton
Written by Peter Benchley (novel) & Carl Gottlieb
Produced by David Brown & Richard D. Zanuck
Music score by John Williams

Favourite Scene: The opening scene is perfect at demonstrating the threat of the shark. An unsuspecting victim is picked off by surprise, and disappears without anyone realising what has happened.

Scene That Bugged Me: I always felt there was one mass beach scene too many. It felt like the plot was recycling itself.

Watch it if: You, like me, live nowhere near the ocean

Avoid it if: You think you’re going to need a bigger boat

Similar Movies:
#31 Titanic - both feature "terror" at sea...yes, it's a tenuous link.

Movie Connections
#1 Airplane! (parodied)
#2 Raiders Of The Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg)

#19 The Fly

2011-11-21T03:43:00.006Z

(1986, David Cronenberg)

“I’m working on something that will change the world, and human life as we know it”

The Fly was originally a 1950s b-movie, a wacky comedy about a man getting his head stuck to a fly and all the shenanigans that go on from that. OK, it was actually a horror movie starring Vincent Price, but still. However, this review isn’t about that. Instead, we’re talking about David Cronenberg’s pseudo-remake of the same name. It isn’t a remake in the true sense of the word, as all Cronenberg did was take the basic premise and then wrote his own script around it, adding in a few of his trademark themes for good measure.

Jeff Goldblum plays Seth Brundle, a scientist who invites a reporter (Geena Davis) to his lab to see an exciting new project that he has unfolding – the production of a teleporter. She agrees to follow the events, and the two begin a relationship. However, things take a much darker turn when Brundle sends himself through the teleporter and inadvertently crosses his DNA with that of a fly, producing a terrifying hybrid.

Where this film succeeds is that the horror of the transformation is discovered gradually over the course of the movie, rather than presenting us with some cheesy monster. Brundle emerges from the gene splicing apparently unharmed, and in fact initially shows dramatic improvement in his muscle structure, giving him great strength and stamina. But over time, things get creepier. As the two forms converge, Brundle begins to take on more and more insect-like attributes, terrifying his new girlfriend and essentially morphing into what could only be described as an abomination.

The slow build-up of the true horror of this transformation is effective, with each change instilling more and more horror. The tone of the movie consistently shifts too, starting out very light-hearted and fun before gradually becoming more serious as events progress. We are led to like both Brundle and Veronica, which makes the resulting events even more harrowing.

The performances of Goldblum and Davis are what truly help this. They inject real humanity into their characters. Veronica could have easily become a shrieking damsel in distress, but Davis plays her very intelligently, and as someone that can be easily identified with. In addition, Goldblum is excellent at conveying the tortured soul within Brundle, particularly as the transformation takes hold. What’s more, the chemistry between the two is phenomenal, and just adds to the effect.

And, naturally, the effects look impressive, if a little creaky by today’s standards. The makeup is gruesome and unsettling for the most part, although there is the odd slip-up here and there. In addition, the ultimate “Brundlefly” at the end does look a little ropey, but fortunately, Cronenberg chooses to keep this one to a minimum right at the end.

Overall, The Fly is a powerful movie, one that maintains strong characters to make the horror all the more effective. It could have been so easy to turn this concept into a shocking gore-fest, and yet it never strays down that path, for which it deserves to be commended.

Starring Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davies & John Getz
Written by George Langelaan (short story), Charles Edward Pogue & David Cronenberg
Produced by Stuart Cornfield
Music score by Howard Shore

Favourite Scene: The perverse comedy of Brundle’s behaviour following the gene splicing. We know something’s gone horribly wrong, but it’s played for laughs

Scene That Bugged Me: Dear Mr Cronenberg, I never wanted to see a human scale version of how a fly eats, thanks. Love and kisses, Sven

Watch it if: You want to see what a Brundlefly looks like, you strange person

Avoid it if: You’re afraid, very afraid.

Similar Movies:
#5 Alien
#27 Videodrome
#42 Black Swan
#61 Rosemary's Baby

#18 Batman

2011-11-13T23:43:00.006Z

(1989, Tim Burton)

“Where does he get all those wonderful toys?”

No, this is not a review of either of Christophe Nolan’s excellent Batman movies. Batman Begins is inexplicably not in the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and The Dark Knight was released after the edition I’m working from came out. [EDIT: Although it may have been added on my new "updated" list...] No, this is Tim Burton’s 1989 version of the Dark Knight’s story.

The basics of Batman you should already know. Millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne secretly lives a double life as the mysterious vigilante superhero Batman, a persona he created to right the wrongs in revenge for the death of his parents as a child. Got that? Good. So, the plot of Burton’s movie. Gotham City is struggling with a crime problem, and Police Commissioner Gordon is looking for ways to bring down the crime lord Grissom. During a raid on one of his operations, Grissom’s right hand man Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) is thrown into a vat of chemicals by a mysterious man taking on the appearance of a bat (that’d be Batman, played by Michael Keaton). Napier emerges later, his skin bleached white, as The Joker, a crazed criminal bent on taking over the city. Meanwhile reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) is trying to figure out the identity of Batman. It’s typical superhero stuff.

It’s a very entertaining movie though. Burton’s dark and twisted cartoony style does great favours to Batman’s world, and in fact does a good job of bridging the gap between the dark Christopher Nolan/Frank Miller iterations and the campy Joel Schumacher/Adam West versions of Batman. Some of the action sequences are over the top and Jack Nicholson plays the Joker as a silly comic book villain, but some of the more serious aspects of the story such as the death of Bruce’s parents and Batman’s terrifying appearance to the criminals of Gotham are handled sensibly.

But sometimes it feels like Burton was having a hard time keeping these two sides of Batman in balance. Some aspects of the plot, especially the relationship between Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne, just feel awkward, while other aspects, such as The Joker’s plot to poison the city’s chemical supplies, aren’t given the right level of importance. While it’s good we don’t have Joel Schumacher silliness here (there are no Bat Credit Cards, for instance), it’s also disappointing that Burton seems unwilling to explore the darker areas of the Batman mythos. The movie is constantly torn between wanting to be a silly popcorn movie and trying to examine the nature of the character as a tortured soul, and sometimes I found myself wanting it to pick a theme and run with it.

Of course, visually the movie is fantastic, but it is Tim Burton at work here, so that’s to be expected. The designs of Batman, the Batcave and the numerous gadgets are fantastic. And Nicholson looks fantastic as The Joker, even down to the creepy permanent smile. And the effects, while looking a little shaky at times now, are still pretty good.

Overall, Batman is a good movie, but sadly revels too much in the sillier side of the Bat mythos for it to really work as well as the more recent Nolan movies. Batman works at his best when his stories are dark, and unfortunately Burton’s Batman just isn’t quite dark enough, although it is a step in the right direction.

Starring Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Michael Gough, Jack Palance, Robert Wuhl & Billy Dee Williams

Written by Bob Kane (characters), Sam Hamm & Warren Skaaren

Produced by Peter Guber & Jon Peters

Music score by Danny Elfman

Favourite Scene: When The Joker receives his botched plastic surgery, and laughs maniacally after seeing his own reflection. It’s chilling and a defining character moment.

Scene That Bugged Me: When Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale confess their love for one another. The romantic subplot is horribly under-developed, and this culmination of all that shows this all too well.

Watch it if: You want to see Gotham’s streets get cleaned up

Avoid it if: You’re a supervillain

Similar Movies:
#2 Raiders Of The Lost Ark
#4 The Matrix
#59 The Terminator & #60 Terminator 2: Judgement Day

#17 Requiem For A Dream

2011-11-11T13:58:00.006Z

(2000, Darren Aronofsky)

“But I’m going to be on television!”

The other day, I had a discussion with a co-worker regarding movies that are just profoundly hard to watch. Not because they’re bad movies, but because the movies are about such difficult topics that you come away finding it hard to discuss it. You just want to sit quietly in a dark room for a while until the profound uncomfortable sensation the movie gave you fades away. The movie I cited as a prime example was Requiem For A Dream.

The movie is about addiction and the American Dream. On one hand we have a group of drug addicts, Harry (Jared Leto), Tyrone (Damon Wayans) and Marion (Jennifer Connelly), who decide to move into the drug peddling trade to earn a lot of money and get themselves the lives they want to leave. On the other, we have Harry’s mother, Sara (Ellen Burstyn) who is also an addict. Except she’s addicted to something more socially acceptable – television. She constantly watches a series of infomercials and game shows, and when receives news that she’s been invited to appear on the show, she becomes obsessed with looking great for the cameras.

But as much as I’d like to avoid spoilers with these reviews (except in the “scenes” section, I’ll admit), I may as well say it right off the bat. The movie starts off gritty and moody, with only minimal hope holding some of the misery together into something bearable, but as it progresses, it only gets more depressing. About halfway through, all hope drops out of the movie and it’s just a constant downhill slope from there. Requiem For A Dream is not a happy movie.

While it may be an uncomfortable movie, it is not a bad one. In fact, its ability to connect with the viewer on such a powerful level is something only a good movie is capable of doing. It makes the viewer uncomfortable, but it’s deliberately doing everything it can to achieve that feeling. Darren Aronofsky uses rapid fire cutting to disorient the viewer, and frames everything that happens in ways the viewer can connect with. Indeed, by directly contrasting the “evil” illegal drug addiction with the “safe and acceptable” television addiction, the two become one and the same. The fact that the act of putting on a pot of coffee is presented in almost exactly the same manner as someone shooting heroin speaks volumes. Just when you’re prepared to say “yeah, but they take drugs, they have it coming”, Aronofsky hits you with something you’re bound to be doing every day, and says it’s the same thing, which throws you every time.

It also helps that the performances are pretty spectacular too. You’ll find yourself feeling sorry for Ellen Burstyn’s character constantly, for starters. She makes the character seem realistically like a lonely old woman with little better to do than just stare at a TV screen all day. Jennifer Connelly elicits both sympathy and spite in equal measure as the tormented Marion. As for Leto and Wayans, I initially had reservations, specifically in the “how can the lead singer of 30 Seconds To Mars and that guy from Scary Movie play serious parts?” area. But they pull it off. Leto is especially surprising, and while Wayans has his “wackier” moments, they actually suit the character perfectly.

But Reqiuem is a movie you’re unlikely to ever watch again. It’s so harrowing, so unrelentingly miserable, that the idea of watching it a second time seems like masochism. But if you feel you can take it, it’s worth watching at least once. It’s a masterpiece of film-making, both in its technical ability and in its ability to connect with the viewer on a serious emotional level.

Starring Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Ellen Burstyn & Damon Wayans

Written by Hubert Selby Jr & Darren Aronofsky

Produced by Eric Watson & Palmer West

Music score by Clint Mansell

Favourite Scene: The exchange towards the end of the film between Marion and the man she’s begun to receive drugs from. The subtle hints to how trapped by her addiction she is are powerful.

Scene That Bugged Me: I never quite grasped exactly what the TV show Sara is addicted to is. So anytime this appeared it bugged me.

Watch it if: A little uneasiness doesn’t scare you, and you can appreciate the message.

Avoid it if: You like your movies to come with happy endings.

Similar Movies:
#22 Trainspotting
#23 Deep End
#55 Se7en