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.

What you have to understand is, four days ago he was only my brother in name. And this morning we had pancakes.

No 387 - Rain Man
Director - Barry Levinson

Oh Blog! I have neglected you. I have been a bad man and July has been a rubbish month for me actually having films and watching them.

I promise to rectify this in the upcoming months.

I find autism fascinating. I'm aware that that can make me sound a bit voyeuristic and a bit like a bastard, but what I mean is that it is genuinely a fascinating mental process - especially the Savant syndrome, which is what Raymond's condition is defined as.

My knowledge and interest on this stems initially from Daniel Tammet. If you have never read Born on a Blue Day, do so - you can get it for as little as a quid on Amazon. Bargain. It is an extremely fascinating read about how Tammet's condition allows him to complete massively complex mathematical and linguistic feats. The man is a genius, and yet when discussing his condition, you can see the limitations it imposes on him. Whilst he is a very social person, he has the confusion about emotion which is a big part of autism. The fascinating difference is that Daniel can explain it succinctly, and clearly express his point of view.

It is through the books and TV shows about Tammet that I also found out about Kim Peek, who was the inspiration for Raymond.

It is odd, considering what an iconic film Rain Man is, that I knew all the behind the scenes stuff before I saw the actual film. But what a great film it is.

Let me begin my discussion of it with a thought that began bubbling away in my brain after watching I *heart* Huckabees... Dustin Hoffman is a phenomenal actor. He is great. I can't think of a single role he has played where he hasn't been brilliant.
Even his non-iconic roles are astounding - he made Meet the Fockers almost bearable, and his cameo is without doubt the best bit in The Holiday.

He is a massively versatile actor, with a genuine skill at comedy. But he also has the ability to show amazing empathy, and express emotion (or in this case, lack of emotion) with unerring conviction.

His portrayal of Raymond is captivating and effortless. The blank vacant look on his face, the way he talks, his mannerisms, his posture - there is nothing about the performance that fails to convince the viewer of his character's condition. It is also, frankly, a bit funny. I'm sure it shows that I'm an evil hell-bound tasteless tactless swine, but I did have a little laugh whenever he said "Uh Oh!" - and the predicaments he gets in (often through his insistence that he should definitely be doing something) are amusing.

I think it is the mix of his monotone dead-pan delivery and Tom Cruise's exasperation which provides the humour.

That seems a bit more of an acceptable explanation, anyway.

So, let's talk about Tom Cruise - because this is a 2 man film really, and whilst Hoffman is the star, Cruise is surprisingly good (and as mentioned, provides the perfect platform for Hoffman to work from and against).

If this top 500 challenge has taught me one thing, it is that Tom Cruise is a better actor than I had previously given him credit for. I blame things like this for tarnishing my opinion.

It seems that Cruise shines best when playing a bastard. Here he is great - and whilst he begins as a cruel piece of work (antagonising an autistic.... really) - you believe in his character's development, and the bond between them is very moving. If he would just move away from the rubbish film stuff then I'd be happy.

So besides the terrible 80's fashions (don't button your shirt up if you're not going to wear a tie) and one really awkward 'seduce the autistic guy in a lift' scene, this is a film that really stands the test of time - mainly due to the excellent relationship between Charles and Raymond. And seeing as that is what the film is actually all about, then that's as good a recommendation as any.

Do you find us beautiful, magical? Our white skin, our fierce eyes? "Drink" you ask me, do you have any idea of the thing you will become?

No 281 - Interview with the Vampire
Director - Neil Jordan

I like the way the cinematic vampires are varied beasts. The punks of The Lost Boys are nothing compared to the monsters of From Dusk Till Dawn. There are the strange bat like Nosferatu or the incredibly human Eli. Even Dracula himself has flitted through different versions and completely different styles.
There is no definitive vampire, but I find them fascinating - for me, the most fascinating is the Anne Rice vampire. I love the passion, the glamour and he danger of her vampires. It has been said time and time again that the Vampire story is a thinly veiled allegory for sex. Nowhere is that more evident than in Interview with the Vampire.

The vampires in this film are beautiful creatures that bristle with a dangerous sexual lust. Their skin is white and smooth and their eyes are fierce and unnatural. Almost feline. Maybe it plays to the part of me which yearns to be a dandy, but they are just fabulous. If I were to create a vampire myth, that is the direction I'd have taken.
Our protagonist for this story is Brad Pitt's Louis de Pointe du Lac, a plantation owner from New Orleans who develops one hell of a death wish and who is turned into a vampire by Tom Cruise's Lestat de Lioncourt. We then follow Louis' story as he becomes used to being a vampire and as he lives out a life of endless youth.

Louis is our 'in' to the vampiric world. He is the character that we follow, he is the character that we see as both mortal and immortal, he is our narrator. However he is not the most interesting of characters. Despite having been a vampire for almost 200 years (by the time we meet him in the early 90's) he is not happy with his lot. He doesn't feel comfortable killing people and frequently complains.
No, the most interesting and fun characters are those that relish in the bloodshed. Those that are truly callous and wicked. That is why I love Lestat so much. His character is a lavish and decadent evil. A man who has embraced his demonic blessing and ran with it. He cackles maniacally as people attack him. He flits and he flys, he maims an he kills but always with a smile and an appreciation of the finer things in life.
Lestat killed two, sometimes three a night. A fresh young girl, that was his favorite for the first of the evening. For seconds, he preferred a gilded beautiful youth. But the snob in him loved to hunt in society, and the blood of the aristocrat thrilled him best of all.

Though, what I think I like best about Lestat is that it is Tom Cruise. I can only think of 3 films where Cruise has been an obvious good guy and one he was an arrogant prick that eventually mellow and the second is a comedy cameo. This is the only film (that I can think of) where Cruise is all out malicious, manipulative and horrible. He seems to relish it as well. Each sneer, each giggle, each time he spikes a wrist to drink the blood is met with a look of sheer enjoyment. Hell, the brief ominous sinister moments which he shares with (the beautiful beautiful) Thandie Newton's slave girl have more chemistry then their ENTIRE relationship in MI2.

It is with Lestat that we also see one of the films most striking features, the sexualisation of everything. It seems that blood is more than mere food for the vampires. It is a passion, a yearning, a physical torturous desire. Any exposed area of flesh becomes fetishised by the film. So we get long lingering shots of the rise and fall of a heaving bosom, or the curve of a neck, or a delicate exposed wrist. The sexualisation is continued with the kill, as it nearly always begins with a playful seduction. By the time the vampires are feeding it looks more like they are locked in a passionate and highly sensual embrace. Nearly everything in this film is somewhere on the sexual spectrum. It is either flirty and mischievous or dangerously erotic.

However, anything that the two men do is easily overshadowed by Claudia. A vampire taken as a child. Therefore with the immortal, never changing body of a child but with the mind of an adult killer. It must be tough being Kirsten Dunst, knowing that you played your greatest role aged 11. She is phenomenal in this. I was 9 when this film came out so I don't know of the controversy, or even if there was any, however the idea of a child being so cruel, so sensual, so wicked is a bit uncomfortable.
She isn't a young vampire like Eli, who is much more sage, practical and world-weary. She relishes in the carnage. She makes me think of the few clips I've seen of Chloe Moretz in the upcoming Kick Ass.

Claudia's defining moment is when she realises she will never become a woman. That she is doomed to be a child forever. Here you see the oddest part of the vampire curse. Their bodies will stay the way they are forever. You can't even cut your hair, as it will instantly grow back. Her attempt to rebel against this involves 'killing' Lestat and fleeing - and this is where the film changes completely. It takes a step back from the fripperies and opulence that I so adore and becomes something a bit darker.
I always thought this movie was really long (it isn't, it is under 2 hours) but I think that stems from the fact that is changes, into a second film when they arrive in Paris and meet Antonio Banderas' Armand.
- Before I speak about the next bit, I just want to say that if you take Armand, and trickle in a splash of Zorro you have all the evidence you need to prove that Banderas would make an EXCELLENT Gomez Addams (much fucking better than Tim Curry).

Armand's show - Theatre Des Vampires is fabulous both in its post modernism (vampires pretending to be people pretending to be vampires) but also in how brazen it is as the show's grand finale is the killing of a woman live on stage - which, I assume, everyone thinks is part of the act.
The entire Theatre Des Vampires troupe are just dark. Far more feral and violent (and at times insane) than the refined Lestat, Louis and Claudia. It is here that a lot more dark and savage stuff happens which truly and deeply affects Louis and leaves him hollow and empty for the final parts of the film. Though the montage of cinematic sunrises, and the way the effect Louis as he goes to see them (having not seen a sunrise in decades, if not centuries) is beautiful and brings us up to date.

And then it ends.
This film doesn't really have a conclusion as Louis' story is in no way concluded. It has just reached modern day. He will continue and his story will continue.

We just leave, much like Christian Slater's interviewer, fascinated, transfixed and scared. Lucky to have met such wonderful and dangerous characters. However briefly.