September 2012

We’re officially three-quarters of the way through 2012 now (scary, ain’t it?) and this month I pass the three-quarters mark. Indeed, I’ve reached 81, which is exactly where I was this time last year.

Other than that, it’s quite unremarkable. I watched eight films, which is the average needed per month to make 100. After last month’s features being entirely Saint and Falcon vehicles, this month not only had more variety but not a one is a ’40s RKO flick. Back on that train next month, perhaps.

Other than that, the only observable trend is perhaps films of note. And by “note” I mean “success”: a surprise-ish franchise hit from 2011, two of 2012’s biggest films (one of them amongst the very biggest of all time), and an enduring ’80s ‘classic’. Also, Fantastic Four.


September’s films
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
#74 Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
#75 The Hunger Games (2012)
#76 Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, aka The Other Woman (2009)
#77 Fantastic Four (2005)
The Hunger Games#78 Avengers Assemble, aka Marvel’s The Avengers (2012)
#79 Ip Man 2, aka Yip Man 2 (2010)
#80 RoboCop (1987)
#81 Unauthorized: The Harvey Weinstein Project (2011)


Next time on the all-new 100 Films in a Year monthly update…

The beginning of the home straight, you could say. But watching 100 films in a year is always a marathon not a sprint, and with 19 still to go form tells me it’s going to be another month or two — or three — before the titular goal is reached.

Less optimistic than some of my previous end-of-month “how I might do next time” declarations, but more realistic.

The Other Guys (2010)

2012 #26
Adam McKay | 103 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

The Other GuysThe Other Guys sounded like a great concept; so great I overlooked the fact it’s from the director of the massively over-rated Anchorman (as well as Talladega Nights and Step Brothers, which I’ve avoided because they look at least as bad) and stars the similarly over-rated Will Ferrell and variable-but-often-bad Mark Wahlberg. Turns out I should’ve paid attention to form: The Other Guys is pretty rubbish.

I don’t really know that there’s much point criticising it, because if you like this kind of film I have no idea if this one is good or not (as noted, Anchorman is apparently the pinnacle of modern US film comedy and I didn’t enjoy it), and if you don’t then — as I said — this one doesn’t transcend that.

The only point I have to make is what a shame that is, because the concept’s a fun one. The Rock and Samuel L. Jackson play a pair of cops who are, essentially, action heroes: they have dramatic explosive car chases along the streets of NYC, catch all the bad guys, and so on and so forth. But this is about The Other Guys — the regular cops who have to go about their regular business around them. And when the action heroes are killed, a pair of those Other Guys have to step up to solve their last case.

Except that’s not quite how the film pans out. It doesn’t trade on the idea of the Amazing Cops vs the Regular Guys enough, and that’s where the humour lies for me. Wooden gunEveryone loves The Rock and Jackson; no one likes Ferrell and Wahlberg; and they’re not assigned the case, they stumble upon it. Wouldn’t it have been more fun if everyone actually hated The Big Damn Heroes who make it hard for the regular guys to do their job? If a pair of normal detectives were assigned The Big Case and had to prove themselves worthy? Maybe even put the Super Pair in the shade, rather than killing them off in the first act?

What we actually get is not entirely without merit. There are funny moments and occasions when it plays decently with the premise. It’s quite a chore to get through though, so it almost amazes me that there’s also a longer unrated version. More? Oh dear. It’s overlong as it is. One reason to stick with it is that the best bit is the end credits, which are loaded with fun-ly-presented facts about the financial crisis. On the one hand it’s all depressing and/or angering, on the other it’s good to inform people, and one suspects the regular audience for this kind of comedy are not the kind of people who stay abreast of financial news.

A disappointing waste of a concept, then, but I’m sure some people loved it.

2 out of 5

Outland (1981)

2012 #3
Peter Hyams | 105 mins | TV | 16:9 | UK / English | 15 / R

OutlandI first encountered Outland in a similar context to a lot of people, I think, based on reviews and whatnot I’ve read; that is, as “High Noon in space”. For me it was in a module on Westerns during my Media Studies A-level, in the sense of “what defines a Western?” I subscribe to the notion that a Western has to take place in a certain time and place — because it’s in the name, isn’t it? — so something set in the future on a space station isn’t in the Western genre.

But, having said that, what if it then employs all of the genre’s tropes? With its desert-y settings, horses, stylised dialogue, and more, it’s hard to avoid the Western aspects of Firefly/Serenity; Outland, on the other hand, isn’t so overt. If you’d never seen High Noon, or if no one pointed out the thematic or storytelling similarities, there’s nothing here that would let you in on it (arguably) being a Western. So it’s interesting that it seems to dominate conversation about the film.

Otherwise, it has a lot of science-fiction-y things going for it too. Two years on from Alien, director Peter Hyams has adopted the same grungey, real-world, lived-in aesthetic for the mining outpost setting. It’s a style that doesn’t date (at least, not yet — witness Doctor Who using it multiple times in the past few years, for instance), which means that it doesn’t feel 30 years old. The plot, lifted from High Noon or not, is even more timeless: lone hero stands up to bad guys that no one else is brave enough to confront. In space, no one can hear you make a WesternIt works as well in space as it does anywhere else.

Thing is, though it’s well-made and suitably engrossing, the primary unique thing about Outland is that it’s set in space but has so many plot-tropes of the Western. That’s why that dominates the conversation: in many respects, it’s the most interesting thing about the film. A shame though, because I think it could stand without it.

4 out of 5

James Bond @ 100 Films

With the Bond 50 Blu-ray box set out on Monday (and many people no doubt already receiving their copies — I’m still vainly hoping mine will turn up today), I thought now was as good a time as any to bring 100 Films’ previous Bond reviews over to the new blog. (The other “good time” would be in a couple of weeks when Skyfall reaches cinemas, but why wait? Besides, Bond 50 actually includes the films I’m reviewing below; I think it’s safe to say Skyfall doesn’t.)

I’m thinking about mounting a great big chronological Bond re-watch now that they’re all on BD. Though I’ve seen them all before and so none qualify for this blog, I may do some kind of retrospective anyway — I love Bond, and what’s a blog for if not sharing your passions?

Until then, here’s the five increasingly-lengthy Bond pieces I’ve written to date:





Supervillain Showdown!

Despicable MeMegamind

vs.

2010 saw the release of two apparently-similar animated films, both dealing with the superhero genre from the perspective of the supervillain. As it turns out only one really does that (Despicable Me features a supervillain, but not in a world of superheroes), but still, it seems a reasonable point of comparison.

I watched them back-to-back back in March, which wasn’t necessarily a revealing exercise but certainly made for a direct comparison. I’ve made some points about that within the reviews themselves, so I shan’t say more here. As ever, click through to read my thoughts:


After that, it should be pretty clear who I think the winner is.

Despicable Me (2010)

2012 #34
Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud | 91 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA / English | U / PG

Despicable MeA venture into the increasingly-popular CG family film market from Universal, Despicable Me is about a supervillain who comes to question his evil ways. It was released the same year as the similarly-themed Megamind from Dreamworks. It cost nearly half as much ($69m vs $130m) but made nearly $100m more worldwide. It’s getting a sequel; Megamind isn’t. All of which is a shame, because I really don’t think it’s as good.

The thing is, Megamind embraces its genre: it’s a superhero movie, playing on familiar tropes and stories from that incredibly popular genre. Despicable Me is an animated comedy about family and responsibility and that kind of thing, which happens to feature a supervillain as its hero. It’s very cartoony, it’s kind of silly; that can work, and some of it does here, but it doesn’t pay off the concept in the way Megamind does, for me. It has good bits, rather than being a good whole.

And there are plenty of bits that flat-out don’t work. There are three little girls, all of them stereotypes, but the “cute littlest one” feels like a direct rip from Monsters, Inc.; there are scenes during the end credits which are blatant 3D exploitation, which makes them a tad irritating in 2D; the action-sequence climax somehow doesn’t feel earned, unlike it does in other comedies like Hot Fuzz, Super, or even Megamind.

Despicable dadThe film’s country is officially listed as USA because it’s made with American money, but it feels more like a French production (albeit dubbed with US voices). Look at those directors’ names (though only Coffin is French — Renaud is actually American); it was made entirely in a French studio (Mac Guff in Paris); and it has a kind of feel that doesn’t seem like it came from a US studio. So while technically, yes, it’s American, I don’t think the French side should be wholly ignored. I’m not saying it makes it bad, but perhaps it lessens the apparent superhero feel — that’s a very American genre, after all.

Despicable Me seems to have come out as a surprise hit. I imagine no one saw it coming because it wasn’t from Pixar or Dreamworks, and perhaps that sort of inverse-hype led to good word of mouth that led to good box office. Personally, I didn’t care for it.

3 out of 5

Megamind (2010)

2012 #33
Tom McGrath | 92 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | PG / PG

MegamindFrom the co-director of Madagascar, Madagascar 2 and Madagascar 3 comes this superhero spoof that had the misfortune of arriving in cinemas two months after the broadly-similarly-themed and well-received Despicable Me, and suffered because of it: while Universal’s CG ‘toon foray earnt over $250m on a budget under $70m, Dreamworks’ Megamind could only rake in $164m, a smidgen (in movie terms) over its $130m cost. Which is a shame, because I found it to be the more entertaining film.

I’ve detailed my dis-love for Despicable Me separately so don’t want to get too far drawn into that again, but it’s a superhero movie in very broad terms only. Which is fine as it goes, but fails to deliver on what I felt was a selling point. Maybe that’s why a general audience bought it more. Megamind, conversely, is absolutely steeped in its genre. It is, essentially, Superman if Superman lost. I wouldn’t say an understanding of the Superman mythology is essential to getting Megamind (and even if it is, having seen one of the film or TV incarnations will have you covered), but it adds something.

Another inevitable point of comparison is Pixar’s The Incredibles, one of their best films, and it’s fair to say Dreamworks’ answer isn’t that good. On the bright side it does offer something different, riffing on a different area of the superhero universe (the sole protector rather than the team) and taking the villain’s side. It arguably plays as a companion piece rather than a rival.

MegacoolThere’s a starry voice cast behind the characters, and fortunately they never overwhelm their roles. Which is good, because I’m not really a fan of Will Ferrell and he’s the lead. There’s also the likes of Brad Pitt, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill and Ben Stiller rounding out proceedings — not that it matters because, as I say, the voices fit their roles seamlessly.

Megamind seems to have gotten lost in the never-ending roll of CG cartoons that fill multiplexes now, buried beneath the success of Megamind and Dreamworks’ own extra-sized franchises (they’re aiming for “at least” three How To Train Your Dragons, four Madagascars, and six Kung Fu Pandas, for crying out loud). While I wouldn’t argue it’s a classic, and perhaps it’s as well suited to superhero fans as it is to the ostensible kiddy audience (not that it’s not right for them too), it merits more attention than it got.

4 out of 5

Marvel One-Shots

With Marvel Avengers Assemble out on DVD and Blu-ray in the UK next Monday, and Marvel’s The Avengers* out on DVD and Blu-ray in the US a week later on Tuesday 25th**, now seemed as good a time as any to post reviews of the first two Marvel One-Shots.

For those who don’t know, these are short films included on the home ent releases of their big movies, which take place within the same interconnected movie universe. The longest and most significant to date is Item 47, which premiered at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con and is on the DVD/BD of The Avengers. These two come from Thor and Captain America respectively.


Marvel One-Shot: The Consultant
2012 #37a
2011 | Leythum | 4 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | PG

Taking their name from the term for a one-off issue of a comic book, Marvel One-Shots are a series of short films included on Blu-ray (and DVD?) releases of Marvel Studios features, helping bridge gaps in their shared cinematic universe. This first one is included on the BD for Thor, and probably occurs during that film’s timeline, but is really concerned with filling in other holes in the universe.

The ConsultantDespite that aim, these aren’t glaring holes that desperately need a fix. Rather they’re join-the-dots enterprises; the thing most people won’t have noticed at all, that fans may have wondered about, that it’s more fun to connect up than strictly necessary. It makes this piece resolutely fan-only — while it’s quite good, it’s more admin than a story in its own right, showing how various films connect together in the lead-up to The Avengers. At least it does that neatly, stringing together new dialogue snippets starring fan-favourite Agent Coulson and another SHIELD agent (from Thor, as it happens) with clips from other Marvel Universe films, mainly The Incredible Hulk.

In short, The Consultant is a fun little diversion, but not an essential element in the construction of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe.

3 out of 5


Marvel One-Shot: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor’s Hammer
2012 #38a
2011 | Leythum | 4 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12

The second of Marvel’s two (to date) short films set in their shared Cinematic Universe. This one comes on the Captain America Blu-ray (and DVD?), despite that title. Indeed, it feels like they’re running one film behind with these things — maybe The Avengers will include one related to Cap?

Marvel’s first foray into short films (see above) was a fans-only affair; an exercise in filing that emphasised connections between the fairly disparate early films in their shared universe. This one, however, has more to offer to the casual viewer. Though it specifically mentions Thor in the title, it isn’t tied to that film in any way. In fact, the title just gives fans a spot to place it in the timeline — it could occur at any point.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's HammerIt’s a standalone piece, and though it’s brief (under three minutes before the credits role), it still manages to add quite a lot to the character of Agent Coulson, who in the main films to this point has been a minor (albeit increasingly major) supporting role. I suppose it’s fitting that Clark Gregg has been the star of these connecting shorts, as he’s one of the main links across the films (he appears in Iron Man and has key roles in Iron Man 2 and Thor; Samuel L Jackson’s Nick Fury may appear in more films, but he only offers cameos in three of his four appearances (and two of those are post-credits)).

I won’t say what happens to Coulson here, because it’s too short to describe it without ruining all the film has to offer. It’s probably not worth hunting out for its own sake (unless it’s available free on YouTube or something, because what three-minute-film isn’t worth watching free online?), but if you’ve got a disc with it on, or rent one, then it’s worth a watch. It’s a brief blob of fun, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

4 out of 5


As I mentioned, The Avengers assemble on UK BD soon, at which point I’ll have a review of Item 47. And Avengers Assemble, of course. And maybe Thor at last too.



* I’ve begun to take some kind of perverse pleasure in the title farrago. ^
** Suck on that, America! What do you mean you get a director’s commentary and an extra featurette? Damn you. ^

George Sanders as the Falcon

Fearing the cost of renewing the rights to their popular B-movie hero The Saint, RKO acquired a short detective story by Michael Arlen called Gay Falcon and set about bringing it to the screen.

Gay LaurenceThey renamed Gay Falcon’s hero, Gay Falcon, to Gay Lawrence (well, Gay Laurence at first, but I don’t think that really matters), moved his previous surname to be a reasonless Saint-like nickname, and in the lead role cast “Russian-born English film and television actor, singer-songwriter, music composer, and author” (and, later, voice of Shere Khan in Disney’s Jungle Book), George Sanders, the incumbent Saint. RKO had crafted a new franchise that was so like the Saint — but, presumably, cheaper — that Leslie Charteris sued (it was settled out of court).

Sanders stuck around for the first handful of Falcon films before he decided to leave the role. But I’m getting ahead of myself — let’s first look at the three films that established this Saint-but-not…



The Falcon Takes Over (1942)

2012 #70
Irving Reis | 60 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The Falcon Takes OverQuite outside of the Falcon film series, this third entry is notable for being the first screen adaptation of a Raymond Chandler novel. Ditching Chandler’s then-unknown Philip Marlowe in favour of the Falcon in the lead role, this is a version of the character’s second mystery, Farewell, My Lovely — which would be adapted straight just two years later. And they say things get remade quickly nowadays.

Maybe it’s just because I knew, but The Falcon Takes Over does feel like a Chandler tale. But then of his original work I’ve only read and seen The Big Sleep, so maybe it’s just passingly like that. Still, there’s something in the intricacy of plotting and the kind of settings it inhabits that is either coincidentally like The Big Sleep or is Chandleresque.

Story aside, this is otherwise much the same as the other Falcon films. Sanders is a bit Saint-like while not being quite as good; there are several women for him to fawn over, including a coda where a new one turns up to attract his attention away from this film’s main dame; the police are bumbling comedy extras; as is sidekick Goldie…

Dangerous dateAs usual, it doesn’t have the same je ne sais quoi that makes the Saint films particularly entertaining (yeah, you know I mean wit); and I can well believe it has “none of the atmosphere of Chandler’s book”; and that it lacks the quality of the second film adaptation, an acknowledged film noir classic (which I really should see). But for those faults, it’s still a good yarn reasonably well told.

3 out of 5

* As with the vast majority of the Falcon series, The Falcon Takes Over hasn’t been passed by the BBFC since its original release. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^