The blog is dead... long live the blog!

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!

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.

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...

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...