Two-thirds done September 1, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Editorials, Akira Kurosawa, Christopher Nolan, 2008, Star Ratings, Decades, progress reports, Alfred Hitchcock, statistics , 1 comment so farWith August now behind us, 2008 is two-thirds complete. And so, as I missed halfway, now seems like a moderately appropriate time to reflect on how well my aim of watching 100 new films is going in 2008.
By this point in 2007 I had made it to 98 films, which makes my current tally of 60 look a little lacklustre (reviews for ten of which are still in the works). A least it’s a nice round number. Still, there’s 17 weeks of the year to go — that means I need to average 2.4 films per week, or 10 per month, from here out. Considering my averages to this point are 1.7 and 7.5 respectively, it’s still all to play for.
I would say the summer blockbuster season has given me a hand though: at the end of the year’s first third I’d only made it to 22 films (averages: 1.3 per week, 5.5 per month), but, since Iron Man dragged me to the cinema for the first time in nearly a year, I’ve visited the big screen a total of eight times — not exactly a mind-blowing number, but at 8% of my aim (obviously) it’s not wholly insignificant.
Here’s a few more largely-pointless statistics to round out this post: as well as those eight cinema trips, I’ve seen 39 films on DVD, six via downloads, four on TV, and even one on VHS. There’s also been my first two films on Blu-ray, and one each for the new additions of IMAX and “in-flight”.
I’ve seen five alternate cuts (three of which warranted proper numbering) but just one short. Of all the features I saw, 16 ran over two hours (two made it past the three-hour mark!) and 15 didn’t even make it to 90 minutes! Films are often accused of having spiraling running times these days, but that’s clearly not the case for much of my viewing. I’m reviewing films from across the history of film, of course, but 10 of those 15 were produced in the last decade.
I’ve seen eight feature films that the BBFC awarded a U certificate, 20 that require some PG, 16 that warranted a 12 or 12A, 12 that pushed things to a 15, and just four of those naughty 18s. Two were unrated.
I did a statistics post earlier this year, for 100 days. Back then, I hadn’t seen any films from the ’70s, ’60s, ’50s, or before 1939. While I’ve still not managed anything from the ’70s or before 1939, I have at least seen two from the ’60s and four from the ’50s. As well as that, I’ve watched three films from the ’30s, five each from the ’40s and ’80s, and six from the ’90s. The 2000s still sit proudly atop the pile however, with a grand total of 37.
Three directors have managed to squeeze more than one film into the total so far — namely Kenneth Branagh, Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa, each with two films. (Francis Lawrence and Christopher Nolan don’t really count as they appear twice thanks to alternate versions of the same films.)
Finally, I’ve handed out ratings right across the board. Animated Sherlock Holmes mystery The Baskerville Curse grabbed only my second-ever single-star rating, while seven films merely managed a lowly 2 stars. Ten films are theoretically average with 3, while the majority (30) made it up to 4. A total of 12 films so far this year have touched the giddy heights of 5 stars (not counting The Dark Knight twice). All of this leaves my average score for first-view films at 3.75 — as ever, I’m either largely watching good films or am just fairly generous with my scores.
That’s all for now. Back to actually watching films then… or maybe even getting round to reviewing them…
100 Films on a Cover August 30, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Editorials, Animation, Comedy, Action, James Bond, Drama, Thriller, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Disney, Fantasy, Sci-fi, War, Akira Kurosawa, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Crime, David Fincher, 2000s, adaptations, 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, Adventure, British films, Mystery, world cinema, extended/director's cut, Historical, superhero films , 1 comment so farEmpire, not content with conducting a ludicrously huge reader poll to find the 500 greatest films ever made, have also roped in 150 (as yet unnamed) “key directors and producers” and “the world’s most influential film critics” to have their say.
And Empire, not content with conducting a ludicrously huge reader poll and gathering the opinion of key directors, producers and critics to find the 500 greatest films ever made, have gone and created a “magazine milestone” — 100 different covers for the issue featuring the list! In fact, it’s 101, with the 101st being a subscriber-only cover that’s currently secret. I’m currently quite glad that Empire’s the only magazine I’ve bothered to keep up my subscription to.
I’m a bit of a collector and hoarder, but even I’m not made enough to fork out £150 to get all 100 covers. That said, at just £1.50 an issue it’s a pretty reasonable deal, all things considered, and certainly better than the one Total Film offered when they did their 21 different Bond covers a short while back. Nonetheless, I’ll surely try to get my hands on a few different ones, and here’s my current pick of the bunch — mainly, films I love that have especially cool covers, but also some that just look good.
Click to enlarge.
#48a: The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience (2008) August 5, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Thriller, Christopher Nolan, 5 stars, 2000s, 2008, superhero films , 3 comments2008 | Christopher Nolan | 152 mins | IMAX | 12A / PG-13
One of the joys of spending five weeks of this summer in New York is that I have the opportunity to see anything that’s out in the US before the UK early. I haven’t entirely used this to my advantage (no trip to Hellboy II, for example, which has almost left theatres here but is still a few weeks off at home), but I have been to the much-anticipated new Batman movie, The Dark Knight… twice. Unlike in the UK, I have relatively easy access to an IMAX here, and, as any good Bat-fan will know, this means I was not only able to see TDK one week early, but also on the screen it (or, at least, parts of it) were specially shot for. Of course, despite the film virtually being on loop at Manhattan’s sole IMAX screen, the high demand for tickets means I had to wait til the second Saturday to see it writ so large — and even then I was fairly lucky, as some showings sold out inside of two hours.
As I’ve reviewed the film before, and my feelings on it have barely changed with a second viewing just one week later, it seems sensible to focus on the IMAX aspect. For those who somehow missed the news, The Dark Knight is the first Hollywood blockbuster to be specially shot for IMAX — not all of it, but six key sequences… or so they say. From what I could tell, while some whole sequences were indeed shot on IMAX film, often it was used just for bits of scenes, or now and then for the more dramatic establishing shots. For example, every aerial shot in the film — and, as those who’ve seen it will know, there are a fair few — appears to have been shot with IMAX cameras. The choice of sequences to shoot on IMAX is also intriguing. Some reviewers asserted it was “obvious” scenes were IMAXed even on a 35mm print, but I think they might be in for a surprise. Yes, the bank robbery opening, the car chase, and elements of the climax all receive the IMAX treatment, but elsewhere smaller scale action sequences and even some dramatic scenes are awarded the vision-filling honour.
It all looks stunning, of course: the resolution is visibly increased whenever the IMAX film kicks in (the rest of the film, blown-up from 35mm, is blurry and grainy by comparison but still doesn’t come out too badly) and the added size and scope of the format serve to underline the scenes for which it’s employed. While most of them are worthy, if sometimes unexpected, there are times when one wonders if scenes were picked just to make up the numbers with something not especially challenging. That said, it’s always nice to see, so one can’t complain too much. I didn’t find IMAX to be an especially viewer-friendly format for a two-and-a-half-hour feature though — it’s designed to fill your vision, an aim it achieves admirably, but when trying to watch a regular movie it entails an usual amount of head turning, as well as trying very hard to notice everything right into the depths of your peripheral vision. It was certainly an experience, as the advertising subtitle suggests, but it won’t be for everyone and I’m not sure I’d bother again without some notable incentive (such as the one Dark Knight offers — none of these new-fangled 3D films have been interesting enough to tempt me yet). In some respects, what interests me most is what debates and opinions the use of IMAX will provoke about the film’s correct aspect ratio when it comes to DVD/Blu-ray time. I don’t care to predict what people will say, but I suspect it will be amusing to observe.
One final note: watching this just one week after I first saw it in a normal cinema (one week & one hour, to be exact!), it seemed to me that the odd shot was trimmed slightly or actually missing. Quite why this would be I don’t know, and it may just be my memory playing tricks, especially as the running time listed on the BBFC is actually slightly longer for the IMAX version (as seems to be standard, from a quick look at a few other IMAXed films — I’m sure someone knows why). The differences — if indeed there are any — are minor, but I felt I should mention it.
There’s no questioning The Dark Knight’s brilliance in its own right, in my mind — it may be questionable whether it’s the Best Film Ever (surprisingly, it still sits at #1 on the IMDb Top 250), but at the same time I genuinely enjoyed this more than any other film I’ve seen from that top ten (and probably beyond). Whatever size screen you see it on, this film is an amazing experience — but some of it was shot especially for IMAX and those bits do look spectacular on the extra-huge screen. If you have the chance, this is really how Dark Knight should be seen — especially as it’s always possible that you won’t have the chance again.
On the off chance anyone’s wondering what happened to #48, it’s WALL-E and the review’s on it’s way. But I’ve been sat on this one for a week (and not got round to the WALL-E one for over a week!), so I thought I’d just get on and post this, sequence be damned.
#47: The Dark Knight (2008) July 20, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Thriller, Sci-fi, Christopher Nolan, 5 stars, 2000s, 2008, superhero films , add a comment2008 | Christopher Nolan | 152 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13
The Dark Knight — the sixth film in the modern Batman series (though not connected to the first four) — comes with a heavy weight of expectation on its back. It’s the sequel to the last film, Batman Begins, which relaunched the flailing series in style and is one of the best comic book movies ever — so Nolan and co had to top that. There was Heath Ledger’s death, a sad accident that has heaped extra focus on his penultimate performance here (his final one, in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, is currently in post-production with no release date) — especially as some sources cited his appropriation of the Joker’s mindset as related to his death. And then there were the trailers too, which caused ridiculous levels of excitement among some — personally, I found them a tad lacking. But I was fairly confident that, a bit like Begins, The Dark Knight would turn out to be the sort of film that doesn’t necessarily trail all that well but is excellent when seen.
And I was right. In this respect, it’s because the action sequences aren’t the point of the film. They occur when required by the story, while still being well-spaced and appropriately exciting, rather than serving as check-boxes for a plot designed primarily to link them together — the latter being what most blockbusters seem to settle for these days. Many are pleasantly old-school in style, the stunts performed largely for real, and at least one major example is even left without music. On the odd occasion when effects must have been used, they’re seamlessly achieved. The most obvious use of CGI — which I won’t describe for the sake of spoilers, though many will already know about — is incredibly well done. All of this helps ground the film in a perhaps-surprising (for some) degree of reality, one that goes far beyond what other ‘realistic’ superhero movies have strived for.
In fact, this realism is probably The Dark Knight’s main strength. Obviously there’s never going to be a real city where a billionaire dressed in bat-inspired armour protects the populace from a deranged man in clown make-up, but if there were then this is how it would be. Where Burton’s two Bat-films were “dark”, and Schumacher’s were “gaudy” (or “crap”), Nolan’s pair are “real”. It’s an excellent thriller as well as everything else. The focus of the plot — at least at first — is on the mob and their control over Gotham, and it’s from their criminal desires — plus the very existence of Batman — that the Joker grows. Ledger’s performance is as outstanding as you’ll have heard said elsewhere, and while it still feels like a supporting role it receives more attention than the psychology of Bruce Wayne/Batman — which, considering that’s what Batman Begins focused on, seems fair enough. Every other performance is equally as flawless (I’ll name names in a moment), but it’s Ledger’s disturbing, engrossing turn that will stay with you. He is the Joker, in a way Jack Nicholson certainly never was, and — among obviously more upsetting effects of his premature death — the fact we’ll never see him in a rematch is a huge shame.
As Harvey Dent, Aaron Eckhart’s role is much larger than I was expecting. The floating-head posters that seemed to divide the film between him, the Joker and Batman are spot on — they’re the three central characters, everything revolves around them, their actions, choices, and emotions. While Ledger may dominate with his (appropriate) theatricality, Eckhart is more the heart of the film, with a genuinely tragic story. Viewed in this light, the order of the film’s final scenes — which I think some may see as incorrectly balanced, perhaps even anticlimactic — make all the more sense. However, I don’t mean to undersell the rest of the cast by highlighting Ledger and Eckhart — in their supporting parts, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and especially Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman, all do brilliant work. The talented Christian Bale manages to hold his own as the ambiguously heroic crimefighter, even against the more obviously attention-grabbing performances of Ledger and Eckhart.
As with other superior superhero sequels like X2 or Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight uses the groundwork of its successful predecessor to craft an experience that’s even greater. In fact, there’s an awful lot more that could be said about the qualities of The Dark Knight. At two-and-a-half hours, it’s a packed epic of a movie — which makes Nolan’s confident juggling of plot threads, character development, several large performances, action sequences, and more, all the more impressive. I certainly enjoyed seeing it with a large, American (importantly), opening-weekend crowd — several moments produced whoops and sustained applause from the audience, as well as a good number of well-deserved laughs.
The Dark Knight is great entertainment, with a good deal of meat on its bones too — the performances and emotional stories are as engrossing as the thriller-ish plot and impressive action. When all is considered, it’s possibly as perfect a thriller/blockbuster as they come. In fact, as I publish this, The Dark Knight sits at #1 — the best film of all time ever — on IMDb. It will drop, of course, because that’s opening-weekend fan-lead gut reaction for you… but, even when time’s passed, I’m certain it deserves to remain high on the list.
Sadly (though not surprisingly) the Manhattan IMAX was booked solid all through opening weekend (and most of next week, at least). As soon as I manage to see it on the extra-big screen, I’ll share my thoughts here.
#44: The Happening (2008) July 1, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Horror, Drama, Sci-fi, 2000s, 3 stars, 2008, M. Night Shyamalan , add a comment2008 | M. Night Shyamalan | 90 mins | cinema | 15 / R
This review contains spoilers.
While others have been lamenting the slide in quality of Shyamalan’s work since his breakthrough 1999 hit The Sixth Sense, I’ve been quietly enjoying most of his films since then. I liked Sixth Sense and appreciated its ingenious twist, but it was the fantastic real-world-superhero tale Unbreakable that did the most to cement him in my affections. Signs was another strong effort, an unusual perspective on alien invasion backed by decent family drama and a few good laughs, helped by the always-watchable Joaquin Phoenix and a sweet kid. On the other hand, it suffered from a stretch of a resolution, and that it starred Mel Gibson. His next was the The Village, in my opinion his biggest misfire thanks to a story disappointingly reliant on an easily-guessed twist, further undermined by a third act structure that bent over backwards to hide the reveal for as long as possible. Most reviewers seem to disagree slightly though, as Lady in the Water was widely panned. Personally I liked it, at least on the level at which it was intended, as a modern fairytale.
This, his latest effort, falls mostly in the middle of the road — a bit like a few of its extras, then. You see, the plot concerns the release of a toxin (from where, no one knows) that causes people to begin committing suicide en masse, by jumping off buildings, or shooting themselves, or a variety of other, more gruesome ideas. It’s in these sequences that The Happening is at its best — Shyamalan can still craft chilling scenes and effective jumps, even if their onset is obvious to a moderately seasoned film viewer. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a tad weak. Mark Wahlberg’s performance is flat, John Leguizamo struggles to do much better, and Zooey Deschanel gets by in a kooky role that is by turns endearing and slightly irritating. The script is mostly passable, though occasionally heavy-handed, repetitive and clunky — one moment especially jarred for me, when in a middle-of-nowhere diner it seems one person’s dialogue has been split between two actors.
Shyamalan nicely keeps the cause of the toxin up in the air — though the most probable cause is first suggested fairly early on, other theories continue to float around — but with no last-minute revelation such juggling feels unwarranted. Instead there’s just a “it could happen again” final scene, that might be chilling if it weren’t so predictable. Part of the problem with the film’s central conceit is that it’s not very believable. Now, I know, being able to see dead people, developing superpowers or finding a mermaid-like girl in your pool are hardly realistic plot points either, but here it strays too close to the realm of “I expect you to believe this is possible” pseudoscience and so, unlike Princeton gardeners, my belief struggled to be fully suspended.
Ultimately, I’d rank The Happening as Shyamalan’s worst film to date. While it’s pleasing that he doesn’t force everything to rely on a final twist, the overall quality is variable — at least The Village had something going for it before the poor climax. The cod-science explanation feels like a big excuse for a topical eco-message, otherwise just being a basis to string together a collection of well-executed creepy sequences. Perhaps Shyamalan should stop trying so hard to come up with amazing new ideas and just concentrate on telling a good story. There are things to like though, enough to scrape the film into the middle of the road. Sort of the opposite to those suicidal extras then.
#36: Hulk (2003) June 4, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Drama, Sci-fi, 2000s, 2 stars, 2008, superhero films, Ang Lee , 7 comments2003 | Ang Lee | 132 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13
With the Edward Norton-starring (and -penned), Louis Leterrier-directed sequel/re-imagining of the Hulk coming this summer, I decided it was finally time to watch Ang Lee’s much derided 2003 attempt at bringing Marvel’s green monster-hero-thing to the big screen. Much like the lead character — in a Jekyll & Hyde-style, he’s mild-mannered scientist Bruce Banner by day, but the big green monstrous Hulk when angry — this is very much a film of two vastly different sides.
Indeed, the most striking thing about Lee’s interpretation of the Hulk is what a mish-mash of styles it is. On the one hand, it wants to be a drama/thriller, focussed on father-child issues and military cover-ups. On the other, it has comic book action sequences and a bizarre editing style inspired by comics — a compilation of unusual techniques that look like a Media Studies teacher’s wet dream. Not even Spider-Man was that kooky. In the end, it just means the cutting style feel out of place, firstly because for much of the film (at least the first 45 minutes) it’s the only reminder of the film’s comic roots, but especially because Lee’s use of the tricksy techniques is inconsistent — sometimes confusingly overused, sometimes apparently forgotten. Other technical elements also detract. Danny Elfman’s score is blandly uninspired, a carbon copy of his work on similar films. Worst of all is the CGI Hulk — it looks like they used an action figure he’s so plasticky. It gets by OK in early appearances, swathed in moody shadows, but in the glaring desert sunlight he doesn’t stand a chance.
The big, destructive sequences starring the Hulk himself are too little too late. There’s nothing wrong with sneaking drama into blockbusters, but this feels like a blockbuster snuck into a drama. There are fights because there have to be, not because anyone involved in making the film seems to want them. They’re badly placed thanks to the plot structure and the film’s pace topples under their weight. Even the climax wants to be a battle of wills between father and son, but turns into a nonsensical messy CGI splurge. That said, the dramatic moments don’t fare much better. Usually so watchable, Eric Bana can do little with the material offered here. The rest of the cast don’t suffer as much, and there are times when it almost works, but neither the dramatic nor blockbuster sides fully function in themselves, and certainly not when slammed together.
Hulk is not a film anyone could love — even the weakest comic adaptations usually have their fans — and, for a film aimed at a devoted fan base, this is perhaps its biggest flaw. Equally, it retains too much of the superhero genre for anyone to consider admiring it as a purely dramatic film. Hopefully Hulk-fan Norton’s film can marry the two halves better… or if not, at least create some cool destruction-filled action.
#33: Throne of Blood (1957) May 29, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, Akira Kurosawa, 5 stars, adaptations, 1950s, 2008, world cinema, Historical, Shakespeare , 1 comment so far1957 | Akira Kurosawa | 105 mins | DVD | PG or 12
Kurosawa moves Macbeth from Scotland to 16th Century Japan in this retelling of Shakespeare’s infamous Scottish Play. I’ve heard this described as a loose adaptation — perhaps those reviewers have never read the play. Kurosawa sticks very closely to the structure of Shakespeare’s version of the story (though based on real events, Shakespeare changed key details), often choosing to adapt it scene-for-scene. It works well in the new setting, with some of the themes — honour, respect, betrayal — perhaps becoming more understandable when placed in samurai culture. Kurosawa changes other elements too — character names are understandably localised, there’s only one witch, there’s no version of the famous “Is this a dagger which I see before me?” monologue, and so on. It’s not all omissions however, as Kurosawa adds imagery and symbolism of his own. Again this helps to place the story in its new context, but also covers the loss of Shakespeare’s original language (a major sticking point for some critics).
Beyond the Shakespearean similarities (or lack of), there’s much to see in Throne of Blood — literally, thanks to the atmospheric cinematography. Most of the exteriors are doused in fog, and while this is sometimes over-done (an extended sequence of Washizu and Miki riding in and out of it goes on too long) it also makes for some amazing moments, such as when the trees of Cobweb Forest drift menacingly forward. The interior of the forest is suitably oppressive and scary too, the perfect location for encountering a witch. Kurosawa was inspired by Japanese Noh theatre in his construction of the film, so there are a lot of longer shots that allow the characters to be blocked as if on stage. It’s not overly theatrical, thankfully, and works suitably.
Cinematic techniques are not entirely abandoned however. The most memorable is the banquet scene, in which Washizu sees Miki’s ghost: we see Miki’s empty seat, the camera tracks forward to a shocked Washizu, then back to reveal the ghost of Miki sat at his place, before tracking and panning around the room to follow Mifune’s brilliant performance. It’s an infinitely more effective reveal than any amount of jiggery pokery with dissolves or CGI could provide. Similarly, Washizu’s iconic death scene — in which hundreds of arrows puncture him and the surrounding walls — is impressively achieved (using real arrows), including one seamless shot when an arrow pierces his neck.
Macbeth is my favourite Shakespeare play — it’s a great story, with great themes, imagery and language. Throne of Blood obviously loses some of this, but it doesn’t matter in the slightest — Kurosawa has constructed an excellent and well-conceived retelling with a few of his own flourishes.
A note on the classification: the UK DVD from the BFI is rated PG, classified in 1991. A few months after the DVD’s release in 2001, the film was re-submitted to the BBFC and received a 12. Quite way the rating was raised isn’t explained, and copies of the DVD still bear a PG on the cover.