The quest for the grail is not archeology, it's a race against evil.

No 306 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Director Steven Spielberg

When watching the films as a set in succession (as I have just done) - the qualities of this film (which I always remembered as the weakest of the original trilogy) really shine through. After the darkness of face melting and nightmare tribes, the far more jokey vibe of this film seem a lot more appropriate. There is a lot of good in The Last Crusade.... lets check it out.

Really - what we're doing with the trilogy is building and then - to a certain degree - deconstructing a legend. So where Raiders of the Lost Ark gave us the hero and a romantic foil who is his equal, the sequels begin to look at how he behaves with people less suited to his adventurous lifestyle. Whether they be children and civilians (Short Round shows Indy's paternal streak far more beautifully than his relationship with Mutt... but I'm jumping forward a film) or whether they be his own estranged family.

The films show us just enough to understand Indiana (or, as we learn from this film Henry Jones Junior) without cheapening the myth or removing the enigma.

The film begins by firstly showing Indy as a child - always a risk as it can cheapen the character, but thankfully here played by the marvellous River Phoenix. And whilst we never needed to know why Indy is scared of snakes or why he decided to carry a whip (a weapon which proves to be endlessly versatile throughout the franchise) or why he has a fedora, it IS nice to know that he was always a badass with an unshaking loyalty to things belonging in museums.

Fast forward and we go on Indy's most bonkers quest to date. The holy grail. I'm not sure why I find it so preposterous, but there is something inherently surreal about a 900 year old man, much more than a face melting ark or some Sankara stones of mass destruction... however, the ridiculousness of the film doesn't matter because it is so fun - and this plays almost entirely down to the fizzing and sparkling chemistry between two men who (whilst often quipping) aren't renown for their comedy sensibilities.

Connery and Ford are marvellous on screen together... Indy's resentment to his father crackles throughout and Connery manages to pull the most fabulous unimpressed faces. There is something quite delicious about an adrenaline fuelled action adventure ending with a withering look from one's father.

Connery takes the film and makes it something more than an enjoyable romp. He makes it wonderful.... mixing comedy - see him an Ford bickering over women (Elsa is -at last - a fabulous female character complete with fab moral grey areas) - and actual emotion (I think that as Henry realises his son may have died, we get on of Connery's finest acting moments).

The film zips along and really benefits from having the Nazis as villains. Because, you can make the Nazis appear bumbling fools without really offending anyone.... whereas an Indian cult (even an Evil one) has the dangerous tightrope of racism. This film clearly relishes in scuppering the Nazis' plans (however - as I learnt from Lego Indiana Jones, the Nazis love to over complicate things) and even fit in a Hitler sight gag.

There are other things to enjoy in this film... for example, with the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword (are they baddies? really?) we get Indy's best dressed combatants. We get the return of Sallah - I don't think I mentioned it in Raiders.... but I bloody love John Rhys-Davies in these films, but he just helps to build a near faultless entourage aiding Indy on this brilliant romp.

And I think - almost more so than the two before it - romp is the key word for this film. As it travels to far flung destinations, castles and ancient wonders and as the peril is kept fairly light hearted it means there is no trauma.

This is a happy little adventure.... and we are happy to see Indy and his entourage walk off into the sunset.

Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory

No 233 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Director - Steven Spielberg

Well... Whilst the sight of a Nazi's face melting off may be a dark ending to Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is nothing compared to the outright horror that makes up Temple of Doom.... We are in for some rough times in our PG rating. Some tough times indeed.

However, firstly, Spielberg lulls us into a false sense of security by offering what must be the campest introduction in all of his career:

So... we're in the fab 30's before war has broken out and before Raiders has taken place... And Indy is getting himself into trouble - and after an awesome little shoot out we are saddled with Indy's new sidekicks for the film....

and this is where Temple of Doom falters. After the excellent double bill of Sallah and Marion, leaving us with Willie and Short Round feels like a punishment. Especially as most of their character seems built around screaming.

In fact about 95% of Willie's screen time is scream time. That pun is gold!.

Short Round at least has some redeeming features, I particularly like the sheer idolisation with which Jonathan 'Booby Traps' Ke Quan plays towards Indy. The little moments that they share and which aren't shouting are quite gentle.

It creates a father son relationship of sorts, which plays nicely with the ladies man which was painted in film 1.

However, what I really want to talk about are the Thuggee - again we are plunged head first into an interesting tale of folklore and mythology, kept entertained by disgusting meals, sexual farcery and rollicking mine carts.... The set pieces are huge and audacious, but they all pale to the sheer horror of the villains.

The Thuggee are a genuine old Hindu cult, and whilst Wikipedia does describe some of their actions and beliefs - nothing prepares me for the horrors in this.... A FAMILY FILM.

If we ignore the torture and child abuse which runs rampant throughout this - the scenes involving human sacrifice are probably the scariest thing I've ever seen in a PG which doesn't involve Skeksis!

The film rattles on at a marvellous pace, and tells a great story. The set pieces are large and bombastic, but for me - everything is just slightly outweighed by the annoyance of Willie (who really does very little of use) and by the nightmarish qualities of the film.

Professor of Archeology, expert on the occult, and how does one say it... obtainer of rare antiquities

No 2 - Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Director - Steven Spielberg

A hand brushes through the jungle. The brim of a fedora throws a strong jaw into shadow. A leather jacket is seen through the dense foliage. A gun is produced and then WHIP CRACK we see our hero...

Much like the introduction of James Bond (something I know a lot about now thanks to BlogalongaBond) - Spielberg teases the audience before finally unveiling his hero. It is that subtle and masterful presentation (and a fucking cool crack of the whip) that makes a star. And Indy is a star. And... lets be honest... Harrison Ford is the kind of awesome that means you can fully imagine his classrooms filled with dreamy eyed girls going all gooey over him and his brainy tweed and spectacles. - I also like the Superman-esque imagery of it all. How by donning glasses, he can put on a disguise of academia and mask the fact that he is a globe trotting bad ass.

And yet a bad ass who is prone to mistakes (which is important - Ford's matinee heroes are never perfect... look at Han Solo) - after all if he hadn't removed that handful of sand, he may never have triggered the sensors in the opening temple, and subsequently we wouldn't get this amazing and oft parodied action scene.

So, the opening gambit show that Indiana is a hero... and we can therefore believe that federal agents would rope him into finding a seemingly impossible artifact. The Ark of the Covenant. Because... apparently Hitler was an obsessive of the Paranormal (as I've been told in both this and Hellboy... so it must be true).

However... it is here that there is a problem. People have been searching for the Ark for 3,000 years... Now, even though the Nazis have made a lot of necessary headway, Indy finds the thing in 20 minutes! How hard have they been looking for the last 3,000 bloody years?! The rest of the film is just Nazis stealing it and him stealing it back.... like a slapstick back and forth.

SLAPSTICK BACK AND FORTH:

But this might be because of his handy gang of awesome awesome friends. Firstly Sallah knows everyone and has an amazing voice which appears to have inspired Peter Serafinowicz in Running Wilde.

And then we have Marion.... ah Marion. She is just the most fabulous foil to Indy. Because she is even more reckless, even more temperamental, even more.... drunk... than Indy will ever be - their relationship is brilliant built around bickering and petty one up manship - so when we finally get the romance element, it turns out that a simple kissing scene becomes very steamy indeed...

Really... this is a film that has everything, even a Nazi monkey. It has action, adventure, romance and quite a lot of real horror.

The Indiana franchise is quite keen on littering sets with corpses.... but the real horror here comes from the shocking face melting finale...

How is that PG?

England. Typical. Even drug dealers don't work weekends.

No 276 - Layer Cake

Director - Matthew Vaughn

Layer Cake is the film which bridged Vaughn's 2 careers. Moving away from the go-to producer for London gangster films (though he does still have his hand in them) to become....

Layer Cake might still be in the genre which Vaughn was most familiar with, but - for a first film - it highlights a lot of style and prowess. And yet, you can see that he has learnt from the directors he has been around, and whilst his films are stylish and visually impressive, they lack the gimmicky feel that is present in Guy Ritchie's gangland films. Instead he lets the occasional visual flourish wrap itself around a twisty turny story of deals gone wrong, double crossing, crossed wires and other 'heist gone wrong' cliches. In fact, the only real constant I can think of in Vaughn's films is the casting of Jason Flemyng in tiny tiny roles.

Where this film really blossoms, is in the cast. There are some excellent turns in this and there was one real star. Now, whilst I enjoyed watching Owen Harper off Torchwood and Kingsley Shacklebolt and Nathan's Dad off Misfits - for me every second of his screentime was stolen by the might Michael Gambon. There is just something about old British actors and their old British voices that make them so hypnotic.... and he was amazing. He is menacing (but nowhere near the menace he puts into Farmer Bean) and yet you kind of understand him and his motivation.

And yet, the film's real perk is the excellent role from Daniel Craig.... playing the every-man and yet still showing a little bit of his pre-Bond bad-ass ness.... And yet, despite being a bad ass he still gets the shit constantly kicked out of him, which shows that there are always badder asses in the world....

And of course - he takes his top off so he can show off his muscley muscles.

Whilst I'm on the subject of Bond I want to talk about something which COULD BE CONSIDERED A SPOILER.

So if you don't want to know about endings and stuff.... stop reading now and be safe in the knowledge that I enjoyed this film.

However.... (and I did bloody warn you) - As Daniel Craig's nameless protagonist dies on the steps, following a cocky pun about his name... I couldn't help thinking of how it was almost a glorious reversal of the ending to Casino Royale... XXXX's death at the hands of the man who's girlfriend he 'stole' is a rather fitting echo of Bond killing the agent (even in a similar place, the steps of a grand house) for what the agents did to Vespa.

Deep man

We've gone on holiday by mistake.

No 118 - Withnail and I

Director - Bruce Robinson

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

My notes for this film include such gems as:

I am very drunk.... this is a good thing for this I think

Eggs and things. Thay are food

(sic)

The next day I awoke to this:

We didn't play the Withnail and I drinking game.... Thank God. But we did take to the spirit of the film.

So we have a film about a relationship. One that feels true and real. One that is utterly self destructive and one that needs to change.

By the end, I think it does a bit. But until that point we get to see the glorious excesses of alcohol. Withnail could drink Bernard Black under the table without breaking a sweat....

It is infamously quotable and it celebrates a very middle class squalor of struggling actors and whacked out drug dealers who return in Wayne's World and who managed to get a friend of mine a job on the tellybox.

The film manages to glorify the dangerous excess of Withnail and Marwood (the titular I) without sugar coating it. Their life is a horrific mess of comedowns, danger, paranoia and falling over. Yet, the entire film has a filthy joi de vivre running through its emotional core. It means that they still remain aspirational.

Every person who has ever had a bottle of Merlot for breakfast does so because they have a romanticised vision of Withnail in their mind's eye. Which doesn't make sense considering he is a prick for almost the entirety of the film

Outside of the central couple we get some excellent supporting roles, the most important of which is the ever fabulous Richard Griffiths as the worryingly perverse and gloriously queeny Uncle Monty. A character who I have been described as on a disappointingly high number of times. Monty is a necessary addition because, whilst he is in no way adept to do anything, without him the protagonists would die.

I think the film ends with a certain amount of redemption from Marwood. I think he realises that he can't really continue to live this way.... but I can't really remember for the life of me. However, Withnail shows no such emotion. He has no arc. He is just a whirl of dangerous stinking anarchy.

So pull up a drink(s cabinet) and enjoy an amazing British celebration of everything that is right and wrong (often at the same time) with the spurned middle class world of wasters. Shout the catchphrases and get wasted. This film is not a film for spectators.... it is a horrible glorious squalid little film begging for participants.

I wish I were big

No 190 - Big

Director - Penny Marshall

I have been in Canada.... but I got better and I'm back back BACK.

On the plane I sat through one of the most harrowing (but excellent) double bills ever - and then found a list film amongst all the new rom com nonsense.

Big....

It is a magical film (complete with Zoltar - the terrifying plaything of SATAN) - and it is a brilliant performance from Hanks who manages to be massively likable and beautifully naive throughout the whole thing. For most of the film you really believe him to be a slightly geeky 13 year old kid - and there is a small moment of toy piano tomfoolery which is not only glorious, but which has become a staple of FAO Schwartz toy shop's daily routine.

It is great to watch.

The magic in the film does mean you can overlook how easily Josh makes his way up the corporate ladder of business. How he can be come a company executive just by saying he likes toys...

At times, he comes of as a bit simple... at other times he could pass as autistic. And yet, people see past this - they flock to them, they promote him, they seduce him. It is so stupid it comes off as charming.

However.... there are two massive points which need to be addressed. They are massive and they sort of soured the film for me:

So yeah....

Josh has been magicked into a 30 year old and off he goes for a rollicking adventure. Throughout this film you get little hints at what is happening at home. And it is horrifying. To the extent of Josh's parent's knowledge:

If you think I'm over-reacting, go and watch that film again. Listen to the genuine trauma in Josh's mother's voice when she speaks to him... It is every parent's worse nightmare. Glossed up as a charmingly 80's bit of nonsense.

But there is another disturbing element....

Elizabeth Perkins fucks a child.

There is no way to sugar coat it. I don't care whether he's turned into Tom Hanks or not... HE IS A CHILD! And.... THEY HAVE SEX.

At the point where she is told and finally realises, I hope she is a bit sick in her mouth. It is not cool... Not cool at all. It makes the romantic scenes really uncomfortable and totally detracts from any chemistry the pair may have.

This child/adult romance theme is one of the (many) reasons I can't watch Jack.

I used to talk to you all the time, even though I was alone. I walked around for months talking to you. Now I don't know what to say.

No 392 - Paris, Texas

Director - Wim Wenders

I began my journey with this film as a mildly confused man, I thought I had a basic idea of what the film was about, but that didn't connect to LOVEFiLM's categorisation of this as a documentary. But then I saw that the film starred Dean Stockwell, so I cheered up and settled in.

Well, firstly it very much isn't a documentary. Secondly, it doesn't really star Dean Stockwell either.

The film really stars Harry Dean Stanton, as Dean Stockwell's brother. A man who has lost his memory and goes on a journey which helps him rediscover his family but also himself. Whilst that mind sound a little unimpressive, please accept that I'm being deliberately vague. This is a beautiful film, and it is through the simple journey which we get to have some real powerful emotion. However, before I speak about that (as it is the end of the film) I want to speak about the film's palette.

As the name implies, this film has large sections set in Texas, and therefore large sections set in desert country. It means that once again we get to marvel in the glory of Orange and Teal, creating bleak, hospitable and enormous vistas. However, even outside the desert, the framing is beautiful - Robby Müller manages to find really exciting ways to paint the most potentially mundane moments. I can't find them anywhere to link to, but his use of colour and lighting during the two brothers' drive is beautiful, and the framing is near perfect.

What I can talk about is the moment Travis (Dean Stanton) meets up with his estranged wife. Again, it benefits from the same beautiful use of colour - however this time we're in a much deeper blues. It does show Müller's excellent eye for framing though:

But here, not only do we get the power of the visuals - we get the power from the fact that this is the film's climax. This is what everything has been building to. I don't want to talk about it in too much detail because I don't want to dull the impact to anyone who hasn't seen it. But the final half hour is one of the most emotional and powerful things I've ever seen put on film.

There is something about the visuals, the story and the lazy guitar score (of which you heard some in the video above) that just mix to make a very slow, very gentle film with an truly surprising and powerful end.

that mix meant Paris, Texas became one of a very few films which have caused me to cry.

My name is Dances with Wolves. I will not talk to you anymore. You are not worth talking to.

No 137 - Dances With Wolves

Director - Kevin Costner

I thought this was going to be another Avatar film, and to a certain degree it is... man becomes ingrained with the indigenous people and fights against his own kind. However, where it differs is that the fight scenes are so brief, they are merely moments in a story which follows one man's journey. It is not a journey leading to a battle - it is a journey which happens to feature a couple of battles in it.

So, the American army isn't painted as all out evil, but they're certainly not painted in a good light. I think they're mostly shown as strange strange hicks. And a lot of them may be certified insane. One of the film's weirdest moments is one Costner's John Dumbar (before he has his new native moniker) is sent to his post by Major Fambrough.... Something seems to be wrong with Fambrough.... he represents the sheer loneliness of the Frontier - he represents what could have happened to Dunbar (and what probably would've happened if he didn't meet the Sioux tribe).

So there is a gradual set up as Dunbar goes to his isolated post and slowly - oh so slowly - gets to know the nearby tribe.

It is here that you realise quite how painfully sad the plight of the native Americans was. It isn't helped that the older westerns show them as savages and killers and not as what they were - people desperately trying to protect their world. It is the same across the world... be it the Zulu the Aboriginals or the Maori, we did seem to stomp about and ruin things for people.

However, there is one thing that Wolves misses from the old Western-times. Technicolor. I bloody love Technicolor, and when it comes to vast western vistas of orange and teal you want something that will make it pop from the screen.

The vistas in Dances with Wolves are great and moments like the buffalo stampede are genuinely incredible - but the colour palette leaves them feeling muted. We need the fake colour of technicolor to make it super-bright.

I mean, I think what surprised me most about this is how NICE it is - it is essentially a story about human relationships, about gaining trust and - eventually - about love. It is a real heartwarming tale.

Unfortunately, all of that is bollocksed up by the final text which is heart breakingly sad:

Well, it's a doo-bah-dee-doo, yes, it's a doo-bah-dee-doo, I mean a doo-bee, doo-bee, doo-bee, doo-bee, doo-bee-dee-doo

No 406 - The Jungle Book

Director - Wolfgang Reitherman

I think I need to work through my Disney back catalogue, I'm rubbish with the early ones.... did they ALL start with books? Luckily... I can easily check this what with it being 2011. Anyway, welcome to the jungle, we've got fun and games and (so it seems) shit loads of Jazz. This is one jazzy jungle.

The story is the classic Rudyard Kipling tale - of a boy raised in the jungle by wolves. He manages to make a dashing pair of red pants somehow and goes off on adventures. But then a bad tiger wants to kill him and really he should go home to his race.... Many misadventures ensue with hilarious consequences.

The film's triumph is in creating some fantastically bizarre and entertaining characters. Colonel Hathi's Elephant parade is just weird (I think Disney liked weird elephants) and creates a great slapstick interlude as well as showcasing the pomposity of the British Empire and folks what were in In-Jah in those days. Kaa is basically there to be a shit villain and be constantly outfoxed and provide comic pain and then there are the vultures, the weird Beatles vultures... a by-product of it being made in the 60's and just a slightly illusion-breaking addition to the film.

However there are two characters which are the heroes of the film. Who carry this film into brilliance and who are Jazz wonders.

Lets start with Phil Harris.... He comes in and is AMAZING as Baloo - so good that he returns as Little John in Robin Hood.... a role which is almost exactly the same as Baloo - almost criminally lifted (or at least mercilessly recycled - there is a lot of recycling in Disney though). Baloo's laid back style and joi de vivre makes him an intoxicating character, a great figure to watch and a man who meets his natural foil with another ridiculous Jazz great. Louis Prima is a force to be reckoned with as King Louis - and whilst the Bare Necessities may be the best lesson to get from the film, King of the Swingers is the anarchic toe tapping number which sticks with you forever. It is a wonderful thing and a constantly classic piece of music.

So when Baloo and Louis join forces it is not only one of the highlights of the film, it is one of the best bits of Disney.... full stop.

The action later on is interesting (the fire in later scenes seems almost like OIL painting over the animation) but the film is at its best during the jazzy dancing bonkers bonanza.

However, events unfold to a necessary ending as Mowgli returns to the man village - and it isn't until we meet the oddly sexually precocious love interest (lets remember, when you look at her wide come to bed eyes.... THEY ARE 10) that we realise that the whole film was a man village.... it is just a big old sausage fest in the jungle.

But it is a jolly wee film.

We are dressed in our best and are prepared to go down as gentlemen. But, we would like a brandy.

No 336 - Titanic

Director - James Cameron

This is the only time I ever went to the cinema, where the film had an interval... I hadn't seen it since I saw it at the cinema, and much to my surprise, it was far better than I had ever given it credit for. I think the problem was the HYPE around the film.... and the general girlyness. To an 11 or 12 year old boy, it didn't hold much appeal. But....second time round, it deserves a bit more praise.

However.....

When I talk about James Cameron, I feel like in recent years (or, his last 2 motion pictures, over a decade apart) he has become more about scale and spectacle than the actual story.

I mean, Avatar really doesn't deserve the heaps of praise which has been piled onto it. Yes, it is beautiful.... yes, the CGI is incredible and yes Pandora is a brilliantly well designed world which felt real, living and breathing and marvellous.... but the story is basically just Ferngully. Cameron's interests (and indeed his triumph) was in designing a living breathing ecosystem. A planet, which despite the utter ludicrous nature of it... felt real. It it the Art of Avatar which is the real triumph.

And so it is the same with Titanic. Lets be honest... the story is tosh and the acting is largely rubbish. But the SPECTACLE is epic. Mainly down to the fact that Cameron spent about 12 bazillion pounds making a replica Titanic just for his own chuckles.

The film is really split into two parts (well 3 if we include the bookends with the spritliest 100 year old in the world - Gloria Stuart actually managed to live to 100 too RIP) - A lurve story for the ladies and a disaster film for the chaps (that, at least, is how I imagine it was marketed). The love story is there to build the relationships but it just shows how poor the acting is, with maybe the exception of a fiendishly young looking DiCaprio who shows he can act really. It does have an IMDB-checking bonanza of recognisable faces though.

Also can we point out Ioan Gruffud - who shows himself as a TRUE HERO in this film, despite him having very little to do for most of it.

And of course Billy Zane being an utter evil git. Hoorah.

So we can watch lots of people walk about in the stifled restrictions of class.... There is some rumpy pumpy and there is some nudity (quite controversial in a 12 I'd imagine, but maybe not - I do think Winslett is a bit of a naughty anyway...). However during this, Bernard Hill (playing Captain Birdseye - the face of this blog) walks around looking stern and for the next 2 hours or so we watch the ship very slowly sink.

Generally, this film is:

• too long
• unexcitingly plotted
• badly acted
• badly scripted
• has the most annoyingly saccharine 'dying' coda in a film ever

and yet, it is almost all forgiven for the sheer scale of his creation. Whether we're travelling through the fully functioning Titanic going from 1st class to boiler room, or whether we're watching his creation sink and crumble, it is an impressive feat. It allows Cameron to make some truly remarkable imagery and it allows him to show the full impact of what is a terrible tragic disaster.

But.... the film isn't really that good. And I was mainly excited about watching this awesome Leo Mash Up again.... any excuse to promote it.

Look inside yourself, Simba. You are more than what you have become. You must take your place in the Circle of Life.

No 319 - The Lion King

Directors - Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff

Man! I LOVE The Lion King! I was even willing to sit through the longest most OTT DVD menu with an annoying CGI Zazu to watch the film. So long that I can't find a YouTube video of the menu in its entirety.... but you can have a bit of the pre-film ordeal I sat through. That's dedication.

So, the special edition DVD has been spruced up a little bit so we get a much sharper, crisper looking film, and that is OK with me, it just makes it a joy to watch. From the opening African chanting to the final Circle of Life.... this film makes me happy. So lets talk about the highlights, and of course the guilty admission that I do really like some Elton John songs - specially when blended in with the African tribal singing.

Firstly this film has a star studded cast... and somehow, I had never realised that Matthew Broderick plays Simba! Gosh. But look at all these others:

What's great about this cast is that they play so well together - they bounce off each other with grace and with much hilarity. Look at the Hyaenas in any scene where they play off each other and admire the ease and charm and just natural brilliance of the dialogue.

Then we come to the visuals. Disney had started using CGI to assist their animations in earlier films. 1991 has Aladdin's carpet escape and 1992 showed them using the technology more neatly to create the Beauty and the Beast ballroom scene, but I think that by 1994 they'd pretty much nailed it and it allows them to make a far more epic film than they've ever managed before. We do get lush panoramic views of busy savannas, but the film's most impressive moment is the Stampede. This is not only the best bit in the film, it is a near perfect piece of cinema. The visuals are incredible and 'To Die For' is just a gloriously dramatic tune - but not only does it look and sound amazing, it is full of emotion and pain and drama. Despite it being 16 years old, it still looks fresh and new and it still has the power to take your breath away on both an aesthetic and dramatic level. Which, surely, is the holy grail that all films aspire to.

I think that the stampede draws an important parallel with the main film, amongst the great great songs and the excellent zippy dialogue, amongst the excellent visuals, is a really clever film. Disney aren't just cleaning up a Grimm fairy tale to shift princess dolls... they're taking almost all the complexities of Hamlet, mixing in a lot of communist imagery and using it to create a brand new piece of African folklore. I really think that The Lion King is Disney at its cleverest and at its best.

I don't mean that just with the film. After all the Megadrive game was brilliant, the stage show is an experience which you MUST see (and contains my favourite non-film song) and whilst The Lion King 2 is a non-eventful Romeo and Juliet remake, Lion King 3 is an inspired piece of cinema.

For if The Lion King is Hamlet, then The Lion King 3 is Rosencratz and Guildenstern are dead - with a bit of Mystery Science Theater 3000 thrown in and a post modern sense of humour which we see a little of in the first film. Even Pixar don't do referencing that subtle or that high brow.

Awful things happen in every apartment house.

No 78 - Rosemary's Baby

Director - Roman Polanski

After Psycho, lets continue the theme of weird psychological horror linked to motherhood... And a film which is principally there to create a sense of unease (and it does this very well). From the opening credits and the haunting hummed lullaby, it becomes clear that something isn't quite right.

The film follows Rosemary and her husband as they move into a new apartment and Rosemary's husband Guy befriends the elderly tenants whilst Rosemary falls pregnant. The film is littered with unusual events. Nothing obviously supernatural, just little moments which don't feel right. From a jittery paranoid Guy to an oddly clingy and nosy bunch of elderly neighbours... there is also a suicide and the mystery of Tannis root.

The odd moments happen in the background... as does every other character. This is Rosemary's film and all we do is follow her for the entirety of the film. Luckily... Mia Farrow is astounding in this film. It is a really powerful performance which encapsulates almost every human emotion. She manages to be gutsy and determined but also has a sense of frailty. She is fragile. She is vulnerable. You feel for her and you invest so much of yourself into her story that when the film FINALLY ups the drama it feels like a real punch in the gut.

Its important that we like Rosemary - because for the majority of the film all we are doing is following her. Whether she is throwing hip 60's parties (this film made me want to be a 60's hipster) or whether she is getting gradually sicker during her pregnancy, the viewer is captivated by a brilliant multi-faceted performance. So we follow her as people act weirdly but also as the film moves very slowly - with one exception, the weird weird rape dream scene. Or is it a dream?!

It isn't until Rosemary is given a book about witches that the plot really begins to pick up, especially with the reveal that THE NAME IS AN ANAGRAM. And whilst I wish it was Machete's filth owl.... the answer is a lot more shocking and leads to the film's key sequence. The horrific delivery of Rosemary's baby and the subsequent reveal of Adrian.

Like so much of the film, these moments rely solely on Mia Farrow's reactions. But I think this is a good thing... namely, I think it is a good thing that we never see the titular baby as Farrow's reactions paint something horrific... whilst the fleeting glimpses of the devil seen in Rosemary's 'dream' looks like Oddbod out of Carry on Screaming....

So - it is worth watching, but mainly as an incredible performance from Mia Farrow, rather than an excellent overall film.

Oh, we have 12 vacancies. 12 cabins, 12 vacancies

No 45 - Psycho

Director - Alfred Hitchcock

Psycho is one of those films that has already been analysed and discussed to an incredible degree. I don't feel like I'll really be able add anything that hasn't already been explained a hundred times before. So all I'm going to do is discuss the little magical moments which help make this such a brilliant film.

The film follows Janet Leigh's Marion Crane as she steals some money from her work and proceeds to act very suspiciously. This means that (naturally) she attracts a lot of attention from the police and other types as she flees - initially you think this may be a bad thing, the fool is hardly subtle, but actually it turns out to be a good thing because it means there are a lot of people who remember her after the tragedy of meeting Norman Bates and his mother.

The shower scene is probably the most famous part of Psycho, and arguably the most famous sequence of Hitchcock's entire career. Whilst people may not have seen the incredibly edited series of short cuts (pardon the pun) - I reckon everyone in the UK knows what those screeching strings mean..... they mean stabbin'.

There are lots of places where you can explore the technical gubbins linked to this film but I want to talk about the effect. It is true that you see much less than you think you do. There is no stabbing, there is no naughty bits.... it is all implied. But not only does it feel more taboo than it is, it is also really bleak.... for me, on of the film's most chilling moments is that moment as Marion's gasping body slides down the wall of the shower... it is a really cold and really emotional.

Anyway... on the off chance that you've never seen that excellent moment.... look at it now.

But the shower scene isn't just a technical marvel (77 camera angles doncha know) - it is also a brave move as Janet Leigh was the biggest name in the film... it sets a chilling atmosphere, no one is safe. Anyone could be deaded. Other films have carried on this brave gambit. It makes slasher films a lot less predictable - and yet, Psycho was probably the first slasher film - so it goes to show how predictable things got after Hitchcock set the scene.

the only other thing I want to discuss is Anthony Perkins. - who is really quite remarkable in this. The way that he manages to alternate between looking quite naive and innocent to looking truly menacing (normally when he is standing in shadows).

I'm guessing most people have seen Psycho - but I don't want to spoiler it.... let me just say that Perkins' acting abilities pinnacle at the film's final scene. His monologue and his look directly to camera are the film's most chilling moment. Hitchcock manages to make the sequence even more chilling with a beautifully subtle skull overlap.

It is a masterful film. It has incredible music, incredible titles, incredible performances and (as you'd expect from Hitchcock) it is as taut and tense as can be.

And, the best thing of all is this EXCELLENT trailer, showing that Hitchcock is not only a great storyteller, he is a comedy genius.

Lesson number one: Don't underestimate the other guy's greed!

No 284 - Scarface

Director - Brian de Palma

Well.... before I begin discussing this film, we have to comment on the fact that Brian de Palma made the most brilliantly bad film in existence. And for that very reason we must be eternally grateful.

So now we move into surprisingly political territories, but I don't think it really is that much grittier. Or... if it is.... it is offset by the sheer 80's ridiculousness of it all - you can see how it inspired Vice City - all the bad suits and wide collar shirts and mindless excessive violence. It is the excess which is then mocked in films like American Psycho. What a cracking decade it was back then...

This film is probably the best I've seen Pacino, his Tony Montana is a terrifying creation - he is a slurring power crazed madman. His quest for power and money - his belief that only this could ever make him happy - is terrible to watch but nowhere near as scary as the paranoia which seeps in once he HAS the power.

Montana seems happiest on the way up... running errands and double crossing people to get what he wants. However, once he has everything he wants he becomes paranoid. Probably because he knows he was a double crossing sunnovabitch when he was on the way up. But he lives in his ridiculous palace with his too-skinny-Michelle-Pfeiffer wife and he grumbles and worries and strops about with his upside down looking mouth.

hmmm - maybe his mouth looks SCARIER when upside down

Montana's rise and fall is fun and does make the film feel very GTA but it isn't the most interesting part of the film. For me, what was more interesting was how he behaved with his family. How he clamoured for the respect of his mother and how he introduces his kid sister to the world of '80s excess and then spends most of the film trying to go back on it and protect her. The scenes with Gina - and particularly her secret romance with Montana's henchman - are probably the most moving in the film, and best show the emotional state Tony is in.

Overall - this is a film about excess and greed. It gets to insane levels involving mountains of coke and pet tigers (and who DOESN'T want a pet tiger?!) - whilst, in that regard, it has dated and is very much a period piece - a snapshot of the 80's - it remains relevant as a warning about greed and as a terrific performance from Pacino.

I'm not a roman mum, I'm a kike, a yid, a heebie, a hook-nose, I'm kosher mum, I'm a Red Sea pedestrian, and proud of it!

No 203 - Life of Brian

Director - Terry Jones

Three wise men follow a star to a stable in Bethlehem where they find a small boy wrapped in swaddling clothes and offer him gifts of Gold and Frankincense and Myrrh. You just can't get any more Christmassy than that, can you?

And so begins Life of Brian - a film about a young man who has spent many moments of his life being mistaken for Jesus. A film which is not blasphemous really. It isn't an attack on anyone's individual faith or an attack on anyone's individual beliefs, it is just a pretty acerbic (and surprisingly clever) look at organised religion as a whole. I don't think it deserves half the 'outrage' it received.

Once you get over the religious undertones (if that is the thing which may rankle you) - you have Monty Python's most intelligent and well structured film. Both Holy Grail and - to a far more obvious extent - the Meaning of Life, are essentially sketch films, with a basic theme linking everything together. Life of Brian is still a very segmented film but it works as an entirety, it has character development and plot arcs..... well, as much as you can ever expect from the Monty Python troupe.

Although it is a complete film, the Pythons' great strength is in creating insane little sketches, and here there are many scenes which work on their own in their own right. The film relishes taking a simple idea and skewing it to ridiculous degrees, whether it is a stoning, a cut throat grammar lesson or the inspired thought of what happened to the lame after Jesus healed them. I'm not going to talk about them individually - besides saying they're brilliant. They'd be brilliant sketches but here they're just little moments of genius in a constantly great film. Also, how great of Monty Python to have stuck all their stuff on YouTube.... that makes my life easier.

However, the only issue to come from the coherent storyline is that Terry Giliam's section no longer has a neat place to slot into. There is one little moment of sheer inspired lunacy, but it does jar completely from the rest of the film - even though the rest of the film is mental, alien abduction (which remains completely unexplained) is a big departure from the world they've made. A world full of brilliantly subtle comedic moments (such as every character having a completely mundane name or being named after a book in the Bible....) as well as the broader, weirder humour.

Once the masses discover Brian, the film begins to look at the notion of religion, at the notion of human dogma and at the ridiculousness of it all. We have a film which tackles the same core subject matter as The Invention of Lying, only does it much much better....

....with the inclusion of one of the greatest, most pure and joyous songs ever written.

ALL TOGETHER NOW

There's something inherently disappointing about success

No 481 – Topsy Turvy
Director – Mike Leigh

Well... I do love a good Victorian romp, and the world of Gilbert and Sullivan is surely (by its very nature) as rompy as you can get. Indeed, it took me roughly 45 seconds to fall in love with Allan Corduner's Sir Arthur Sullivan. Consumption riddled and dying but full of life and joy. He encaptures that almost mythical side to the period. The idealised view which is pushed to the 9^th degree by things like Moulin Rouge!

I also liked the great prescriptions he gets for his consumption.... Get yourself some Brandy Mr Sullivan. Get yourself to the South of France Mr Sullivan. Bloody marvellous. Far better than mere penicillin.

I don't know how correct the film is but I hope it is true – Sullivan's reckless fun loving attitude marks him out as almost a rock star. Especially when you compare him with the incredibly stiff and well... Victorian... Gilbert (he is very much about what is proper and what is right and decent).

The two bounce off each other really refreshingly. I don't think I've seen Corduner in anything before but Gilbert is played by the legend that is Jim Broadbent.... meaning that a deliberately emotionless (besides anger) figure can become a rich and deep character. It also ripples out in his family. One of the final speeches in the film is Gilbert's wife explaining her idea for an opera. In there are roughly 8,000 hints of how repressed and depressed she is. How she clearly yearns for affection from her Stiff-upper-lip husband.

This ingrained repressions makes the expressiveness of Broadbent all the more important... There is a wonderful moment where Gilbert has the idea of The Mikado. A close up on his frowning face as very slowly you see the seeds of an idea plant a twinkle in his eye and his moustache curls up to indicate a smile beneath. It is a glorious moment. It shows Broadbent off as the bloody hero that he is.

The film is an obvious love letter to Gilbert and Sullivan, the long cuts to songs (seemingly all performed by the cast) show that, and reminded me that I really haven't seen enough Gilbert and Sullivan performances - they were geniuses too, lively music and inspired lyrics. However, they have managed to get some brilliant people to perform in these plays and there are a few people I want to point out.

Firstly....

Timothy Spall – There is a bit of me that is sad that in recent times Hollywood (certainly mainstream Kid's Hollywood) has typecast Spall as the snivelling, slimy bad guy. See Harry Potter or Enchanted for examples. Whilst he does play the role well, it is much more exciting seeing him play the plummy luvvie. His role in this, and his backstage antics are on of the real highlights in a film that's pretty chock full of good bits. Likewise Shirley Henderson who's sultry wine swilling leading lady means I'm finally able to accept her beyond Moaning Myrtle and that God-awful role she played in Dr Who – Even Trainspotting didn't manage that.

And then we had someone who I knew would be excellent as soon as I saw his name in the opening credits. Andy Serkis. I'm a shameless Serkis fan. I think he steals every scene he is in and constantly gives cracking performances. Here is no difference. I loved his little role as the choreographer – and loved the fact that he was never still. Clucking and strutting like a Victorian Mick Jagger.

The film triumphs in the fantastic cast Leigh has put together and in the witty words they speak – considering the constraints of period and of historical accuracy, I'm curious as to how improvised this film is, or whether it was a bit more tightly scripted.

There are a few awkward racial moments, but then this is a film about we Brits discovering Japanese culture – at a time when Japan was so remote (and shut off from the Western world) it was as mysterious as fairy tales. So whilst they are at times uncomfortable (and at other times uncomfortably amusing) they at least never feel excessive.

All in all it is a joyous film – mixing the constraints of etiquette in Victorian Society with the giddy thrill of early musical theatre.

It is a proper smile inducing little number – and shows that Mike Leigh can make gloriously happy films if he wants.

The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid.

No 455 – Top Gun
Director – Tony Scott

Can we just crack out some Kenny Loggins first....

Kenny Loggins – Playing With The Boys

excellent....

Well... Really.....

I can't take the piss out of the homoeroticism, all the obvious targets have been addressed so many times before.

All I can say is that I really can't tell the difference between this film and Hot Shots! any more....

This is a ridiculous nonsense of a film. It is a film in which one requires nothing more than to sit back and watch the silliness and the pretty planes.

The planes are really pretty and there is some incredible choreography up in them there sky.

I don't mean to sound too dismissive – I love a big dumb action film as much as the next person. But there aren't any real character arcs amongst the flashy Jet porn and Tim Robbins in the background.

This is a film that really only made it in as the top 500's guilty pleasure – and that doesn't seem right.

Still its better than Superman Returns. Or Transformers.

Oh, I lie now and then, I suppose. Sometimes I'd tell them the truth and they still wouldn't believe me, so I prefer to lie

No 41 - Les 400 Coups (The 400 Blows)
Director – François Truffaut

So, I've been moving house and I've been playing Xbox games. My blog hasn't exactly been well kept. Like the Secret Garden it is full of aged and overgrown relics. It has seemingly ceased to grow. But fear not, here comes Dickon and he has used a knife to strip back the dead wood and show there is still life in the old blog. So soon we will be joined by a spoiled disabled boy and Wendy from Finding Neverland and the blog will flourish anew.

Right.... that's one massively overstretched metaphor out the way – lets blog this classic piece of French cinema. Without my notes. So expect a sketchy and vague review of a film which follows a young boy's descent into full blown young offender shenanigans.

The film works as series of snapshots, looking at how Antoine (Jean-Pierre Léaud) gets pulled further and further into petty crime. Made in 1959 it coincides with the birth of the teenager and the idea that children were no longer just small versions of their parents. A terrifying concept for those who are the full sized parent versions. Teenagers not only didn't share their parent's views any more, they went out of their way to antagonise.

Whilst Antoine's actions are at times petty, you can at least see where they stem from. Léaud manages to put the anger and frustration of his character across without seeming too petulant, or without seeming unlikeable.

His father is well meaning but distracted by his interests. His mother is the typical terrifying and shouty French mother but then is also cold and distant, not wanting anything to do with her kid (very unlike French mothers that I know). You can see that Antoine feels abandoned... you understand his motivation.

And in today's times, where you can't walk to the shops without being murdered to death by a 7 year old in a hoodie, I suppose it all seems rather twee.

But it was the old days and in the old days Typewriters were the big thing. Like identities are nowadays. Think how annoyed you'd be if someone stole your identity.... yeah, now you know why things pan out the way they do.

The film is constantly interesting and fresh, however, for the most while I failed to see anything truly remarkable in it. Certainly nothing which truly validated its place as the highest ranked French film on the list. However, this is what I love about cinema, one little shot can change everything. A well played reveal or a well shot sequence makes all the difference.

A marvellous sequence is when Antoine is being interviewed by the psychiatrist. It is visibly edited making it seem like documentary footage of a longer interview which has been shortened. The static camera fixed solely on Antoine makes it all seem a lot more real and a lot more authentic. Like a small break from fiction.

But my favourite moment is from the performance Truffaut gets out of his young star. Reaching the end of his tether, Antoine's father arranges for him to spend the night in jail – just to experience what its like. We get some wonderful 'jail eye view' shots with the camera behind bars – and when it pans to Antoine's tear streamed eyes we get the full power of the film in one shot (and in one remarkable performance from such a young lad).