Excalibur is unlike any other medieval film you have ever seen. In fact, there is a great deal about it that you will probably find fascinating, incredible, and plain awesome. It is one of my favourite tellings of the Arthurian legends on film, and has become the standard to which I judge all others. It fully deserves the five golden stars I am giving it in this review.

Many films claim that they are “epic” but too often we find them to be short attempts at nothing. Excalibur is truly an epic movie. It presents the full life of King Arthur from birth to death. It follows the main character through many conflicts and in many environments. Moreover, the audience grows with the characters so that by the end of it we are actually caught up in the rapture of the climax. Now think about what I just said. You rarely find a movie worth describing in such a way these days, right?

The first thing you will notice about this movie that will instantly capture you is the music. Excalibur is scored by an impeccable (another rare word) soundtrack of classical music. One of the major attractions of classical music is its emotional charge. I never knew exactly what that meant until I watched Excalibur. No other movie uses classical music as a supplement to the drama this well, not even Star Wars. I used to work in a video store a few years ago and one customer said that he just bought a surround sound system. He asked me what movie I recommended that would really show what his system could do. I brought him right to Excalibur. Of course, I could have taken him to something like Independence Day, or Saving Private Ryan, but no, I gave him Excalibur. The music gives this movie atmosphere, and in some scenes, life.

Everyone generally knows the stories of King Arthur. We know about the sword in the stone, the Round Table, Camelot, Merlin and even the Holy Grail.  Excalibur collects all of these stories together into one cohesive biopic narrative. The movie is primarily about the life of Arthur. Additonal to that, there is so much more. It is about the relationship between a monarch and his people, about the commencement of the Christian era, about chivalry, about unity, about love and betrayal. The character Percival is the main protagonist of the purity-fall-redemption arc.  We find in him the model of innocence (not as in youth but as in without sin) and knighthood, then suffering, and finally restoration. You can match this plot to Arthur’s life too, but in a slightly different way. For Arthur, it is triumph-decay-rejuvination.

Though they were not as famous then, there are recognizable actors scattered throughout the movie in small roles. Actors like Gabriel Byrne, Patrick Stewart, and Liam Neeson play their part in the movie. I suppose the stars of this movie were popular when it came out but are now not so and the ones who were up and coming have now developed successful careers. Funny how that happens.

Oooooo, Merlin.

Excalibur is a classic movie worthy of seeking out, purchasing, and viewing forever more.

Rating: ★★★★★ 

Braveheart is a cinematic re-imagining of William Wallace’s history that, thanks in part to its Hollywood origins and scriptwriter Randall Wallace’s over-stereotyping of Scottish traditions and mannerisms, produces a heap of entertainment that makes its shortcomings more manageable.

Mel Gibson plays Wallace, a man made savage by the evil English and their merciless intent to control the whole of Britain. When Wallace’s life is ripped apart by the King of England’s army, he sets out to do something that no other Scottish person has tried to do: make Scotland its own country.

It's a trap!

However, his fellow Scots are less inclined to risk their lives for freedom and the English’s corruption and bargaining to maintain control over Scotland hinders Wallace’s efforts.

The underlying theme is clearly the pursuit for freedom but there are multiple themes outside of this that play strongly to both Wallace’s mentality and countering the film’s somewhat simple plot structure.

Those emotive triggers that an epic always has such as love, revenge, betrayal and compassion are thrown in but are implemented with enough purpose and necessity that the straightforward story arc is made far easier to accept.

All the film’s running themes seem to ultimately converge together on the battlefield – the battles that take place are the epicentre of the film’s strength. Sure, the lead characters all fit one cliché or another and the dialogue outside of the rousing speeches can be quite formulaic but it all works – everything about the battle scenes give the audience what they want.

Overall Impressions:

Battling ferociously through clichés, Scottish generalisations and a surprisingly simple-natured plot, Mel Gibson’s epic wins itself deserved accolade on sheer vivacity and brutish charm alone. Braveheart comfortably does what every film with ‘epic’ as a genre should do: be epic.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Blazing Saddles is a prime example of this, as it uses racism as a medium for comedy and it in no way holds back from making the audience feel uncomfortable at laughing out loud. Perhaps the influence of the late Richard Pryor as a writer gave Blazing Saddles a sort of justification for its social inappropriateness – if Blazing Saddles was to be released today in cinemas, there would be a media furore and all hell would break loose.

Insensitivity and tactlessness aren’t the right words here: boldness and brashness are. Mel Brooks had the guts to do what few other people would even begin to contemplate doing and this is why Blazing Saddles in particular is a success. Starring Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder, Blazing Saddles takes pages out of old western film scripts but adds that element of in-your-face, non-hateful racism that Hollywood would mask when producing westerns.

Little plays railroad worker Bart who is given the opportunity to be sheriff of Rock Ridge in the hope that his presence alone will offend the citizens away and allow on behalf of State Attorney Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman) the railroad to be built over where the town currently resides.

A brilliant comedy partnership that almost didn't happen: Richard Pryor was going to be Bart. Can't say that wouldn't have worked but Cleavon Little does a great job.

Drunkard gun-toter Jim (Wilder) who lives in Rock Ridge befriends Bart and together they try to earn Bart the townspeople’s trust. When Lamarr sees that his plan may be backfiring he employs a gang of outlaws to terrorise the town and help with driving out the citizens.

The plot line gives Brooks about as much ammunition as he could possibly want. He throws in loads of racial stereotypes but in such a way that the distastefulness of this is replaced with ironic hilarity. While Blazing Saddles perhaps suffers slightly from a bombardment of jokes, the comedy value and acting partnership between Wilder and Little help keep things focused and together. The likes of Mel Brooks regulars Madeline Kahn, Dom DeLuise and Harvey Korman help the proceedings and Brooks even puts himself into the film to more closely watch over the proceedings.

If you are uncomfortable with racial denotations then by all means don’t watch. But that’s not what drives the film through: the blatant racism and the boldly crazy approach from Brooks piece the film together but it’s very much the humour that makes the film as great as it is. Cleavon Little takes full advantage of his position in the film by giving a brilliantly old-school comedy performance whilst Wilder takes the laid-back “here’s a joke for you if you want it” style, playing off of Little whilst making moments that add to the comedic value.

Overall Impressions:

Blazing Saddles in general oversteps the boundaries of political correctness but the maintaining of focus and the delivery of the comedy makes it alright for you to laugh. I do have to say though that the funniest part of the film belongs to the scene that interesting doesn’t have any racism – the penultimate scene is something akin to Bugsy Malone but its distinctly Mel Brooks when you see the scene in its full entirety – tongue-in-cheek is more than appropriate.

Blazing Saddles is about as non-politically correct as Springtime for Hitler & it may not be to the liking of a large portion of the audience of today but that doesn’t stop the laughs: you just have to be willing to take Blazing Saddles for the Mel Brooks comedy it is. It’s a film that perhaps is one last hurrah for the likes of old-school slapstick, literal and shock value comedy. It’s a hearty hurrah though – the kind that is so emphatically done that Blazing Saddles ultimately puts itself firmly into the comedy hall of fame, to be forever remembered as a timeless classic.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Colonel Dax: "Gentlemen of the court, there are times that I'm ashamed to be a member of the human race and this is one such occasion. "

Starring the legendary Kirk Douglas as the French Colonel Dax, I felt that Paths of Glory depicts the hypocrisy of the ruling elite more than its anti-war message. This is a story about the struggle between compassion and delusion, a conflict that is still active in our contemporary world. Setting in the trenches of WWI, the self-serving General Mireau agrees to order his unit into a suicidal mission for a promotion. When the attack fails, the General accuses the unit of cowardice and sentences three innocent soldiers to death. Colonel Dax defends the men in court arguing that General Mireau’s impossible orders were to blame and not the quality of the soldiers.

"There are few things more fundamentally encouraging and stimulating than seeing someone else die. "

It is true that there are anti-war elements in the film such as the portrayal of no man’s land as a landscape of danger and fresh corpses, and the incompetence of the military bureaucracy, but the message that rung most loudly in my mind was the mentality of the aristocratic military leaders. In those days, the officer corp was filled with nobility, rich elite or upper classmen; Colonel Dax included. Hearing the way they spoke about the men of their army as social undesirables, ignorant, or great unwashed was jarring. Fortunately, Colonel Dax was a man with compassion and strong morals and he disagreed with these men. Unfortunately, despite his best efforts he was unable to make a difference. It seemed as if the war was a game to General Mireau and his peer General Broulard as they discussed the lives of the unit in question. It never occurred to either of them as clear as it did to Colonel Dax that they were speaking about human beings. I especially loved how throughout the film when these two men would speak in this way Colonel Dax would look at them and say “Do you really believe what you just said?” or “How can you say something like that?” Always questioning and probing their beliefs, but always finding them firmly set on classism. Both of these men, and even the judge of the court-marshal, were delusioned by their wealth and status to think that it was acceptable to execute three innocent men to protect their reputations.

It makes you wonder about the mindset of those running the show today. We elect them with the expectation that they will work for us and for the greater good. What if they were raised with prejudice and social divisions in mind? Then even their best intentions will be morally wrong.  It is a frightening thought to see that the French Army had such men in their ranks and these men made decisions that cost the lives of thousands of innocent men every day. It is even worse to think of the possibility that those same men, with different names in different armies, still make the most important decisions today. I think this is what Kubrick’s Paths of Glory was really about, and because of the profundity of the movie, it is my favourite one of his.

Rating: ★★★★★ 

If we were to look at our society, what would we see? We would see an economy in recession, an ailing superpower struggling in overseas wars, the dissolving of local culture, falling borders, communities growing distant from each other, and other not so positive assumptions. Now, let’s suppose we discovered specially designed sunglasses that would allow us to see the truth behind our world. What would we see then? John Carpenter has the answer in one of my favourite sci-fi (though also classified as horror, action and even dark comedy) movies of all time, They Live. Starring Roddy Piper and Keith David, They Live offers an interesting perspective on society.

I'm giving you a choice: either put on these glasses or start eatin' that trash can.

“Stay Sleeping”

Roddy Piper plays a character with no name (the end credits list him as “Nada”) that is down on his luck but firm in his belief in the American Dream. As a drifter, he finds work at a construction site and a home in a nearby shantytown. When he stumbles into a suspicious church and finds a box of hidden sunglasses, his perception of the world is altered forever. Aliens have infiltrated society and are manipulating it for their ultimate agenda. If any humans discover the secret, they are either killed or paid off handsomely. Nada and his hard-convinced friend Frank (Keith David) join the underground group who operated out of the church and set out determined to correct, or at least inform, the public of the gross conspiracy. The movie picks up the action as Nada decides to shrug off all the rules and unleash retribution on the aliens. The aliens control the police force, the media, and the rich elite, who all aggressively try to stop Nada and the human rebels from awakening the public. This is a simple plot with deep implications.

“Conform”

What makes They Live so cool is how it sends its message of anti-commercialism in an original entertaining way. Analogous to a person discovering the truth of a conspiracy theory through books or documentaries, Nada discovers it through sunglasses. Typically, we believe it is corrupt politicians or criminal bankers who control the world, but in They Live, even these people are subjects of a more sinister power. Ugly space aliens dupe the human race and it is up to the freethinking enlightened rebels to liberate the masses.

The theme of a world underneath is a concept worth considering. John Carpenter makes this film a commentary on the ways of our lives. Are we happy purchasing items? Do we really need to take a vacation? What are the real motives behind our relationships? As well as other questions, this one makes us ask, who really runs the world? Do I? Do you? Do I make the decision on how much taxes I give from my paycheque? Do I set the regulations for parking, grocery bags, or other inconvenient by-laws? Sure I am not a civil servant, but when was I ever asked about the things that control my life? An evident disconnection causes misuse of power and unsupervised criminal activity to occur. I am sure any country can site endless cases of political and corporate corruption. When Nada sees the world for what it is he witnesses aliens running our news networks, our politics, and our financial systems. An age-old adage says the crooks run the prison. Perhaps not actual aliens, but maybe the world is run by a type of person who has a vastly different set of values and a mentality in conflict with the average person. This is the question John Carpenter wants the viewer to ask.

"This Is Your God"

“Consume”

They Live did not have to be a commercial blockbuster to be a worthwhile movie. As a cult classic, it influenced many other films, video games, and comics after its release. There was a raw five and a half minute fight scene early in the movie between Nada and Frank that inspired the fight between Timmy and Jimmy in the episode of South Park called “Cripple Fight.” The scene gave wrestler “Rowdy” Roddy a chance to lay the smackdown on Keith David who refused to put on the glasses. It was a real physical struggle between the two characters on screen and the hard hits and exhausted swings made the long beating even more satisfying. Oh, and Roddy Piper is the coolest hero ever in this movie. His unforgettable one-liners and tough attitude made him one of the sources for the Duke Nukem character. The only other competitor he may have for coolest eighty’s sci-fi hero is John Carpenter’s other self-determined character Snake Plissken.

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum."

If we were to look at our society through the specially designed sunglasses found in They Live, we would see a world run by space aliens bent on domination through mass media and consumerism. Would we then take off the glasses and forget what we saw, or would we pick up a shotgun and send those bastards back to their planet? Are you awake yet, because they sure are.

Rating: ★★★★★ 

Possibly one of the best comedy films ever made Airplane! is the brainchild of the masters of spoof, Jerry Zucker, David Zucker and Jim Abrahams. These guys are renowned for Airplane! in particular and despite a drop in quality recently they can still be held in high regard for what they have done.

Airplane! is a comical remake of a 50′s film called Zero Hour. Airplane! stars Robert Hays as Ted Stryker, a former fighter pilot who is trying to move on from a terrible accident which saw him inadvertently lead several of his squadron to their deaths. The love of his life, air hostess Elaine (Julie Hagerty), cannot cope with his attempts to overcome the ordeal.

Fighting his fear of flying, he climbs aboard the plane she is on in an attempt to rekindle their dying relationship. However, when the flight crew are incapacitated Stryker must take control and land the plane full of passengers.

Every single performance in this film is comedically perfect, Robert Hays’ in particular as the inch-perfect script gives everybody in the film the chance to shine with witty humorous dialogue, a whole horde of memorable lines and a simple yet effective storyline. The film takes the route of mocking everything it can but it hits every button regardless and the disaster movie premise is just the right basis for the comedic value to shine.

Even the most ridiculous and random scenes in the film don't seem out of place. Everything fits.

It’s hard for me to describe just how great this film is. None of the gags are out-of-place and everything in the 87 minute long running time is brilliant. It’s clear every actor is trying to steal the comedy limelight but unfortunately none can match the comedic aura Leslie Nielsen emanates whenever he’s on screen. He’s not the main character though, playing a doctor who is asked to help when passengers start to get sick. When he appears he delivers sublime one-liners and his acting in general flows gloriously throughout.

On the ground there’s almost a whole other cast who are communicating to the plane’s crew in the film and they really come into their own. There are many gags and laughs had from outside of the plane as well as inside and the dual narratives running together and mixing works perfectly, the exchange of lines between the two is just as good as everything else in the film.

It’s clear that the directors had a right laugh themselves making every second of the film as funny as physically possible. The number of jokes in the film are so high it’s impossible to count but you don’t ever feel like they’re throwaway lines that are clogging up the film.

I can’t honestly pick a fault in the film. It’s a comedy which means it has to be funny and Airplane! is about as funny as they get. If you appreciate comedy regardless of what type, Airplane! is head and shoulders above most. I can’t show just how much I love this film in this review. Jerry and David Zuckers and Jim Abrahams have brought me a few of my absolute favourite films and Airplane! is one of them. It’s an absolutely fantastic comedy film that hits every single note exactly the way it should.

Rating: ★★★★★ 

Stanley Kubrick, probably one of the most influential and creative film directors in the history of the film industry, has a knack for making you really take note of everything you see.

Full Metal Jacket was psychological, showing you in vivid detail a gritty side of war, with the mental psyche of the characters being tormented to the point of implosion. The Shining, despite it being adapted from a novel, was a 2 hour psychological horror, showing just how loneliness can destroy the human mind and cause them to do strange things. Dr Strangelove was, while epitomising just what a spoof film should be, just what the title suggests, strange, satirising deep political debate over nuclear related issues.

So in 1968, when Kubrick gave the public an insight into what the future may hold, it certainly wasn’t how other directors would go about it. Well, no-one’s quite like Kubrick, and 2001: A Space Odyssey was a bold and successful attempt at exploring what the future may hold through both supernatural and, once again, psychological elements.

If that domino piece falls on you, you're f*cked.

With a rousing, very memorable score, the film sets itself up to be different from the very beginning, a very hefty 3 minutes of film displaying absolutely nothing, instead giving you a raw sense of suspense, the eerie and slow crescendo building doing a lot with a little. Once the film kicks in, it takes a shade under 26 minutes for the first piece of worded dialogue to be spoken. Kubrick needs to keep the audience gripped to the storyline without any use of speech, a complete reliance on the combination of music, camerawork and acting used to keep the audience engaged.

The story is simple but confusing: a black “monolith”, in the shape of what would most easily be described as a domino piece, contains mystical powers, and has been around since the dawn of man, landing on earth, much to the bemusement of the first stage of evolution. This monolith seems to trigger something which causes a leap in evolutionary development.

Skip forward 1000s of years: humans are in space. Space travel has become a norm for the rich, a luxury way of travelling and working, a new industry for humanity to thrive in.

The story takes you on a doctor’s trip to the Moon to discuss strange occurences happening with a space project. Turns out that monolith has been causing more havoc.

Skip forward some more, and you are into the main bulk of the film: intrepid astronauts with a human-like computer travelling towards Jupiter in the first man-made mission there. The problem is, the computer’s intelligence becomes a factor when the astronauts aboard start to doubt the system’s “fail-proof” design. The computer, being overly intelligent, discovers this doubt becoming a plan to shut it down, and it decides that that isn’t for the good of the mission.

The plot flows curiously throughout its course, with odd sequences mixed intriguingly with some gloriously constructed suspense sequences. Space becomes the perfect platform for audience mind games, and when the film is over, you’re left with the feeling that the film’s storyline was almost irrelevant, and that this film was just one big social experiment on Kubrick’s part.

But despite this, the film is entertaining, riveting, and full of both suspense and thrills that rarely falter. Silence is golden here: Kubrick uses it to incredible effect, taking you on a journey through time that uses a lack of sound to better effect than films that rely on it. But when 2001: A Space Odyssey implements the pitch-perfect suspenseful score accompanying the film when necessary, it’s used clinically and with expert precision, to build the suspense to greater heights.

2001: A Space Odyssey, while not for the masses, is an exploration into the human psyche and what future could have been possible, with an ending that leaves you dazed and confused, but utterly riveted to the unique and wonderfully bizarre series of light arrays and set pieces. It’s a cult classic by all accounts, and it’s one that, if you don’t read too much into, is watchable again and again, leaving you with the same incredulity and wonderment that you experienced the first time. I highly recommend.

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

Rear Window is possibly Hitchcock’s best film, and as far as suspense films go, it’s one of the best, if not the best to date.

Made back in 1954, it stars James Stewart as Jeff, a photographer recovering from a broken leg. Housebound, he resorts to spying on his neighbours across the street from his apartment with a pair of binoculars to pass the time. When he sees one of his neighbours acting suspicious, he spends his time trying and find out what they are up to.

He convinces his girlfriend Lisa (Grace Kelly) and his carer Stella (Thelma Ritter) that his neighbour has killed his bedridden wife. However, no-one else believes him, and when the suspect cottons on to Jeff’s spying, what follows is a blend of thrilling suspense and spellbinding direction. Not that the rest of the film isn’t.

Every part of this film is brilliant. Right from the off, you just know that this film will draw you in, which it does so. Every scene flows beautifully from one to the next, and Rear Window stands out as a true suspense film.

Grace Kelly stars as the woman trying desperately to convince James Stewart that she is right for him, whilst helping him solve the case.

I think what it does best is that it doesn’t follow the norm: rather than sacrificing an unrealistic atmosphere for entertainment value, Hitchcock takes a big risk, focusing on the portrayal of instinctive human characteristics and realism for suspense. Luckily, it pays off, and what you’re left with is, quite frankly, a cinematic masterpiece.

For me, it’s a benchmark for all suspense and thriller films. Even 55 years later, the film is gripping, entertaining and brilliant. It’s not a film that loses its touch over time, and it should be a film in every film lover’s collection.

It may not appeal to everybody, its twists and turns falling slightly short of what you’d expect to find in modern suspense, but personally, I prefer the suspense to build, as opposed to throwing lots of situations at you. Rear Window gives you unparalleled suspense, engrossing you in a gripping plotline that hits all the right spots, and overall Rear Window is pretty much as perfect a suspense film as you’re going to get.

Rating: ★★★★★ 

The Birds, a 1963 suspense film, was both directed and produced by Alfred Hitchcock, and starred Tippi Hedren as a rich, slightly obnoxious and arrogant woman who meets a man called Mitch (Rod Taylor) in a pet store. After Melanie mocks him, he leaves, but Melanie, intrigued by him, decides to track him down.

When she finds him however, strange things start to happen, as the birds of Mitch’s town start to violently attack the residents for no apparent reason.

Dun dun duuuuun...

Whilst the film’s story is a little weak, the direction of Hitchcock certainly makes the film an entertaining one to watch. Most directors wouldn’t try and make a serious film out of such a strange and ridiculous plot, but where most would flail, Hitchcock thrives, producing some very memorable scenes and some fantastic pieces of cinema within this film.

Hitchcock uses The Birds as a great opportunity to flex his legendary film making talents. Renowned for creating scenes of high emotion without using any score, he implements this beautifully into certain scenes of the film, to create feelings of anxiety and suspense from very little.  As he spent his early days producing silent films, he knows how to create suspense from silence.

The cast within the film were somewhat unknown, the lead Tippi Hedren being scouted out by Hitchcock after he saw her in a commercial. He does well to get a very solid and believable performance from Hedren, and her role is supported greatly by the supporting cast, especially from Rod Taylor, playing Hedren’s love interest throughout the film.
Where this film differs from the norm (more than just with the very unique script) is the way the film builds up from suspense to horror over the course of the film. When you start watching it, you will already have an idea in your head about what are going to see. But when you start to get into the bulk of the film, there is a change of pace that is brilliantly placed, and this switch in intensity, and an iconic segment towards the end that implements Hitchcock’s special effects, make the film highly enjoyable.

If I had to gripe at one thing from this film, it is the transition that the film has from when it was released to the modern day. It slides uncomfortably into the silent films and film noir box – films that aren’t as impressive now as they once were. Its use of special effects are very well used, but what would have been considered back in the 60s are fantastic and mind blowing are now considered to be amateurish and rudimentary. You have to watch the film from the perspective of a person who had never seen special effects like Transformers and Lord of the Rings, if you want to fully appreciate it.

Despite this flaw, it’s a fantastic film nonetheless, one that is definitely worth watching, if only for the sometimes laughable scenarios combined perfectly with Hitchcock’s brilliant directing style.

Overall, if I was to list off my top 10 suspense films of all time, I’d have to include The Birds. It typifies Hitchcock. The Birds is a true suspense film, because it doesn’t follow a generic code – it surprises you. It makes you truly feel the suspense, when you let yourself get absorbed into it.

Rating: ★★★★☆