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.
#31: Iron Man (2008) May 25, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Sci-fi, War, 2000s, 4 stars, 2008, superhero films , 1 comment so far2008 | Jon Favreau | 126 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13
This review contains spoilers.
“Iron Man, Iron Man, does whatever an iron can. Flattens clothes, nice and smooth; burns a hole if he doesn’t move. Look out! Here comes the Iron Man!”
OK, maybe not…
Irritating ‘humorous’ review intros aside, Iron Man has never been at the forefront of my comics experience. X-Men and Batman, yes yes yes; a few of Alan Moore’s, of course; a solid stab at getting through Preacher; occasional diversions into Spider-Man or Ghost Rider… But never Iron Man (or a slew of others, but they don’t have a surprisingly successful movie currently in cinemas). Whilst he’s obviously a popular character with fans, the film’s phenomenal success — both financially and critically — has rather taken me by surprise, and consequently dragged me to the cinema for the first time in over 10 months.
Tony Stark is, perhaps, Marvel’s answer to Bruce Wayne: the billionaire playboy CEO of a huge technology company who uses his technological know-how to become a superhero in the wake of personal tragedy — but in Stark’s case the company is an amoral weapons manufacturer and the playboy lifestyle isn’t just a front. What this means for the viewer is that, in the title role, Robert Downey Jr gets to shine. He has all the best lines and comedic moments (of which there are plenty) and a couple of cool action bits too (of which there are few). As he’s the hero this would seem just, but you only have to look at earlier entries in the Batman franchise to see how the hero can be sidelined for the villain. Elsewhere in the cast, Gwyneth Paltrow brings humanity to proceedings as the improbably named Pepper Potts, whose biggest flaw is that the filmmakers refuse to have anyone make a joke about her name. Not even one! Jeff Bridges gives a suitably dastardly performance as the eventual villain, but the plot woefully underuses him.
Because this is an origin story, you see, and sadly falls into most of the typical origin story traps: the ‘major’ villain exists only to provide a final act punch-up while the rest of the film explores how Ordinary Man (or Ordinary Rich Man in this case) gained Super Powers (or Built Super Suit) and went on to Save Mankind (or Save Some Foreigners, but I’ll leave deeper debates over the film’s dubious international perspective to others). It used to be the case that superheroes arrived on the screen ready to go — look at Burton’s original Batman, for example — but since the genre’s ’00s revival it’s all about the origins. What this typically means is a decent-enough first film that serves only to introduce the characters for the sake of a fully-formed second entry. One can only hope this will be the case with Iron Man.
The primary exception to this rule is Batman Begins, which succeeds because it’s less about the origin story and more an exploration of Batman’s psychology in general, something only vaguelly alluded to in preceding efforts. Where Iron Man falters on this score is in completing Stark’s move from uncaring weapons manufacturer to socially conscious hero relatively early on, from which point he spends ages building his suit and battling, not an evil villain, but off-screen corporate machinations. The final fight, when it arrives, lacks punch (literally) and is over too soon. The amount of time, depth and humour awarded to the characters is to be applauded, but it comes at the expense of some excitement. At least it makes a change, as it’s thoroughly unusual to find the balance skewed that way.
To touch on an exceedingly minor element, the fan-pleasing post-credits scene with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is quite disappointing. While it’s cool to see Jackson as Fury, and a nice lead for the now-confirmed Avengers movie (which will come after Iron Man 2, so you have to wonder why the scene is at the end of this film), it’s too brief. When Fury informs Stark he’s not the only superhero in the world it provides a mixed reaction: on the one hand, we’re all too aware that from the Marvel Universe we’ve had three X-Mens, three Spider-Mans, a Daredevil, an Elektra, a Hulk (and soon another), a Punisher, and even a Ghost Rider — if they all take place in the same filmic universe then Stark ought to have noticed at least a couple of them on the news! And if they’re not in the same universe, one wonders if the cast of The Avengers movie will be padded with second-string heroes who barely warrant their own film. But that’s a debate for another review (one in three years’ time, in fact).
This may all sound a tad harsh on Iron Man, but when a film receives near unrelenting praise from most quarters it’s hard not to spy the faults when coming to it late. What it most resembles is a great TV pilot: at the end you enjoyed what you just saw, but your thoughts lie with what’s to come — “that’s the setup, now what will they do?” Hopefully Iron Man 2, due in two years, can take the many positive elements and run with them.
#29: Henry V (1989) May 18, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : War, adaptations, 4 stars, 1980s, British films, 2008, true stories, Historical, Shakespeare, remakes , 1 comment so far1989 | Kenneth Branagh | 132 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, as I delve into a second version of Henry V in as many (viewing) days. (I dread to think how many reviews of this film began with a similar quote-based pun.) Inevitably, having watched them so close together, this is as much a comment on the relative merits of Branagh’s and Olivier’s interpretations of Henry V as it is a review of Branagh’s film in its own right.
Branagh’s version opens with almost a direct homage to Olivier’s, though with an important difference. Olivier opened with the Chorus’ narration on a stage ; Branagh opens with the Chorus’ narration on a film set. Rather than wasting half an hour with this conceit (as Olivier did), Branagh pushes into the ‘reality’ of the story before another actor has even entered. And his reality is much more real. The film looks as if it’s lit by candles and daylight, the castles and tavern are rough and dark, the battlefields muddy and grimy; everyone gets dirty and bloodied by the fights. On the whole it’s a grittier and more realistic version. Yet there’s room for more than that. The story still seems concluded at the Battle of Agincourt, but the proposal scene no longer feels tacked on. In fact it’s now laugh-out-loud hilarious, with Branagh and Emma Thompson demonstrating the undeniable chemistry that would help make Much Ado About Nothing so good a few years later. Unlike Olivier’s fluffy limp to the credits, this is an entertaining round-off to the plot.
The fact I’d never seen a version of Henry V before Olivier’s ostensibly gives Branagh’s the benefit of a better understanding on my part. Practically, it matters little that I saw Olivier’s first, as the more modern and film-friendly performances in Branagh’s version mean that, while Olivier’s allowed me to broadly follow the majority of what was happening, Branagh’s gives more access to the nuances of both plot and character. He’s aided in the latter by the inclusion of scenes deemed inappropriate for a World War 2 propaganda film: in one, Henry and co confront three traitors; in another, he hangs an old friend in order to make an example. Other scenes are played differently too, so that Branagh’s Henry is a more complex and morally debatable figure, unlike Olivier’s bright-eyed hero. Whatever your opinions on the two actors on the whole, these changes make for a better character and therefore a better film.
It would be remiss not to mention the rest of the cast. Brian Blessed is positively restrained as Exeter, one of Henry’s key associates — you’d never imagine he could turn in such a performance if you’d only seen his recent go at hosting Have I Got News For You. Paul Schofield, as the aging French King, and Michael Maloney, as the contemptible Dauphin, help flesh out the French side more than Olivier’s version managed, as does Christopher Ravenscroft’s Mountjoy, the French herald who all but switches his allegiance. The English ranks are swelled by Bilbo Baggins, Hagrid, and the current incarnations of ‘M’ and Batman (don’t worry, the French have Miss Marple); not to mention the recognisable faces of Richard Briers, Danny Webb, Simon Shepherd and John Sessions (and no doubt others I’ve accidentally missed). Of course, a starry and recognisable cast does not necessarily a good film make, but this is a dependable lot and there are good performances all round — even if Ian Holm’s Welsh accent is somewhat dubious (though it’s a lunar leap on from the one in Olivier’s version).
And deserving of a paragraph unto himself is Derek Jacobi’s masterful Chorus, who, with just a handful of narrational lines and a big black coat, is somehow one of the coolest characters I’ve seen of late.
There’s no contest here me. Olivier’s version is an over-stylised, propaganda-inspired, outdated version of Shakespeare, whereas Branagh’s is a comprehensible, realistic, textured and, perhaps most importantly, genuinely enjoyable interpretation.
#28: Henry V (1944) May 16, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : War, adaptations, 2 stars, 1940s, British films, 2008, true stories, Historical, Shakespeare , add a comment1944 | Laurence Olivier | 131 mins | VHS | U
Or The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France, as the title card (and therefore IMDb) would have it.
The works of Shakespeare tend to be a love-it-or-hate-it experience for most people, often based on one’s social class and/or experiences at school (obviously not exclusively). Just to be awkward, I’m going to say I have mixed feelings about his plays: on the one hand, I consistently enjoy Macbeth and find Much Ado About Nothing a diverting enough rom-com; on the other, I was bored by Richard III, even when played by Sir Ian McKellen, and never got on with A Midsummer Night’s Dream (to pick just two examples for each side). I imagine most people have their likes and dislikes of course, but I often feel I fall between the the dislike Normal people have for Shakespeare and the love that Cultured people have for him.
This may seem beside the point, but it does lead to Olivier’s Henry V. Simply put, I didn’t much care for it. It failed to engage me, and I’d put this down to Olivier’s infamous staging (literally) of it. The first half hour is a recreation of the play’s first performance in 1600, complete with fluffed sound cues and heckles from the crowd. The goings-on backstage and performer/crowd interactions heavily distract from the actual text being performed, as much as anything because they’re more entertaining. Then, cued by one of the Chorus’s lines, the film moves to showing the story in ‘reality’ — except this is a reality made of painted scenery, primary-coloured landscapes, and cardboard fairy castles. It’s a deliberate effect, designed to emulate pre-Renaissance painting, but it didn’t work for me — it’s over-stylised and distracting, and if you’re not familiar with the play (as I wasn’t) getting distracted is a problem. The concept of transition from performance to reality has potential (as would the idea of presenting the whole thing on stage with crowd interactions, actually, considering I missed them when they went), but I personally feel Olivier executed it poorly. For one thing, it spends too long bedding in the feel of the stage performance before it gets round to the shift to reality.
Stylised productions can work, and excellently, but here the direction and acting are sometimes as flat as the castles. Actors arbitrarily shout some lines, hush others, and put in emphasis of dubious relevance — it’s like Shakespeare-by-numbers, the sort of production that reveres the text so much it doesn’t bother to think about it. It hampers any understanding of what they’re saying, especially for newcomers. Perhaps more fairly, the performance style is incredibly stagey. My degree-related reading suggests this is one of the earliest proper Shakespeare films (previous adaptations being silent or even less complete), so perhaps the idea of a more subdued, screen-acting style had yet to permeate such productions. Things do pick up as the film goes on: the battles are effective, and the proposal scene is more comfortably performed than the pre-war politics. That said, the story seems to be over once Agincourt is won, so by modern structural standards the hasty single-scene romance that follows feels pointlessly tacked on.
Olivier’s Henry V has received plenty of praise in its time, as well as derision, largely for its conception as World War 2 propaganda. The latter is hard to ignore, with grand speeches delivered in a way reminiscent of Churchill’s and scenes removed so that Henry’s character becomes unquestionably good — both aspects that are distinctly less relevant to today’s more complex, war-dubious world. Even leaving the propaganda aside, the performances are outdated, the design several stylised steps too far, and on the whole the production failed to engage or hold my interest. However good it may once have seemed, I think this version has had its day.
Next I’ll be reviewing Kenneth Branagh’s all-star 1989 version of Henry V, here.
#18: Troy: Director’s Cut (2004/2007) April 16, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, War, 2000s, adaptations, 4 stars, 2008, extended/director's cut, Historical , 8 comments2004 / 2007 | Wolfgang Petersen | 188 mins | DVD | 15 / R
A lot of people didn’t like Wolfgang Petersen’s big budget version of The Iliad. I can’t remember the specific criticisms any more, other than that some friends who’d read the poem found this to be simply laughable. Personally, I quite enjoyed it — it may not be classic art like its source, but the theatrical cut of Troy was a more than passable example of swords-and-sandals entertainment. If not an epic, despite its running time, it was quite fun.
This director’s cut adds almost half an hour of new material, which is about a 15% increase in length — enough to justify a new number here, I feel. That said, I can’t spot most of what’s new, undoubtedly because the last time I saw Troy was in the cinema almost four years ago. Rose Byrne’s character seems to get more screen time, which in turn helps flesh out Achilles; and, based on what it says in IMDb’s trivia section, Trevor Eve’s role has also increased. He’s still a minor character, but as an advisor to King Priam the reinstating of his scenes means there’s more politics on screen. And I believe there’s some extra nudity too — quite why that couldn’t be in the R-rated theatrical cut is beyond me, but there you have it.
What this reveals is that, on the whole, Troy hasn’t changed much. If you know it well enough to spot the differences then you surely already like it, in which case I expect you’ll like this cut too. Despite the length and additions (which, in some extended cuts, can throw things out of kilter) it feels well paced, taking time to build character and plot in between the action sequences. Some of the characters have (relatively speaking) complex motives and actions — I expect we have Homer to thank for that — while several of the action scenes are fairly impressive — due more to the Hollywood production team. If you didn’t like Troy first time round, I doubt you’ll be swayed now. Some of the script is very clunky, dragging the performances down with it, and if you didn’t like its level of faithfulness then that hasn’t improved either. Mind you, compared to the 1997 TV version of The Odyssey, which opens with a twenty minute version of this tale, Troy seems like high art.
This score is one higher than I gave the theatrical cut (not reviewed here). I’d attribute this more to generosity and lowered expectations than the added material.
#7: Atonement (2007) February 9, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, War, Romance, 5 stars, 2000s, adaptations, British films, 2008 , add a comment2007 | 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…
#4: Churchill: The Hollywood Years (2004) January 16, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Comedy, War, 2000s, 2 stars, British films, 2008 , add a comment2004 | 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.