Revisiting the Rings 24 October 2007
Posted by primus in : Posts , 3 commentsThis past Monday, finding myself with a day off work and little else to do, I treated myself to a ‘movie marathon’: watching a few films in one go just so you can say you’ve done it. This is something only true geeks bother to do, and should never be boasted about amongst unfamiliar acquaintances or relations. I somehow managed to rope my brother in and, armed with pizzas, Pringles and copious cups of tea, we sat down to watch all three Lord of the Rings movies, neither of us having seen them for a couple of years or so. Although I didn’t really get anything new from the experience (besides noticing for the first time that the horse that rescues Aragorn from the river in The Two Towers is the same one he freed earlier on), it brought home to me once again just how wonderful these films are, working as great pieces of cinema as well as faithful adaptations of a classic literary epic. Six years on from the release of The Fellowship of the Ring, nothing suggests these magnificent films are going to date any time soon or are likely to be supplanted from their reign as the greatest fantasy movies ever made.
One could nit-pick of course, about things like omissions from the book, or the restructuring of certain sequences, or even casting decisions. But taken as a whole, I would happily argue that these films are about as close to perfect as they can get. I have no problem with any of the cast, all of whom more than do justice to their parts, and the tinkering with the structure seems valid enough to me and certainly does nothing to diminish the story. Nor did I miss those segments omitted from the original text, like the Tom Bombadil episode. Despite the odd tweak here and there, which was almost certainly necessary, I don’t think any argument could be made that these films were unfaithful in spirit to Tolkien’s work.
Beyond fidelity to the source material, what these films seem to have for me is an attitude, a real timeless quality that I believe will ensure they will be revisited for many years to come. At the time of their release, there was talk of them being ‘the Star Wars films of their generation’, and to a certain extent I think that was true. The release of each of the three films became an event, a treat to look forward to at Christmas time; especially once director Peter Jackson had knocked it out of the park with the first movie and it was safe to assume The Two Towers and The Return of the King would be of the same standard. They roped in every demographic to the multiplex in the same way that Star Wars did almost a quarter of a century earlier. They ooze class from every pore, be it the stunningly good cinematography, the magisterial score by Howard Shore (which he has since toured around the world), the wonderful cast (how could anyone else play Gandalf now besides Ian McKellan?), the jaw-dropping special effects courtesy of the now world-renowned WETA, the literate and faithful script from Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens and of course Jackson’s own direction, which never gets in the way but simply serves the story and visuals (and chucks in the occasional characteristic flourish).
Jackson thanked J.R.R. Tolkien in his Oscar acceptance speech in 2004, and obviously without that groundbreaking novel the film wouldn’t exist. But adapting such a book was no easy task and Jackson deserves all the credit he got when ROTK scooped 11 Oscars. Children and adults were instantly won over by the trilogy, reminding us all that there is no substitute for a brilliant story well told. I very much look forward to the day I can introduce my own children to Frodo’s quest to destroy the One Ring, perhaps one cold Sunday tea-time in December some years hence. I loathe the phrase ‘movie magic’, but perhaps here it is appropriate.
Beverly Hills Cop II IS a classic 80s film! Plus: digital Dracula and rats 9 October 2007
Posted by primus in : Posts , add a commentJust a small update following on my previous entry. Having now watched my Beverly Hills Cop II dvd, I can confirm that, despite being an inferior sequel to the great original, the film is still an 80s classic: Tony Scott’s flashy direction, the score, the fashions and Eddie Murphy still being funny help make this a decent enough sequel. No comment on part III I’m afraid - if I can get it for under 2 quid, then it may happen, otherwise no deal.
In other news, last night I caught a preview of Ratatouille, in a digitally projected ‘print’, courtesy of Cineworld Cinemas. Two things: the film is every bit as good as the reviews have made out; and digital projection is officially amazing. Visually the film is stunning (knocking the socks off other inferior computer-animated cartoons), and having it digitally projected was the icing on the cake; you could just soak up the Parisian atmosphere from the screen. A treat from start to finish - well done Pixar.
Whilst there I caught a poster advertising Hammer’s classic 1958 horror Dracula, which is returning to cinemas across the country at the end of October in a newly restored version from the BFI. Even better, at most Cineworld cinemas, it will be digitally projected. Having recently discovered Hammer’s horror classics for myself, I can’t wait. Unfortunately I can’t see anything about it on their website, but I just wanted to give Hammer fans advance warning. There will apparently be screenings on Halloween - I can’t think of a better way to spend it.
Beverly Hills Cop - a classic film? 4 October 2007
Posted by primus in : Posts , 2 commentsWhat constitutes a “classic” film?
I pondered this question – in a vague, gentle, back-of-the-head kind of way – while I was watching Beverly Hills Cop last night. I’ve enjoyed BHC every time I’ve seen it, and yesterday was no exception. Purchasing BHC2 (which I haven’t seen for many a year) for £1.99 from CD-Wow recently provided an excellent excuse to introduce Mrs. Ark to the pleasures of Axel Foley and his escapades in the titular upmarket district of Los Angeles.
This is a film that many would call a classic 80s movie, and indeed it is enormously entertaining. There is of course Eddie Murphy’s brilliant performance, in a career-defining turn; the genius theme tune and score from Harold Faltermeyer; Martin Brest’s crisp direction; the excellent photography in Detroit and Beverly Hills; a great supporting cast; etc etc.
I wouldn’t deny any of these things, but as enjoyable as it is, I couldn’t give it a 5 stars out of 5 rating. A 5 out of 5 for me denotes a perfect film that goes beyond mere technical and artistic excellence – it has something meaningful to say about the world, or society, or life in general. Even as I’m writing this, I’m finding it difficult to put my finger on what makes a film truly 5 star for me. There’s that moment where a film can transcend being mere entertainment, and it actually touches your soul – it makes you see something differently, or gives you an experience you haven’t had before. That’s the indefinable magic of cinema I suppose, and probably why we’re all film fans in the first place.
So, does the word “classic” only denote those films that reach that lofty plane of filmmaking that extends the boundaries of cinema? Not necessarily, I think. Calling BHC a classic of the 80s, or a classic of its genre is dead right. Films can be classics without necessarily being world-shattering pieces of cinema. BHC turned out to be an excellent genre piece that did everything that was asked of it. It was funny, it had memorable action, memorable bad guys, amusing sidekicks, good music – a prime example of 80s Hollywood. In short, it did everything right without re-inventing the wheel. And in this case, the wheel did not need to be re-invented.
There are several yardsticks by which a film could be defined as a classic: it is groundbreaking or taboo-busting in some way; it might be technically revolutionary; it broke box-office records; or, simply how popular it is with people many years later (look at It’s a Wonderful Life). BHC was extremely popular when it came out and as far as I can tell, remains popular to this day - so much so that a fourth outing is currently being developed with Murphy onboard.
In many ways, the label “classic” is beside the point. A good film is a good film, regardless of whether it qualifies as a “classic” in the mind of the viewer. But it is reassuring to me that a film can be great without being revolutionary. Maybe it makes me feel less guilty for enjoying those films that are just nice and straightforward, or that are, shall we say, less than perfect.
Now, I wonder if BHC2 is an 80s “classic” as well…?