Freaky (2020)

 

Director: Christopher Landon

Freaky is classic high-concept film: a body-swap story with the twist where the swappers are a shy teenage girl, and a serial killer straight out of a slasher film. Not high art certainly, but what could have been simply stupid and disposable is actually very funny, with two surprisingly plumb lead roles for Kathryn Newton and Vince Vaughn. And most astonishing of all, a considerable amount of sweetness.

I am not a Vince Vaughn fan, and am not sure if I've even seen any films his been in, except maybe Dodgeball (not my kind of comedy). So take that into account when I say it is a great turn from him. He is convincing as the murderous Blissfield Butcher, but really makes the teen girl stuck in a middle man's body work. He doesn't over play the "girliness" of the character Millie, and to me stayed on the right side of camp. There were several moments of comedy gleaned from his height and strength, and a scene in a car between Millie (as Vaughn) and her crush that goes further than you'd expect, and doesn't make it gross. Newton clearly relishes playing the murderous persona in the body of an innocent-looking girl. The revenge visited on several revolting teenage boys, and a bullying teacher, is particularly enjoyable.

Freaky is a fun spin on a constantly re-hashed concept, and manages to be funny, nasty and sweet all at once. Someone could probably write a fun thesis on the film's comments on gender, but you can also just enjoy it as a great diversion from a crappy year.

Breaking the Waves (1996)

 

Director: Lars von Trier

Lars von Trier offers an interesting conundrum for me. On the one hand his films provide actresses with unusual and meaty roles to play, much more than the usual wife/girlfriend (or mother) roles they get in Hollywood. And yet his films put his female characters through the ringer, exacting rather extreme punishments on them. He would likely argue that he is simply reflecting the cruelty of life and the universe, but a lot of this cruelty is visited on women.

Breaking the Waves centres on Bess, a young woman who lives in a remote Scottish village and is part of the stern Calvinist church there. She is gentle and rather naive, and well-liked by many in the village. She marries Jan, an oil rig worker, who she loves dearly and has a active sex life with. After an accident leaves Jan paralysed, Bess is bereft of being physical with Jan; he encourages her to have sex with other men, then tell him about it so they can feel closer to each other. Bess, who speaks to God and replies to herself in His voice (or what she at least believes He is saying), tries to reconcile her behaviour and her faith.

Emily Watson convinces as the naive Bess. It is a hard role to do well, as any sign of knowing-ness would destroy the character's depth of innocence, making her appear duplicitous. Watson won plaudits for the role, and they were deserved. I certainly felt sympathy for Bess, and believed she believed what she was doing was right. 

I am not overly fond of films that use a naive, innocent character as a contrast to others. I'm thinking of Being There in particular. So often the character is just a symbol for others to bounce off, and it feels exploitative. Here at least von Trier shows us Bess' inner life, giving her depth. However, does this make the exploitation worse, now that we understand the knots she is mentally tying herself in?

While not as horrible an experience as Antichrist, Breaking the Waves is a hard watch. I doubt I'll be re-watching anytime soon.

Martyrs (2008)

 Director: Pascal Laugier

Fifteen years after escaping captivity as a child Lucie, accompanied by her friend Anna, breaks into an apparently normal middle-class home and murders the mother, father and two teenage children in a brutal killing spree. We know that this family is somehow related to Lucie's earlier captivity, which was extremely abusive and traumatic, but we are left wondering what exactly was their role, and why they kept and abused a child. Was it sexual sadism? Some form of horrific parenting? The film offers few answers, and raises even more questions as Lucie sees visions of an emaciated human-like creature that appears intent on killing her. At the halfway mark of the story, something happens that completely changes our ideas about what we have just seen, and unleashes a rather different plot, one that is extremely difficult to watch in its brutality.

I am being hazy with the details of Martyrs as it is a film best going in not knowing what will happen, as I did. The film is certainly not for the faint-hearted, and offers no real let-up from the horror it presents to the audience: no moments of humour or levity. I imagine this could be too much for even some of the keenest of horror fans. It is bleak.

That being said, it is not just torture porn (though it veers close to it). The shifts in focus in the storytelling are well done, and the central mystery at the film's heart is seeded from the beginning. It is just that once you find out about it, it carries through its painful implications to the end. This is a glimmer of hope at the end that it is not all in vain, but it is a dim one.

If you have the nerves and stomach for it, this is an interesting horror film, one of the more smarter torturous stories out there. But it is uncomfortable, deeply unpleasant, and will remind you of the horrible things humans are capable of doing to one another. 

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

 Director: Wes Anderson

Gene Hackman gives one of his best performances as Royal Tenenbaum, the self-centred paterfamilias who decides to reconnect with his estranged family after several decades. His not quite ex-wife Etheline is getting married to her accountant, which makes Royal jealous. The three Tenenbaum children, who were all gifted in their youth, have lost their ways as adults, dealing with grief and pain in their relationships, and a lack of progress in their careers. Royal's re-entrance into their lives brings chaos that threatens to break things apart, and possibly mend them too.

I am not a Wes Anderson "fan-girl" but I do like his films and certainly appreciate the coherency of his vision, and his ability to execute said vision without it getting in the way of the narrative. The idiosyncratic style and story generally feed into each other rather seamlessly. He also gets great performances from his cast, though if you cast your films this well, that isn't so hard to achieve. As I said Gene Hackman is fantastic here, managing to engage in some truly awful behaviour and yet still be charming and hilarious too. I also enjoy watching Anjelica Huston in anything, and she is good as the rather harried mother of the family. The deadpan delivery of Stiller, Wilson and Paltrow as the children adds a human equality to the absurdity of the whole story.

Wes Anderson doesn't tend to deviate from his film style, so when you see one of his films, you know what you are going to get. The Royal Tenenbaums is quintessential Anderson, and if that's your thing, you'll love it.

Harold and Maude (1971)

Director: Hal Ashby

I had watched Harold and Maude a number of years ago, before I started recording my thoughts about films. I remember enjoying it on first viewing, though I was also slightly thrown by the odd turns the plot takes. Films that have strange plots and and tones often prove richer on second viewing, and as the film was available for free on SBS Movies on Demand (I cannot praise this local service highly enough), a re-watch was in order. 

One could argue Harold and Maude is a twist on the plot of The Graduate. Both films feature a listless young man with parents and adults around him who don't understand what he wants - though if you were to ask him, he wouldn't be able to articulate it either. He then meets an older woman who provides something new and different in his life, eventually forcing him to make a decision about his future. Of course, the big difference is the nature of the older woman: in The Graduate Mrs Robinson is the same age as Benjamin's parents, and they never manage to open up to one another. In Harold and Maude the gap is at least two generations, and Maude's considerable life-experience, and brushes with real tragedy, draw the youthful Harold out of his death-obsessed shell.

The film is very 70s, with its fashion and political climate - not the mention the lovely Cat Stevens' soundtrack. For viewers today this adds to the film's charm. The rarefied, upper-class lifestyle of Harold's mother is beautifully contrasted to Maude's life in her converted train carriage house. The first feels like a museum, the other a comfortable, ramshackled place demonstrating a life well lived.

Recently I've been pondering what makes a film a "cult" classic. It is one of those things that is hard to define: broadly it has to do with the film's subject matter being somehow contrary to the mainstream, or that the execution of its ideas is unconventional. Or it can be about an audience's reaction to the film. Whatever makes a film "cult", Harold and Maude has it in spades.

Apollo 11 (2019)

 Director: Todd Douglas Miller

Having been born over twenty years after the Moon landing took place, the event always had a sense of "of course we did" about it. As a child I had no idea about the level of scientific achievement needed to make it happen, nor the political and historical context surrounding it. As an adult, having learned these things, I was amazed that such a thing was actually accomplished, knowing how little computer power was available in the 60s, but that didn't still give the full picture. Miller's documentary, made using only contemporaneous footage and voice-recordings, immerses you in the whole event, filling you with awe and amazement about the scale of the endeavour.

The opening shots are of the wheels of large machines slowly rolling along tarmac, the vehicle groaning and clunking, dwarfing the people walking beside it. The next shot reveals what is being carried: only Saturn V, the rocket that propelled Apollo 11 into space! From there we meet the three astronauts who manned Apollo 11, and the Mission Control Centre in Houston. The film follows the complete journey of the mission, from launch to the return of the astronauts to Earth.

Apollo 11 is not a documentary designed to walk you through each step of the mission, and it offers very little by way of explanation for the science behind it. The most it does is provide simple animated sequences that demonstrate the maneuvers performed by the craft: one example is the lunar module reconnecting with the command module. Instead the footage - of Saturn V launching into space, of the lunar module gliding over the surface of the Moon - is allowed to play out for long periods, drawing you into the moment, making everything feel immediate and full of tension. The result is that by the film's end an historical event you knew the outcome of becomes vivid and emotional. You are connected to the hope and optimism of the spectators shown in the film, the people who turned up 50 years ago to witness history. You are as invested in the outcome as the scientists and engineers watching and listening with bated breath in Houston, despite the knowledge all will be well.

I can imagine this becoming the definitive documentary about the first Moon landing, in part because of the previously unseen footage included in it. It deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible, with the best sound system available. It captures the profound achievement of this moment in history, and draws viewers into the emotions felt by many at the time.

Battleground (1949)

 Director: William Wellman

It is the end of 1944, and a group of American soldiers are sent to Bastogne to hunker down in the town's outskirts during what became known as the 'Siege of Bastogne,' part of the larger Battle of the Bulge in World War II. We follow Private Jim Layton as he joins the squad and works to make a place for himself in this tight-knit group, as they battle the onslaught from the German forces, the dwindling supplies, and the harsh winter.

Paul Vogel's black-and-white cinematography really immerses you in the bleak environment of war-torn Bastogne. Most the scenes are set outside in the snow and fog, shrouding the characters in white as they camp in their snow-covered trenches, emphasising the bitterness of the weather. The acting from the ensemble cast is really good; with such a large number of characters it could be easy to lose track of who's who, but with actors like Van Johnson, Ricardo Montalban and James Whitmore this doesn't happen after initially meeting them.

While this is not as famous as many other WWII films, it is certainly worth watching. You really feel bedded in with the troops, spending time with them as they wait nervous and bored for something to happen, or facing death as they return sudden enemy fire. The deaths are done poignantly, without much display of emotion, and yet they do sink in. This film may be quiet and at times look subdued, but it is infused with a nervous tension throughout that draws you in.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

 Director: David Lean

A group of British POWs arrive at a Japanese-run camp during WWII, led by the stoic Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson, who develops a complex relationship with the Japanese commandant Colonel Saito. While the British are put to work building the titular bridge, an American prisoner escapes, only to return to the camp as part of a mission to blow-up the infrastructure.

There are some films that are so well-made, with all its elements so perfectly balanced together, that it is hard to say anything about them, other than "Watch it. Now!" This is how I feel about David Lean's film. You could speak/write volumes about the greatness of the film, but none would properly capture its true brilliance, which lies in the perfectly pitched performances, the dynamics between the characters, the meticulous script which never drags, and the colour cinematography that portrays this harsh world.

While many have complained that the film is anti-British and anti-Japanese in its stance (including members of the cast and crew), I feel it is overall anti-war (as so many films in this era were). There is a bitterness to the ending that leaves you with the feeling 'what a waste of human life.' The most interesting character is Alec Guinness' Nicholson, who is the perfect-to-a-fault soldier. His stoicism and devotion to convention and order is played as a form of madness, and yet I couldn't help but admire him and his desire to find meaning amongst the madness, giving his men a purpose while imprisoned. His loss of perspective is difficult to watch, knowing what is going to happen to the bridge.


The Bridge on the River Kwai is up there with Casablanca as one of the best films that won Best Picture at the Oscars. It is one of the few films that completely justifies its considerable running time, and its ending is emotionally devastating. Films don't come much better than this.

The Favourite (2018)

 Director: Yorgos Lanthimos

The Favourite follows Abigail Hill, a genteel woman fallen on hard times, who comes to the residence of Queen Anne to seek employment from Lady Marlborough, her cousin. Lady Marlborough (also known as Sarah Churchill), is the Queen right-hand woman, exerting a huge amount of influence over the sickly, often befuddled monarch. Abigail sees an opportunity to rise from her current destitution, and works to replace Sarah in the Queen's affections.

Lanthimos' film is similar to Amadeus in its approach to history. It is not about educating people regarding a particular person or moment, but instead takes a situation - here, the close relationships Queen Anne had with these two women - and spins a darkly funny, beautifully designed tale of ambition, power and friendship. It does not matter whether Olivia Colman's Anne is at all like the historical person, or whether she had sexual relationships with Abigail and Sarah. What does matter is the depth of the performances, and the gorgeous crafting of the world of Queen Anne's court.

The three main performances are wonderful - not unexpected from Olivia Colman, Emma Stone or Rachel Weisz, three of my favourite actors working today. The shifting dynamics between their characters feels like a beautifully choreographed dance, as Stone's Abigail and Weisz's Sarah seek to outwit one another. Olivia Colman is absolutely brilliant as Anne whose life is beset with physical pain (an attack of gout happens early on) and deep emotional trauma (17 dead children, some miscarriages, some dead in infancy; that is going to scar you).

All the elements of this film work really well together, from the witty script which feels true enough to early 18th century England, without being stilted, to the beautifully detailed costumes. The score has period appropriate music as well as avant-garde strings, which adds to the claustrophobic atmosphere.

The Favourite is not a history lesson, nor is it your typical costume drama (though there is nothing wrong with those). What it is is a humorous, at times shocking tale of ambition, desire, and the lust for power that lies behind politics. It is arguably Lanthimos' most accessible film to date, but that does not mean it is any less captivating or complex in its themes than his other films.

True Grit (1969)

 Director: Henry Hathaway

If you are going to make a Western called "True Grit" it seems impossible you would cast anyone other than John Wayne in the lead role. Perseverance, or stubbornness, is a trait shared by many of the characters he played: Ethan Edwards in The Searchers immediately springs to mind. Here he plays "Rooster" Cogburn, hired by Mattie Ross to avenge the murder of her father by one of his workers. As with many of Wayne's roles, his steeliness of resolve is contrasted with the tender feelings he develops towards Mattie, becoming a father-figure for the fatherless teenager.

The film as a whole is entertaining and really well acted. Wayne is clearly enjoying the material, and he reportedly loved the script for the film. It is certainly a meaty role for him. Kim Darby is energetic in her portrayal of Mattie; one could argue she has the most "grit" of any of the characters. The scene where she haggles of the buying and selling of horses is good fun. The cinematography is lovely, along with the Colorado geography, despite it being set in Arkansas and Oklahoma (though being Australian I didn't notice the difference).

The only glaring flaw in the film is its pacing. It takes a long time for Cogburn, Mattie and La Boeuf to set out on their journey, with much discussion about who will and will not go. This doesn't really build tension, as you know who the three people going will be, and it just delays the inevitable. I imagine the remake is more economical in its first act.

While there is nothing ground-breaking in True Grit, it is a solid, well-made Western that has a rather sweet ending. It is hard not to enjoy a film where all the elements - writing, acting, directing, cinematography - are so good. It will be interesting to compare to the Coen Brothers' version.

Salute (2008)

Director: Matt Norman

Salute tells the story behind one of the most famous images in the world: the Black Power salute performed at the 1968 Olympic Games. In the photo John Carlos and Tommie Smith stood each with one hand in the air,, wearing a black glove, providing a powerful statement in support of the civil rights movement. Standing with them is Peter Norman, a white Australian runner, who is wearing an "Olympic Project for Human Rights" badge along with Smith and Carlos, evidence of his support for their cause. The film, made by Norman's nephew, tells the untold story of one of Australia's most successful runners who is still sadly rather unknown in Australia (I did not know about him until I watched the film).

Salute explores the context of civil rights in both America and Australia in the 60s, drawing parallels between the two to explain Norman's sympathies with the American situation. It also outlines Norman's life, particularly his Christian faith, which for him meant that all people were created equal, which lead him to abhor the racism in Australian society at the time (we had something called the White Australia Policy, and it was despicable). Carlos and Smith speak with great love and gratitude for Norman, with both delivering heartfelt eulogies at Norman's funeral.

This is one of those films that works to show us how far we have come in regards to human rights, and also how much more still needs to be done. The response in America to black footballers taking the knee (a peaceful and rather respectful protest which was met with a furious blacklash from some) shows that people still bristle at sport and politics mixing. Salute is a reminder of the need to stand up for what it right, even thought the cost may be terrible; all three runners suffered set-backs in their careers after the event. It also encourages us to reach out to one another over things that supposedly divide us - gender, colour, sexuality, even nationality - and recognise the inherent humanity that binds us all. It is an inspirational film about three inspirational men.

The Last Picture Show (1971)

 Director: Peter Bogdanovich

In The Last Picture Show, Bogdanovich deliberately filmed the story in black-and-white, really emphasising the down-and-out texture of the world of Anarene, a small town in Texas. The lack of colour takes us back in time to 1951, and a externalises the lack of excitement and joy that exists in the characters' lives.

The film follows the lives of several of the towns inhabitants, focusing particularly on Timothy Bottoms' Sonny, and his friends Duane Jackson (Jeff Bridges) and Jacy Farrow (Cybil Shepherd). They try to inject joy, excitement or even just emotion into their lives, often in destructive ways; Jacy works at losing her virginity (and finding a potential husband), while Sonny begins an affair with the older wife of the school's coach.

There is a great deal of pain and bitterness in this film, with occasional moments of humour (the naked pool party scene is uncomfortably awkward). The contrast between the lives of the characters and the worlds of the films they watch at the cinema cut through the cinematic fantasy of the 1950s, while at the same time making us wonder about the need for such fantasies. Two films that characters watch during Bogdanovich's film are Father of the Bride and Red River, one an aspirational comedy about an extravagant wedding, the other a Western about the clash between the old ways and the new, with Montgomery Clift's character Matt trying to strike out a different path from John Wayne's Dunson. Sonny and Duane desire something more than the world offered them in Anarene, something like that offered in the films they watch (it is no coincidence that Sonny breaks up with his girlfriend not long after watching Elizabeth Taylor in Father of the Bride). Yet they find themselves stuck where they are, surrounded by bitter or defeated adults.

In the end Duane has to leave by joining the army, risking his life in the process (he will end up fighting in Korea). Sonny, who has spent the film searching for a genuine human connection, loses the one that had meant most to him, and goes back to Ruth, the coach's wife, who he had thrown off for Jacy. The film's ending is ambiguous. It feels both hopeful and yet hopeless at the same time. Ruth clearly loves Sonny, and yet she is stuck in a marriage she likely can't escape; how will they give each the love and companionship they need? The film doesn't give us an answer.

Bogdanovich clearly loved Golden Age Hollywood films, but he wasn't above pulling apart their rose-coloured view of reality. There is a wryness in his films, and here a pain that comes from watching people make decisions that draw them further away from being happy. The script is wonderful, the acting is superb (with a cast like this you wouldn't expect it to be anything else), and its cinematography emphasises its melancholia. It is a great film.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)

Director: Sam Peckinpah

The title of Peckinpah's film is eye-catching, making you wonder who is Alfredo Garcia, what did he do to risk losing his head, and who will go and get it. Being a Peckinpah film you can expect the answer will come with a lot of violence, including multiple shoot-outs. The story focuses on the getter of head, Bennie, and the cost this expedition has for him.

I haven't warmed to Peckinpah's style. I do admire the way he shoots violence, which is impressionistic, with its slow-mos overlaid with loud gunfire, disorientating you as though you were part of the action. He does also focus on interesting characters. My problem is the story is often not as compelling as it could be, and as someone who tires of too much violence quickly (unless it is in horror), I get tired watching his films. All this is true of Alfredo Garcia.

I can't say much more about the film because it didn't grab me. I watched it a few weeks ago, and haven't thought about it since. Peckinpah clearly has his fans, several of his films appear on the 1001+ Films lists, but he doesn't do much for me.

Antichrist (2009)

 Director: Lars von Trier

I honestly don't know what to think about Antichrist. I can't say I enjoyed it, and I don't believe von Trier meant it to be an enjoyable experience. But I am still not sure what the film was trying to say. Is it a decrying of misogyny, or is misogynistic itself?

Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Defoe play a couple who are working through grief at the death of their child. Gainsbourg's character (unnamed) feels particularly shattered by the loss, and Defoe's character decides to treat her (being a therapist himself). They go to a cabin in the woods (never a good idea in a film) and Gainsbourg's character starts to really unravel, aided by a surprisingly aggressive natural world.

The central idea of the film is that "nature is Satan's church," and Gainsbourg's character argues that since women are more ruled by nature than men (menstrual cycles, pregnancy, etc.) they too are evil. What makes the film frustrating to watch is you are not quite sure if it agrees with this idea. Defoe's character at first disagrees, and works to try and convince his wife too. He also points out that her study of gynocide appears to have affected her thinking. But as her behaviour spirals out of control, and the wood becomes more aggressive, you feel the film agreeing with Gainsbourg.

The film's opening - a black-and-white, slow-motion, silent (with the aria 'Lascia ch'io pianga' playing) depiction of the couple having sex while their child falls out a window - is extremely well done. It sets up the mother's horror that crescendos throughout the film, and leads to a revelation later about the mother's knowledge of their son's predicament (though we don't know if this is her projecting after the fact). Both Gainsbourg and Defoe completely give themselves to the roles, something I don't think a lot of actors would have done, considering the subject matter.

This falls into the "not going to watch again" category, not because it is the most disturbing film I have seen (it is disturbing, but not as much as, say Salo), but mostly because I don't think its knows quite what it is saying about women and misogyny. Lars von Trier has written some really interesting roles for women, and has shown sympathy for female suffering, but this film feels like a weird distortion of that idea.

I've Just Seen: The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976)

 Director: John Cassavetes

I don't really know what to say about this film because it didn't really make me feel anything. I may not have been in the right mood or mindset to watch it, but it just didn't grab me. I am not a fan of gangster films in general, but I do like interesting takes on genre, and Chinese Bookie is certainly different to other gangster films. But, for whatever reason, I just didn't go with it.

The plot is reasonably recognisable: Cosmo Vitelli, who runs a strip-joint, finds himself in debt to a powerful group of gangster who run a gambling club. To pay off his debt he must kill the titular bookie (actually the boss of the Chinese mafia), leading to Vitelli losing much of what he loves. What makes this different to other gangster films are small details. Vitelli's club is rather artsy, with a focus on themes and creativity, not just nudity. Vitelli's girlfriend is also black, and Vitelli has a close, tender relationship with her mother as well.

The cinematography and acting are low-key, making this a film that asks you to lean into it. Unfortunately I just couldn't get into it. I can see it was well-made, and the acting is good, but it is not my thing. I have appreciated other Cassavetes films but he is not a director I have enthusiastically embraced.

Much like the acts in Vitelli's club, the title promises something perhaps violent and action packed, but instead we get something a bit different. Our expectations are defied, and if you can't change them, you are left wondering what to think.

I've Just Seen: 9 1/2 Weeks (1986)

 Director: Adrian Lyne

Having watched a number of foreign language films, particularly French films which have no qualms showing male and female nudity, and living in an era where 50 Shades of Grey is a pop culture phenomenon, I found that 9 1/2 Weeks did not live up to its salacious reputation. And despite critics positive comments about the central couple, I saw some rather unpleasant sexual dynamics being played out (though I will concede, not without challenge).

Kim Basinger is really good as Elizabeth, who starts an affair with apparently compelling John Gray (yes, another one). Through a series of "erotic" games involving ice cubes, food, and the oh so fun game of staying locked up all day in your lover's house, not allowed to go anywhere, Elizabeth starts to wonder what it is she wants from the relationship beyond sex.

As I said, Basinger is really good as Elizabeth, balancing the character's fixation with John along with her misgivings about the relationship. Unfortunately for Mickey Rourke, I found John Gray really off putting. Maybe it was his smug smile, his job on Wall Street (which only emphasises his entitlement), his boring flat, or his constant ignoring of Elizabeth's opinions and wishes that turned me off him. From the moment he played "Strange Fruit" as a seduction song, my dodgy dude senses tingled (really, a song about lynching gets you going?).

The film also has a weird approach to Elizabeth's character. While we see her being capable and intelligent at work, the first few times she meets with John she is dressed and treated in childish ways: carrying a bunch of balloons, being locked onto a Ferris wheel, then being stranded at the top when John pays the guy working it to leave her there (oh, isn't he hilarious). It felt off to me, like it was equating her submission to him with being a child; never mind the Monroe-esque coos and squeals she makes too.

The sex scenes are positively tame compared to efforts from Europe and Asia, and as is common in American films, features more female than male nudity (and yet this film is ostensibly aimed at women). Not that you need nudity for a film to ooze sexiness (just look at The Lady Eve), but considering the film's reputation, I was expecting more.

As you can tell, this did nothing for me. If you want a really clever, funny and sexy version of this type of story, ignore this (and 50 Shades) and head straight for Secretary (also featuring a gray-named male lead). I do give the film kudos for its ending, showing the emotional toll such a relationship often has on people, and being realistic about its likely outcome (unlike 50 Shades). But it would have been a lot shorter if Elizabeth had just talked to her friends about the relationship; most would have told her to drop him sooner.

I've Just Seen: Sherpa (2015)

 Director: Jennifer Peedom

After a fight broke out between Sherpas and a European climber during the 2013 climbing season at Everest, Peedom and crew went to Nepal to observe the 2014 season, focusing on the experience of the Sherpas. As it happened, she was there to witness on camera an avalanche that killed 16 Sherpas, which led to an unprecedented response from the other Sherpas who refused to climb that year, shutting down the season.

The documentary provides a sympathetic insight into the lives of the local Sherpa people, focusing in particular on Phurba Tashi, who has climbed Everest 21 times. At the film's opening he is hoping to make it 22, a record, much against the wishes of his family, who fear for his life each time he goes away. Peedom also follows mountaineer Russell Brice, who runs one of the company providing Everest climbs. We learn that Sherpas are employed to not only accompany visitors on climbs, but to make many trips in order to set up several camps up the mountain, meaning they have to navigate the treacherous area, the Khumbu Icefall, which is climbed at night because during the day the ice melts and moves. It is here that the avalanche occurs early one morning.

The catastrophic event prompts union-style behaviour from the Sherpas, who don't want to climb, and are demanding the government give them better wages, protections and compensation for the dead workers' families. The Nepalese government makes a lot of money from foreign tourists climbing Everest, and the Sherpas see little of it. Brice is sympathetic to the Sherpas, but also wants to push ahead with the climb.

Peedom's film raises difficult questions about the employment of Sherpas as assistant climbers for Western and wealthy visitors, questions that certainly deserve consideration. While the Sherpas do get paid for their work, it is such a small percentage of the huge amount of revenue the government receives; yet they do the most dangerous work. And, it is to make life easier for mostly white, wealthy tourists. It does feel like exploitation, and the way Brice and others say "It's a tragedy, but we have to move on" feels callous considering the dangers they are asking these people to experience.

Most people think of Sherpas as smiling, happy and willing to assist, an image created by the most famous Sherpa Tenzing Norgay. But as his children note in Peedom's film, Norgay came to resent the slights and assumptions made by Western media about him and his people. This film certainly challenges that image, painting a portrait of a people fighting to be acknowledged and appreciated.

I've Just Seen: Independence Day (1996)

 Director: Roland Emmerich

I vaguely remember this film being released, but was too young to see it at the cinema. I believe it was played a few times at school, but I don't remember watching it. If this film holds any significance today, it is as a barometer for how much blockbusters have changed in the last two decades. Other than that, I can't think why it is considered a must-see film.

The film is incredibly stupid in so many ways it is impossible to go through them; perhaps the most glaring is the use of the internet to download a virus onto the alien aircraft using Earth internet, but several thousand kilometres away from Earth (what the hell!!). None of the characters have much character development: the president is suitably bland - we get no sense of his political persuasion, only that he is thought to be too young for the job. One woman is shown to work as a pole-dancer, for no reason other than that's something male screenwriters seem to think is a big employer of women (tagent: I'd love to do a survey of all the jobs women are depicted having in films: I bet sex worker and stripper would be disproportionately high compared to actual jobs women have in real life). The disparate characters all eventually and predictably end up meeting and working together. And, of course, America saves the day.

While the film's visual effects have aged, I don't really have a problem as this happens to pretty much every film. And 22 years later they don't look that bad; other films have fared less well. However, the overwhelming Americaness of the whole endeavour (it just happens to be set around America's Independence day) just put me off. Apparently the rest of the world was just along for the ride.

Compared to the recent Arrival, Independence Day looks immensely stupid and violence heavy. If it shows any thought, it is in the rather pessimistic way it depicts conquering forces as destructive. But even this is giving the film too much credit. Its stupid, shallow and ultimately unsatisfying.

I've Just Seen: Hush ... Hush Sweet Charlotte (1964)

 Director: Robert Aldrich

Aldrich's film was originally intended to star both Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, replicating the success of the three's previous film What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?. But the ongoing feud between the two made it impossible for them to contemplate being in the same room together (with some undermining by Davis with the crew) Olivia de Havilland was cast as the titular Charlotte's cousin Miriam.

The original idea behind the casting of Davis and Crawford was to switch the dynamics of Baby Jane, with Davis now playing the put-upon character, and Crawford as the scheming one driving the other insane. While it would have been interesting to watch that play out, de Havilland is really good as the evil Miriam. She is playing a little against type herself; many of her most famous roles involved being the gir-next-door, though they often had dark parts to their lives (particularly in The Snake Pit). Here she gets to be out-and-out bad, and seems to be relishing it.

While Davis is famous for playing "bitchy" characters, she also brought great vulnerability to many of her roles. While Charlotte is not one of her subtlest performances, she is a good fit for a character who people believe murdered her lover.

It is not as hammy and grotesque as Baby Jane, making it less memorable and not as great. That being said, there is much enjoyment to be had watching these older stars of Hollywood flex their acting muscles.

I've Just Seen: The Wedding Banquet (1993)

 Director: Ang Lee

With The Wedding Banquet I have finally cracked 2,000 films watched in my lifetime. Thankfully this was a lovely film with which to achieve this milestone. I have enjoyed pretty much all of Ang Lee's films, and the progressive message about love and family at the heart of this one still feels relevant 25 years later.

Wai-Tung Gao is a Taiwanese man living in New York with his partner Simon. After receiving continuous pressure from his parents back in Taiwan to marry (particularly after his father suffers a stroke), Wai-Tung and Simon decide Wai should just marry a girl to get his parents off his back. Luckily one of Wai's tenants, Wei-Wei, needs a green card, so the three plan the wedding. But then Wai-Tung's parents arrive in America to see the wedding, forcing the celebrations to be bigger, putting pressure on Wai-Tung and Simon's relationship, and making Wei-Wei feel the separation from her family.

There is a generosity at the heart of the film. While some elements might have aged, as gay people have become more accepted in mainstream society, overall the film is still very sweet and touching. The cross-cultural element is something we in 2018 are dealing with as migration occurs. The Wedding Banquet shares similar ideas with My Big Fat Greek Wedding and more recently The Big Sick. Such romantic-comedies are not only about people finding someone to love, but also finding a balance between Western individualism and the more collective cultural philosophies of the East and Middle East. This adds more meat to the story and raises the stakes, creating a satisfying mix that goes beyond simple boy-meets-girl stories, and portrays the messiness of romantic life. The Wedding Banquet also has the added element of homosexuality, making the choice facing Wai-Tung even starker.

As a fan of the romantic-comedy genre, as well as someone who likes to explore other countries and cultures through film, I hope that future romantic-comedies continue to engage with such themes. To use a horrible word, such themes are more "relevant" than ever, and in a world that appears to be becoming more isolationist, surely focusing on love and relationships crossing divides is a good way to bridge gaps and generate understanding.

Here's to the next 2,000 films!