Being the films I watched in the month of May, in the year of 2010, that count toward my goal of seeing 100 films this year.
I imagine you worked most of that out for yourself.
I’ve decided to start putting these little lists up every month as a way of keeping the blog current and offering myself a chance to reflect on How Things Are Going. Having switched to longer reviews in the blog’s second year, and ultimately abandoned posting them in order too, I feel I’ve lost this side of things a little. And without it, the whole exercise becomes just a random selection of films.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that (he says quickly, not wishing to offend any blogs of this nature), but most of the regularly updated blogs here on FilmJournal have a focus — be it Eastern, Western, retro, current, or what have you — and it’s made me miss my USP a little. Well, now I just sound like I’m trying to sell myself. This isn’t The Apprentice.
I’m not wholesale returning to 2007-style though — this is a little summary in advance (or, sometimes, after) my full-length review, not replacing it with paragraph-sized soundbite summaries again. Hopefully this is A Good Thing and no one would rather I was scaling back (though, I suppose, if you’re spending time reading a blog you don’t actually like, why are you here? I have plenty of blogs I like that I don’t read regularly enough, never mind ones I don’t. But I digress.)
Ah, May. Spring. Or Summer. Or neither, in the UK. I don’t know. I still stay inside watching TV and movies, so what does it matter?
After a lacklustre April (just three films) things have picked up considerably — indeed, this May sees me definitively pass the halfway point. This leaves me about a week and a half ahead of where I’d reached in The Mythical First Year, which ended on 129 films, so that bodes well for the future. Though, in all honesty, I can’t help feeling a little disappointed: in March I’d stormed to around 13 films ahead of my place in 2007, while now I’m lurking only one or two ahead — a poor week and I’d be behind again. But after the last two years — where, as you may remember, I only just made it and then failed — being 16 ahead of target is undoubtedly A Good Thing.
Anyway, here are the 16 (numerical-coincidence-tastic) films I actually watched this month:
#42 Burn After Reading (2008)
#43 Inkheart (2008)
#44 First Blood (1982)
#45 Sherlock Holmes (2010)
#46 Righteous Kill (2008)
#47 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
#48 Taken (2008)
#49 Sherlock Holmes (2009)
#50 Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960)
#51 Tu£sday (2008)
#52 Insomnia (1997)
#53 Coraline (2009)
#54 Knowing (2009)
#55 Ivanhoe (1952)
#56 National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)
#57 Max Payne (2008)
While I’m editorialising, I thought I’d have a quick word on comments. And that word is, “sorry”. With the addition of “, maybe”.
I don’t normally go through the spam-filtered comments because there’s a lot of them and they’re unwaveringly spam. Except they’re not, because one of the comments on National Treasure 2 had wound up in there. I happened to spy it by some stroke of fortune and saved it. And I like comments so it would’ve been a shame to lose it.
So, sorry if you’ve ever commented on this blog and it hasn’t shown up. I didn’t delete it, Cub’s Honour, it just got lost in the spam somehow.
There, that’s cleared my conscience.
Next time on the all-new 100 Films in a Year monthly update…
It’s June! Halfway through the year ‘n’ all that. Just how far will I have got? Will I beat May’s record-breaking 16 films? Who knows? Not me!
See you in 31 days.
Apart from all the reviews I post in that time.
And on Twitter.
And…
I enjoyed the first
but they’re to embellish its tale, in the same way many higher-class films have — it’s just an entertaining ride, with some exciting action, intriguing clues, and the odd bit of humour.
but there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours, particularly if all you want is a bit of well-made light entertainment.
I’ve only ever read one thing by Neil Gaiman. It’s not fan-favourite Neverwhere, nor the
“fairytale story rules” rather than “real-world fantasy story rules” some viewers may have been more forgiving. Also, I’m digressing into a critical blind alley.
I find it hard to believe anyone could watch this and not enjoy much or all of it on a visual level. And if you don’t — honestly, are you sure you like films?
but Coraline deserves it. Maybe she’ll learn a lesson.” For me, however, Coraline is an independent and strong-willed individual with good reason for most of her grievances. Does she need to learn a lesson? Undoubtedly. This is a fairytale, after all, and lesson-learning is more-or-less the point. Perhaps if you think Coraline is unlikeable and deserves the woes heaped upon her you’ll like the film less (I should add that Ebert gave it three-out-of-four, however); but if you get on with the character — and I’m certain many among the film’s supposed target audience, kids, would — then she’s a likeable companion to learn the story’s lesson with.
“I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.”
A Good Script rather than A Series Of Scenes, I’m inclined towards the latter here, because of the comparison with Man On Fire.
but after half an hour spent setting things up, it’s like screenwriters Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen felt they’d done their dramatic dues and just wanted to watch people get beaten up. Or shot. Or blown up. Or hit by trucks.
Despite all this, Taken’s an entertaining actioner. Unsurprisingly, there’s something satisfying about an apparently calm and controlled father being allowed to explode in precision violence against a bunch of scumbag white slavers. It’s wish fulfilment; proper justice finally being done. And, for extra gratification, he’s got the requisite spy skills — the bit with the radio and walkie-talkie, for example — and, even better, edge — perhaps the film’s most memorable moment (after that speech, anyway), when he shows the lengths he’ll go to when visiting a ‘friend’ for dinner.
Seraphim Falls sees Liam Neeson and a crew of hired hands chase Pierce Brosnan across every Old West landscape imaginable — from snow-topped mountains to bone-dry dustbowl — but why?
once most everyone else has fallen by the wayside. As the only constants, the various situations and their reactions allow the men to be slowly revealed. It’s not really a character piece, but they’re at least more complicated than your usual Good Guy vs Bad Guy setup — the story has you flip back and forth about which you think is which several times.
The Pevensie children return to Narnia, but hundreds of years later, in Disney’s last adaptation from C.S. Lewis’ series (don’t worry, Fox have taken it over). For those keeping track, this is both the second book and second film, but fourth chronicle chronologically. Which is fine for now, but I wonder what they’ll do come those earlier-set ones…
held the record for the longest closing credits at 10 minutes. I don’t really know what’s common these days but 12 minutes is nonetheless 8% of the film.
or maybe it’s just counting on their memory a bit too much. With only limited characterisation and basic political complications, Prince Caspian really boils down to a series of fights and battles. Nicely done fights and battles, I’d argue, but still, no one’s coming away from this particularly enriched.
Whenever a star, director, writer, or other key creative dies during or around the production of a film, it’s apparently tempting to draw some kind of correlation between their death and the themes or content of their work. To force such a link between the murder of writer/director/co-star Adrienne Shelly and Waitress seems inappropriate, however, when the film is so much about life.
I know I
Waitress is a “woman’s film”, but in a good way: written and directed from a female perspective, with its central roles being female, it doesn’t pander to a perceived female demographic and nor does it bellow “this is what we women think, and it’s so different to you damn men” — it’s more subtle than that.
You remember Righteous Kill, right? It’s the film that reunited De Niro and Pacino, only the second time they’d appeared on screen together. And while the first,
he’s lensing a procedural thriller about a pair of 60-something cops and not Miami Vice 2. Suffice to say, it doesn’t work; if anything, it makes it worse.
The film’s at its best when focusing on the De Niro/Pacino pairing, granting us the occasional good scene. Or just line — every little helps. But there’s not enough of that and too much of the dross. Other characters come and go with near-random irregularity, subplots are abandoned, or if they were resolved I missed it, and there are so many clichés you wish the DVD came with a spotters’ guide — at least ticking them off would give you something to do.