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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)