I'm now making the decision to close down this iteration of the blog... but things will continue, over at FilmJournal.net.
I'm not sure anyone reads this version anyhow, and if they do... well, please follow me to FilmJournal! The thing is, that site is generally more suited to the blog -- it's film-centric (as you may have guessed), with wider promotion to like-minded readers. Here, 100 Films is just lost among the millions of Blogger blogs; there, new posts get promoted on the front page of DVD Times, my personal favourite DVD site (it must be good, it was cited in the Serenity trailer!) So, as you can see, FilmJournal makes much more sense. And I have, for the past week or two, been keeping both versions of the blog up-to-date, but that's just becoming tiresome. There's no need for it, as far as I can see, and so it is time to make my choice.
So, please take note of the new URL -- http://filmjournal.net/100films/ -- and please continue reading! Should there be any reason you wish me to continue here, please post a comment and I'll consider. If you don't mind the move, but feel there's a feature I haven't carried over that's worth keeping, let me know. As it is, I don't expect anyone to ever read this and so expect no comments! But we'll see...
Blogger's been good, but already FilmJournal is better. So 100 Films in a Year is dead, but long live 100 Films in a Year!
Monday 18 February 2008
9) The Hound of the Baskervilles
1939, Sidney Lanfield, 77 mins, DVD, PG
Arguably the definitive screen interpretation of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, played by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, appear for the very first time here, in what would become the first in a series of 14 pictures starring the pair. (Incidentally, this will be the first in an irregular set of reviews of that series. I have the rather lovely Optimum box set, you see, and so shall slowly work my way through it. Though as I've already owned it for several years and only just started watching it (as with so many DVDs), I have no idea how long it will be before I finish.)
I'll start by laying my cards on the table: The Hound of the Baskervilles is a vastly overrated Holmes tale, and one that has been unduly adapted at least 15 other times (that from a quick search of IMDb). As far as I can tell its popularity is primarily due to the circumstances around its original publication (it was the first Holmes story in nearly a decade, following his death in The Final Problem). Holmes is absent for much of the story, which plods along fairly uneventfully (or, at least, inconsequentially) until a slightly dubious climax involving a centuries-old portrait. Naturally, all of these flaws carry over into any faithful adaptation, and this certainly is one.
One of the novel's strong points is its occasional Gothic styling, and this is something the film version does very well. Dartmoor looks fantastic, like something Tim Burton would have created were he working in the '30s. It's clearly a set, but it's dramatic and moody and completely effective. After the dull and poorly-designed interior scenes in London, it's fantastic when the film finally moves down into Devon and things... well, don't exactly get going, but at least there's something to look at! As with the novel the plot meanders by, diverted by an escaped convict and an entirely pointless (in this version at least) seance, until that painting-based resolution. All is not lost, however, as a particularly vicious-seeming attack by the hound livens things up considerably.
Rathbone is underused as Holmes, which is a shame as he immediately makes the part his own. Bruce isn't as bungling and comedic as he would later become, though the signs are already beginning to show. And the infamous final line -- "Oh Watson, the needle!" -- is actually a huge anticlimax if you haven't seen it before, an entirely pointless, meaningless and misplaced addition.
I feel like I've come down a little harshly on Hound of the Baskervilles, mainly thanks to a general unfavourable opinion of the source material. There are many better Holmes stories, often ignored thanks to the fame of this particular one. The following 13 films may be even less faithful adaptations than this, but I'm looking forward to their fun and frivolity, which will hopefully top Baskervilles. The moor really is fantastic though.
3/5
Arguably the definitive screen interpretation of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, played by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, appear for the very first time here, in what would become the first in a series of 14 pictures starring the pair. (Incidentally, this will be the first in an irregular set of reviews of that series. I have the rather lovely Optimum box set, you see, and so shall slowly work my way through it. Though as I've already owned it for several years and only just started watching it (as with so many DVDs), I have no idea how long it will be before I finish.)
I'll start by laying my cards on the table: The Hound of the Baskervilles is a vastly overrated Holmes tale, and one that has been unduly adapted at least 15 other times (that from a quick search of IMDb). As far as I can tell its popularity is primarily due to the circumstances around its original publication (it was the first Holmes story in nearly a decade, following his death in The Final Problem). Holmes is absent for much of the story, which plods along fairly uneventfully (or, at least, inconsequentially) until a slightly dubious climax involving a centuries-old portrait. Naturally, all of these flaws carry over into any faithful adaptation, and this certainly is one.
One of the novel's strong points is its occasional Gothic styling, and this is something the film version does very well. Dartmoor looks fantastic, like something Tim Burton would have created were he working in the '30s. It's clearly a set, but it's dramatic and moody and completely effective. After the dull and poorly-designed interior scenes in London, it's fantastic when the film finally moves down into Devon and things... well, don't exactly get going, but at least there's something to look at! As with the novel the plot meanders by, diverted by an escaped convict and an entirely pointless (in this version at least) seance, until that painting-based resolution. All is not lost, however, as a particularly vicious-seeming attack by the hound livens things up considerably.
Rathbone is underused as Holmes, which is a shame as he immediately makes the part his own. Bruce isn't as bungling and comedic as he would later become, though the signs are already beginning to show. And the infamous final line -- "Oh Watson, the needle!" -- is actually a huge anticlimax if you haven't seen it before, an entirely pointless, meaningless and misplaced addition.
I feel like I've come down a little harshly on Hound of the Baskervilles, mainly thanks to a general unfavourable opinion of the source material. There are many better Holmes stories, often ignored thanks to the fame of this particular one. The following 13 films may be even less faithful adaptations than this, but I'm looking forward to their fun and frivolity, which will hopefully top Baskervilles. The moor really is fantastic though.
3/5
Wednesday 13 February 2008
8) Great Expectations
1998, Alfonso Cuaron, 111 mins, download, 15 / R
After re-enjoying the classic David Lean version of Great Expectations (which I reviewed in 2007) last week as part of my adaptations module, it's now the turn of this American-set re-imagining. Despite a generally-held negative opinion toward this version, I found it to be more of a mixed bag.
Its main problem is that it can't escape its roots. Not a fault in an adaptation, you might think, but in the case of one so radical as this it is a flaw: you're left comparing and contrasting it with Dickens' novel and Lean's film, rather than appreciating it as a film or narrative in its own right. It comes across more as an academic exercise in turning a British Victorian novel into a modern American movie than a believable tale that works in isolation. Indeed, many of the changes appear to be designed purely to help distance it: the changed character names, the focus on the love story, and so on. Yet it directly recreates many scenes from the novel, and it obviously retains its title, despite there being no reference to that in the film itself.
Another product of this re-imagining is an unremitting sexualisation of everything. When Pip -- sorry, Finn's -- hand is placed on Ms Havisham -- sorry, Ms Dismoor's -- chest his first guess is that it's her "boob" rather than her heart; when 10-year-old Estella kisses Pip -- Finn, even -- it now comes with added tongues; Finn -- Pip -- Finn! -- draws now, and what he draws are nudes of Estella; and then they have sex too; and there are undoubtedly other examples that have since slipped my mind. This was pre Y Tu Mama Tambien, of course, where perhaps Cuaron exorcised this sexual preoccupations -- they're certainly not so evident in Children of Men or (unsurprisingly) his Harry Potter. His penchant for long takes, as seen constantly to great effect throughout Children of Men, also put in the odd pleasing appearance here.
By the end, it's tricky to know what to make of this Great Expectations. It's nicely faithful for a modern version, and yet that forbids it from striking out as its own work -- it's a fairly basic romantic film, bookended with some bizarre American Gothic trappings. I think it must stand as neither a success nor a failure, but as an interesting curio in the canon of Dickens adaptations.
3/5
After re-enjoying the classic David Lean version of Great Expectations (which I reviewed in 2007) last week as part of my adaptations module, it's now the turn of this American-set re-imagining. Despite a generally-held negative opinion toward this version, I found it to be more of a mixed bag.
Its main problem is that it can't escape its roots. Not a fault in an adaptation, you might think, but in the case of one so radical as this it is a flaw: you're left comparing and contrasting it with Dickens' novel and Lean's film, rather than appreciating it as a film or narrative in its own right. It comes across more as an academic exercise in turning a British Victorian novel into a modern American movie than a believable tale that works in isolation. Indeed, many of the changes appear to be designed purely to help distance it: the changed character names, the focus on the love story, and so on. Yet it directly recreates many scenes from the novel, and it obviously retains its title, despite there being no reference to that in the film itself.
Another product of this re-imagining is an unremitting sexualisation of everything. When Pip -- sorry, Finn's -- hand is placed on Ms Havisham -- sorry, Ms Dismoor's -- chest his first guess is that it's her "boob" rather than her heart; when 10-year-old Estella kisses Pip -- Finn, even -- it now comes with added tongues; Finn -- Pip -- Finn! -- draws now, and what he draws are nudes of Estella; and then they have sex too; and there are undoubtedly other examples that have since slipped my mind. This was pre Y Tu Mama Tambien, of course, where perhaps Cuaron exorcised this sexual preoccupations -- they're certainly not so evident in Children of Men or (unsurprisingly) his Harry Potter. His penchant for long takes, as seen constantly to great effect throughout Children of Men, also put in the odd pleasing appearance here.
By the end, it's tricky to know what to make of this Great Expectations. It's nicely faithful for a modern version, and yet that forbids it from striking out as its own work -- it's a fairly basic romantic film, bookended with some bizarre American Gothic trappings. I think it must stand as neither a success nor a failure, but as an interesting curio in the canon of Dickens adaptations.
3/5
Monday 11 February 2008
Editorial: The BAFTAs 2008
British film's big night has been and gone. I won't offer a comprehensive list of winners, or even many thoughts on them -- such things are easily found elsewhere -- but I will instead offer my thoughts on one of the few ceremonies this year to be presented in full (well, relatively speaking), and the only film awards ceremony that receives a terrestrial television airing in the UK.
The first thought that comes to mind is, "oh dear". Anyone would think the writer's strike was affecting the UK too, if this was the evidence they had to go on. Jonathan Ross's jokes were few and far between, and rarely gained much reaction from his audience. To be fair to Ross, Stephen Fry had a good deal of excellent material when he used to host the BAFTAs and he was often met with silence too... but not as often, and it tended to be the silence of "that went over the heads of the yanks in the audience" rather than of "it wasn't that funny..." I like Ross as a presenter, generally speaking -- I enjoy his Friday night show, and while I rarely catch his radio show (I'm rather lax about listening to anything on the radio) I enjoy that even more; and I liked Film 200-whatever, because I often find I agree with his views and have some broadly similar tastes. But he's no BAFTA host. He's just not funny enough... oddly, because his work at the Comedy Awards is usually hilariously good.
The opening, with a troop of 300-style Spartans, was by far the most interesting bit. It all seemed quite incongruous for an awards show, but through this it suggested a show with some flair and excitement. Sadly it just remained incongruous, with nothing else even vaguelly close amongst the endless troop of fairly famous people reading poorly from an autocue. Evening that Spartan-packed opening was flawed though, missing out on the apparently obvious joke of having someone enter and yell, "THIS. IS. BAFTA!", which would've been a far stronger opening than... whatever Jonathan Ross said... I can't remember now...
It's a shame we couldn't make a better fist of it for a year when more eyes than ever were on the BAFTAs, thanks to the faltering performance of US awards shows under the strike. A new host would help. Eddie Izzard, maybe -- he got laughs. So did Ricky Gervais, not that he'd do it. But when even Hugh Laurie can't bridge the cultural divide of British and American humour, you have to wonder if the host is doomed to failure from the start. At least the awards themselves threw up some surprises, with enough nods to the American films (and a consequent shunning of British talent) to keep them interested -- I do wonder if the BAFTAs pander to trying to gain an American audience too much, but one could probably debate that for hours.
There's one thing we do better thought: fewer awards, and we don't even screen them all. It makes for a much less tiring experience.
The first thought that comes to mind is, "oh dear". Anyone would think the writer's strike was affecting the UK too, if this was the evidence they had to go on. Jonathan Ross's jokes were few and far between, and rarely gained much reaction from his audience. To be fair to Ross, Stephen Fry had a good deal of excellent material when he used to host the BAFTAs and he was often met with silence too... but not as often, and it tended to be the silence of "that went over the heads of the yanks in the audience" rather than of "it wasn't that funny..." I like Ross as a presenter, generally speaking -- I enjoy his Friday night show, and while I rarely catch his radio show (I'm rather lax about listening to anything on the radio) I enjoy that even more; and I liked Film 200-whatever, because I often find I agree with his views and have some broadly similar tastes. But he's no BAFTA host. He's just not funny enough... oddly, because his work at the Comedy Awards is usually hilariously good.
The opening, with a troop of 300-style Spartans, was by far the most interesting bit. It all seemed quite incongruous for an awards show, but through this it suggested a show with some flair and excitement. Sadly it just remained incongruous, with nothing else even vaguelly close amongst the endless troop of fairly famous people reading poorly from an autocue. Evening that Spartan-packed opening was flawed though, missing out on the apparently obvious joke of having someone enter and yell, "THIS. IS. BAFTA!", which would've been a far stronger opening than... whatever Jonathan Ross said... I can't remember now...
It's a shame we couldn't make a better fist of it for a year when more eyes than ever were on the BAFTAs, thanks to the faltering performance of US awards shows under the strike. A new host would help. Eddie Izzard, maybe -- he got laughs. So did Ricky Gervais, not that he'd do it. But when even Hugh Laurie can't bridge the cultural divide of British and American humour, you have to wonder if the host is doomed to failure from the start. At least the awards themselves threw up some surprises, with enough nods to the American films (and a consequent shunning of British talent) to keep them interested -- I do wonder if the BAFTAs pander to trying to gain an American audience too much, but one could probably debate that for hours.
There's one thing we do better thought: fewer awards, and we don't even screen them all. It makes for a much less tiring experience.
Saturday 9 February 2008
7) Atonement
2007, Joe Wright, 118 mins, DVD, 15 / R
"The Most Nominated Film of the Year" proudly proclaims a sticker on the cover of Atonement's newly released DVD. Well, not quite: according to IMDb, Atonement stands at 68 nominations while No Country For Old Men has made it to a whopping 108! Nonetheless, it's received a near ridiculous amount of acclaim on its way to awards season, and now, having missed it at the cinema, I can finally offer my opinion, just before it does its best to sweep the board at tomorrow's BAFTAs.
There are certainly a lot of things in Atonement that definitely warrant their nominations, and in many cases the award itself would not be badly placed either. James McAvoy gives a strong lead performance (he is, of course, up for Best Actor at the BAFTAs) and even more astounding is 13-year-old Saoirse Ronan as Briony, wise beyond her years as the over-imaginative girl who causes so much misery. In many ways she's the lead character, but as she shares the role with two other, older actresses, it's no surprise she's up for Best Supporting Actress -- she probably stands more of a chance there anyway. She's certainly one to watch, and can next be seen in Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones, again as a leading character who'll probably be designated supporting status because she's so young. Keira Knightley's performance, which has earned her a Best Actress nod, is certainly good, but if she wins it'll be the strength of the film as a whole that carries her through against such tough competition. I should also mention the ever-excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, in a role too small to receive much recognition, yet central to the plot and well played.
Elsewhere at the BAFTAs, Atonement's up for a slew of awards I'm not especially qualified to comment on in depth: production design, costume design, make-up & hair, sound, editing... Suffice to say the film looks luscious all round. The cinematography is certainly beautiful, capturing the lazy summer days of 1935 equally as well as the tumultuous wartime vistas. Arguably the stand-out sequence in this respect is the much heralded five-minute shot of the beach at Dunkirk. It's perhaps over-hyped by this point but is still an impressive achievement, if not in the camerawork itself then in the staging of so many consecutive set pieces without a cut.
With all this considered, Joe Wright is a strong contender for Best Director, and also Christopher Hampton for Best Adapted Screenplay. The story jumps back and forth in time, occasionally to slight confusion but always clear enough to follow. The languid first half never drags, and the second half never feels weak despite the essential mystery already being solved. I won't give away too much here, but the ending is also effectively pulled off, and the final twists feel more natural than tricksy. I haven't read the novel so can't compare it to that, but by all accounts it's a very faithful adaptation. The only thing that really bothered me was that the dates didn't seem to add up -- apparently, World War Two had begun three-and-a-half years after the summer of 1935 (more like four-and-a-bit). A couple of other dates are unclear too, but that strikes me as the main one.
To digress to general BAFTA speculation for a bit (as if I haven't already), for the directing win, Wright has to face (amongst others) last year's winner, Paul Greengrass, though as (to my mind) United 93 was a stronger film than The Bourne Ultimatum, I don't see him winning it again. In both of those awards it's up against strong Oscar favourites No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood -- when we've got our own film to praise, I'm not sure they'll be able to stave off Atonement too much. The same goes for Best Film. But then there's always Best British Film. In theory, if Atonement was good enough to take Best Film then it would take this too, but that's often not the way -- in effect, it's a chance to reward two different movies. I can't see Eastern Promises winning, but This is England, Control and The Bourne Ultimatum are all reasonable alternatives. If Atonement wins British Film I won't be expecting it to go on to get Best Film as well. Of course, you can never be sure.
I appreciate this review has (quite deliberately) focused on Atonement's BAFTA chances as much as its own merits, but hopefully that has still illuminated my thoughts on the film. It's a very strong effort from all involved, with an unusually structured but no less engaging plot, beautiful cinematography, nice direction and admirable performances. All round, it's just about enough to warrant 2008's second...
5/5
"The Most Nominated Film of the Year" proudly proclaims a sticker on the cover of Atonement's newly released DVD. Well, not quite: according to IMDb, Atonement stands at 68 nominations while No Country For Old Men has made it to a whopping 108! Nonetheless, it's received a near ridiculous amount of acclaim on its way to awards season, and now, having missed it at the cinema, I can finally offer my opinion, just before it does its best to sweep the board at tomorrow's BAFTAs.
There are certainly a lot of things in Atonement that definitely warrant their nominations, and in many cases the award itself would not be badly placed either. James McAvoy gives a strong lead performance (he is, of course, up for Best Actor at the BAFTAs) and even more astounding is 13-year-old Saoirse Ronan as Briony, wise beyond her years as the over-imaginative girl who causes so much misery. In many ways she's the lead character, but as she shares the role with two other, older actresses, it's no surprise she's up for Best Supporting Actress -- she probably stands more of a chance there anyway. She's certainly one to watch, and can next be seen in Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones, again as a leading character who'll probably be designated supporting status because she's so young. Keira Knightley's performance, which has earned her a Best Actress nod, is certainly good, but if she wins it'll be the strength of the film as a whole that carries her through against such tough competition. I should also mention the ever-excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, in a role too small to receive much recognition, yet central to the plot and well played.
Elsewhere at the BAFTAs, Atonement's up for a slew of awards I'm not especially qualified to comment on in depth: production design, costume design, make-up & hair, sound, editing... Suffice to say the film looks luscious all round. The cinematography is certainly beautiful, capturing the lazy summer days of 1935 equally as well as the tumultuous wartime vistas. Arguably the stand-out sequence in this respect is the much heralded five-minute shot of the beach at Dunkirk. It's perhaps over-hyped by this point but is still an impressive achievement, if not in the camerawork itself then in the staging of so many consecutive set pieces without a cut.
With all this considered, Joe Wright is a strong contender for Best Director, and also Christopher Hampton for Best Adapted Screenplay. The story jumps back and forth in time, occasionally to slight confusion but always clear enough to follow. The languid first half never drags, and the second half never feels weak despite the essential mystery already being solved. I won't give away too much here, but the ending is also effectively pulled off, and the final twists feel more natural than tricksy. I haven't read the novel so can't compare it to that, but by all accounts it's a very faithful adaptation. The only thing that really bothered me was that the dates didn't seem to add up -- apparently, World War Two had begun three-and-a-half years after the summer of 1935 (more like four-and-a-bit). A couple of other dates are unclear too, but that strikes me as the main one.
To digress to general BAFTA speculation for a bit (as if I haven't already), for the directing win, Wright has to face (amongst others) last year's winner, Paul Greengrass, though as (to my mind) United 93 was a stronger film than The Bourne Ultimatum, I don't see him winning it again. In both of those awards it's up against strong Oscar favourites No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood -- when we've got our own film to praise, I'm not sure they'll be able to stave off Atonement too much. The same goes for Best Film. But then there's always Best British Film. In theory, if Atonement was good enough to take Best Film then it would take this too, but that's often not the way -- in effect, it's a chance to reward two different movies. I can't see Eastern Promises winning, but This is England, Control and The Bourne Ultimatum are all reasonable alternatives. If Atonement wins British Film I won't be expecting it to go on to get Best Film as well. Of course, you can never be sure.
I appreciate this review has (quite deliberately) focused on Atonement's BAFTA chances as much as its own merits, but hopefully that has still illuminated my thoughts on the film. It's a very strong effort from all involved, with an unusually structured but no less engaging plot, beautiful cinematography, nice direction and admirable performances. All round, it's just about enough to warrant 2008's second...
5/5
Thursday 7 February 2008
6) Calendar Girls
2003, Nigel Cole, 103 mins, DVD, 12 / PG-13
Helen Mirren and Julie Walters lead a cast of recognisable British actresses in this popular comedy drama about the true story of a group of Women's Institute members who posed nude for a charity calendar. The film could so easily have been quite a lowly, cheap TV movie effort, what with its apparently farcical premise, worthy cause and older characters. But instead the filmmakers have crafted a movie that is both utterly hilarious and deeply moving -- even for this younger male viewer.
Balancing comedy and drama, and making both work, is quite a feat -- as someone once said, most comedy-dramas are so called because they're neither very funny nor very dramatic -- so it's always impressive to see it pulled off so well. It's surprisingly fast-paced, the central story supported by a number of well-chosen subplots that help shed light on the motivations of the women, making them more than just some older ladies who decided to strip off. Penelope Wilton is especially worthy of mention, as the downtrodden housewife who uncovers her husband's affair. Of all the supporting cast she gets probably the largest role, even if it would seem to be the least heralded, and does an excellent job with it.
When I sat down to watch Calendar Girls I was expecting a pleasant bit of fluff that would make a lazy afternoon pass by amiably enough, even if it made an hour-and-three-quarters feel like two-and-a-quarter. I was surprised on most fronts: funnier, pacier, more dramatic, and more affecting than I had any reason to expect. Recommended, especially if you didn't think it was for you.
4/5
Helen Mirren and Julie Walters lead a cast of recognisable British actresses in this popular comedy drama about the true story of a group of Women's Institute members who posed nude for a charity calendar. The film could so easily have been quite a lowly, cheap TV movie effort, what with its apparently farcical premise, worthy cause and older characters. But instead the filmmakers have crafted a movie that is both utterly hilarious and deeply moving -- even for this younger male viewer.
Balancing comedy and drama, and making both work, is quite a feat -- as someone once said, most comedy-dramas are so called because they're neither very funny nor very dramatic -- so it's always impressive to see it pulled off so well. It's surprisingly fast-paced, the central story supported by a number of well-chosen subplots that help shed light on the motivations of the women, making them more than just some older ladies who decided to strip off. Penelope Wilton is especially worthy of mention, as the downtrodden housewife who uncovers her husband's affair. Of all the supporting cast she gets probably the largest role, even if it would seem to be the least heralded, and does an excellent job with it.
When I sat down to watch Calendar Girls I was expecting a pleasant bit of fluff that would make a lazy afternoon pass by amiably enough, even if it made an hour-and-three-quarters feel like two-and-a-quarter. I was surprised on most fronts: funnier, pacier, more dramatic, and more affecting than I had any reason to expect. Recommended, especially if you didn't think it was for you.
4/5
Saturday 2 February 2008
Editorial: A dismal January
This new year of film watching has hardly got off to an auspicious start, with only five new films seen in January. For those who haven't already done the maths, that rate sees me just reaching 60 by the end of the year -- a tad short of 100!
But I have new resolve... sort of... and a list. Lists always help. That is, in this case, a list of things in my DVD collection I would especially like to get round to watching. Some of those may well pop up soon. Plus I've just started a new film module, which should mean a slew of unseen films... well, one a week at any rate... except the first is Great Expectations, which I saw last year!
Oh well...
But I have new resolve... sort of... and a list. Lists always help. That is, in this case, a list of things in my DVD collection I would especially like to get round to watching. Some of those may well pop up soon. Plus I've just started a new film module, which should mean a slew of unseen films... well, one a week at any rate... except the first is Great Expectations, which I saw last year!
Oh well...
Sunday 27 January 2008
5) The Mirror Crack'd
1980, Guy Hamilton, 105 mins, TV, PG
A star-studded cast and the director of Battle of Britain, Goldfinger and three other Bond films can't raise this adaptation of an Agatha Christie Miss Marple mystery far above the level of an '80s TV movie.
There are some good lines, and it's a Christie so obviously the fundamental story is good, but the direction is flat and lacks suspense, half the cast phone in their performances, and Angela Lansbury, lumbered with a sprained ankle and premature aging, seems to be in a dry run for Murder, She Wrote. The lack of involvement by the main character is something I always find problematic with Marple stories, even when the actress involved has the necessary twinkle. Edward Fox is her match as the detective who actually does most of the detecting for once (but is still robbed of the final revelation, of course).
The best bit, which I'll just take a moment to highlight, is the opening. It's a black & white murder mystery, the scene of the final revelation... and the print burns up just before the killer is revealed. The film cuts to a village hall, where the film was being screened and the projector's just died. Miss Marple proceeds to explain what will happen to everyone, based on what she's deduced from the film so far. A man at the back who's seen it confirms she's right. Much better than this summary makes it sound, this is bar the film's highlight, one of the few whole scenes that rises above the pervading flaws.
Despite a few commendable elements, this is a good tale that's not told as well as it could be.
2/5
A star-studded cast and the director of Battle of Britain, Goldfinger and three other Bond films can't raise this adaptation of an Agatha Christie Miss Marple mystery far above the level of an '80s TV movie.
There are some good lines, and it's a Christie so obviously the fundamental story is good, but the direction is flat and lacks suspense, half the cast phone in their performances, and Angela Lansbury, lumbered with a sprained ankle and premature aging, seems to be in a dry run for Murder, She Wrote. The lack of involvement by the main character is something I always find problematic with Marple stories, even when the actress involved has the necessary twinkle. Edward Fox is her match as the detective who actually does most of the detecting for once (but is still robbed of the final revelation, of course).
The best bit, which I'll just take a moment to highlight, is the opening. It's a black & white murder mystery, the scene of the final revelation... and the print burns up just before the killer is revealed. The film cuts to a village hall, where the film was being screened and the projector's just died. Miss Marple proceeds to explain what will happen to everyone, based on what she's deduced from the film so far. A man at the back who's seen it confirms she's right. Much better than this summary makes it sound, this is bar the film's highlight, one of the few whole scenes that rises above the pervading flaws.
Despite a few commendable elements, this is a good tale that's not told as well as it could be.
2/5
Wednesday 16 January 2008
4) Churchill: The Hollywood Years
2004, Peter Richardson, 84 mins, TV, 15
What if the Americans made a movie of Winston Churchill's life, prone as they are to re-write World War 2 history to show they won it all by themselves? This is ostensibly the premise of this spoof from some of the team behind Channel 4's The Comic Strip. I say ostensibly, because the film is bookended (for padding, I suspect) with scenes that suggest that the real Churchill was an American GI, and the British simply re-wrote history using a somewhat chubby actor called Roy Bubbles. Sadly, the joke was funnier when it was riffing on those US historical re-writes.
The problem with killing that joke is, it's the best one the film's got. It's also just about suitable for a five-minute comedy sketch, or, at a stretch, a series of sketches. The strategy for drawing this out to movie-length seems to have involved those bookends, as well as bunging some outtakes at the end and including a bunch of ridiculous, irritating, and unfunny subplots with Hitler and his entourage. It's a shame to see the talents of actors such as Antony Sher and Miranda Richardson frittered away on such material.
This is all being a tad harsh, because Churchill actually has its fair share of amusing moments. The supporting cast of British TV comedians are mostly very good, Neve Campbell's posh English accent (usually such a stumbling block for Americans-as-Brits) is as good as anything a British actress could have delivered, and Christian Slater and Romany Malco make for a likable pairing. But, again, most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding. In that respect it's quite a shame, because there's a good idea, good potential, and some good laughs in here.
2/5
What if the Americans made a movie of Winston Churchill's life, prone as they are to re-write World War 2 history to show they won it all by themselves? This is ostensibly the premise of this spoof from some of the team behind Channel 4's The Comic Strip. I say ostensibly, because the film is bookended (for padding, I suspect) with scenes that suggest that the real Churchill was an American GI, and the British simply re-wrote history using a somewhat chubby actor called Roy Bubbles. Sadly, the joke was funnier when it was riffing on those US historical re-writes.
The problem with killing that joke is, it's the best one the film's got. It's also just about suitable for a five-minute comedy sketch, or, at a stretch, a series of sketches. The strategy for drawing this out to movie-length seems to have involved those bookends, as well as bunging some outtakes at the end and including a bunch of ridiculous, irritating, and unfunny subplots with Hitler and his entourage. It's a shame to see the talents of actors such as Antony Sher and Miranda Richardson frittered away on such material.
This is all being a tad harsh, because Churchill actually has its fair share of amusing moments. The supporting cast of British TV comedians are mostly very good, Neve Campbell's posh English accent (usually such a stumbling block for Americans-as-Brits) is as good as anything a British actress could have delivered, and Christian Slater and Romany Malco make for a likable pairing. But, again, most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding. In that respect it's quite a shame, because there's a good idea, good potential, and some good laughs in here.
2/5
Friday 11 January 2008
3) Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
2003, Kenneth Bowser, 113 mins, DVD, 15
Documentary, based on the best-selling acclaimed book by Peter Biskind, about the decade in Hollywood between the death and effective re-birth of the studio system. It's a broad story, with many threads, which means this film has a tendency to sprawl all over the place as it attempts to take an overview of it in chronological order. Consequently it's short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period -- that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster (a method which still more or less exists), via a brief period where directors truly had auteur-level control.
There are numerous interesting interviewees to help the story along, all of them people who were actually there, who lived through it and helped create it. This makes for a refreshing change, as most documentaries of this ilk seem to be full of film historians and journalists. Of course, there are many big names notable by their absence, so when the film makes its rambling way onto the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that familiar sense of historic detachment does begin to creep in.
All told, it gives a good overview of the shape of what happened in this period, and how Hollywood became what we know today. Anyone after deeper explorations (of the period, the people, or the films themselves) will want to look elsewhere. I suspect the book may be a good place to start.
3/5
Documentary, based on the best-selling acclaimed book by Peter Biskind, about the decade in Hollywood between the death and effective re-birth of the studio system. It's a broad story, with many threads, which means this film has a tendency to sprawl all over the place as it attempts to take an overview of it in chronological order. Consequently it's short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period -- that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster (a method which still more or less exists), via a brief period where directors truly had auteur-level control.
There are numerous interesting interviewees to help the story along, all of them people who were actually there, who lived through it and helped create it. This makes for a refreshing change, as most documentaries of this ilk seem to be full of film historians and journalists. Of course, there are many big names notable by their absence, so when the film makes its rambling way onto the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that familiar sense of historic detachment does begin to creep in.
All told, it gives a good overview of the shape of what happened in this period, and how Hollywood became what we know today. Anyone after deeper explorations (of the period, the people, or the films themselves) will want to look elsewhere. I suspect the book may be a good place to start.
3/5
Monday 7 January 2008
2) Dark City
1998, Alex Proyas, 97 mins, DVD, 15 / R
A little while ago I wrote about not falling in love with new films any more. Well, put bluntly, here's one.
Dark City is probably the most underrated film I've ever seen. It is, to my mind, absolutely brilliant. It's an intelligent and engaging neo-noir thriller with wonderful sci-fi twists. The imagery is fantastic -- the film is beautifully designed and shot in a wonderfully stylised and highly effective manner. The sets and effects are breathtaking -- not showy like so many blockbusters, but utterly effective and impressive. The script and story are complex (though never too much) and interesting, allowing you to piece together the mystery of just what is going on. To my mind, it's much more effective than the whole "what is the real world" thing of The Matrix.
Incidentally, on that subject, if you've seen all of that particular trilogy you may find some bits of Dark City eerily familiar -- to say which would spoil things, but many are so obvious you don't have to be a film buff to spot them. Either both universes are based on similar philosophical ideas, or the Wachowskis just ripped this off (in case you hadn't noticed, it predates The Matrix by a year, and many of the most recognisable elements are in the sequels anyway). Considering there hasn't been a lawsuit (to my knowledge), I'll guess it's the former. But Dark City does it all better: there are no rambling, incomprehensible speeches and it doesn't batter you around the head with philosophical claptrap when all you want is the story to move forward.
The film's single major flaw is the studio-impossed opening narration, which gives away far too many plot twists -- honest to God, if you ever watch this, mute it during the New Line logo and don't turn the sound back on til the first close-up of Kiefer Sutherland's fob watch. If you don't, you'll find most of the mystery of the plot ruined, as this narration shockingly gives away most of the answers. (There are rumours of a director's cut, 15 minutes longer and without that narration, slated for release back in 2006. Maybe this year it'll turn up as a "10th Anniversary Edition".)
I could witter on for pages about how much I've fallen for Dark City. It's a superb movie, massively underrated, that I hope I haven't over-hyped for any reader who wants to seek it out. But please, if you do, heed my warning about muting the opening narration -- it really is worth it.
5/5
A little while ago I wrote about not falling in love with new films any more. Well, put bluntly, here's one.
Dark City is probably the most underrated film I've ever seen. It is, to my mind, absolutely brilliant. It's an intelligent and engaging neo-noir thriller with wonderful sci-fi twists. The imagery is fantastic -- the film is beautifully designed and shot in a wonderfully stylised and highly effective manner. The sets and effects are breathtaking -- not showy like so many blockbusters, but utterly effective and impressive. The script and story are complex (though never too much) and interesting, allowing you to piece together the mystery of just what is going on. To my mind, it's much more effective than the whole "what is the real world" thing of The Matrix.
Incidentally, on that subject, if you've seen all of that particular trilogy you may find some bits of Dark City eerily familiar -- to say which would spoil things, but many are so obvious you don't have to be a film buff to spot them. Either both universes are based on similar philosophical ideas, or the Wachowskis just ripped this off (in case you hadn't noticed, it predates The Matrix by a year, and many of the most recognisable elements are in the sequels anyway). Considering there hasn't been a lawsuit (to my knowledge), I'll guess it's the former. But Dark City does it all better: there are no rambling, incomprehensible speeches and it doesn't batter you around the head with philosophical claptrap when all you want is the story to move forward.
The film's single major flaw is the studio-impossed opening narration, which gives away far too many plot twists -- honest to God, if you ever watch this, mute it during the New Line logo and don't turn the sound back on til the first close-up of Kiefer Sutherland's fob watch. If you don't, you'll find most of the mystery of the plot ruined, as this narration shockingly gives away most of the answers. (There are rumours of a director's cut, 15 minutes longer and without that narration, slated for release back in 2006. Maybe this year it'll turn up as a "10th Anniversary Edition".)
I could witter on for pages about how much I've fallen for Dark City. It's a superb movie, massively underrated, that I hope I haven't over-hyped for any reader who wants to seek it out. But please, if you do, heed my warning about muting the opening narration -- it really is worth it.
5/5
Tuesday 1 January 2008
1) The Simpsons Movie
2007, David Silverman, 83 mins, DVD, PG / PG-13
And so 2008 begins with one of last summer's biggest hits: the long-awaited big screen debut of America's most well-known family. I'm not a big Simpsons fan, unlike many film critics it would seem -- I like the show, undoubtedly, but I've never watched it regularly and haven't sat through a whole episode for years (not even the recent-ish Ricky Gervais or Kiefer Sutherland ones).
This might explain why the movie didn't feel tired to me, as some have described it. It might not be laugh-a-minute, and there are some sections where the plot has taken precedence (not always with good reason), but the gag count is nonetheless high and some are genuinely excellent. The plot is suitably epic, mostly justifying the need to be on a big screen at feature length. Some of the subplots feel like episodes of the show, but that's fairly inevitable when converting a format such as this. Everything looks bigger; the quality of the animation is high; and while I'm sure the events will have no lasting impact on the characters, it does feel like a simple TV episode or two wouldn't do it justice.
It may be that The Simpsons Movie wasn't the ground-breaking best-comedy-ever that it needed to be to impress some. But it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book.
4/5
And so 2008 begins with one of last summer's biggest hits: the long-awaited big screen debut of America's most well-known family. I'm not a big Simpsons fan, unlike many film critics it would seem -- I like the show, undoubtedly, but I've never watched it regularly and haven't sat through a whole episode for years (not even the recent-ish Ricky Gervais or Kiefer Sutherland ones).
This might explain why the movie didn't feel tired to me, as some have described it. It might not be laugh-a-minute, and there are some sections where the plot has taken precedence (not always with good reason), but the gag count is nonetheless high and some are genuinely excellent. The plot is suitably epic, mostly justifying the need to be on a big screen at feature length. Some of the subplots feel like episodes of the show, but that's fairly inevitable when converting a format such as this. Everything looks bigger; the quality of the animation is high; and while I'm sure the events will have no lasting impact on the characters, it does feel like a simple TV episode or two wouldn't do it justice.
It may be that The Simpsons Movie wasn't the ground-breaking best-comedy-ever that it needed to be to impress some. But it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book.
4/5
Editorial: Here we go again...
With 2007 finally finished, it's time to begin all over again for 2008. I outlined some of the changes to the format previously, though not necessarily very well... or very interestingly...
Anyway, you'll see those in effect very shortly: as with last year, I've actually seen a film on New Year's Day! Hurrah! Though this year it wasn't a new release. And it was at 2AM, almost leading to it being included in last year's list -- it would've made for a nice round 130. But no, honesty prevails. And a desire to get going on the new quest.
So here we go again: one down, 99 to go...
Anyway, you'll see those in effect very shortly: as with last year, I've actually seen a film on New Year's Day! Hurrah! Though this year it wasn't a new release. And it was at 2AM, almost leading to it being included in last year's list -- it would've made for a nice round 130. But no, honesty prevails. And a desire to get going on the new quest.
So here we go again: one down, 99 to go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)