Everything or Nothing (2012)

2013 #14
Stevan Riley | 98 mins | download (HD) | 1.78:1 | UK / English | 12

Everything or NothingTo mark the 50th anniversary of the James Bond film series last year, the producers commissioned this special documentary looking back at the entire phenomenon. If you missed it when it was shown exclusively at Odeon cinemas (in the UK; it was on TV in the US), it’s been out on DVD for a few weeks (in the UK; nothing in the US) and comes to Sky Movies Premiere from tomorrow (at 12:15pm and 10:30pm; continues twice a day thereafter). It’s sometimes called Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007, not that you’ll see that title on screen or on the DVD cover; and not that it’s very accurate, actually, because many (perhaps all) of these stories have been told before. But I’ll come to that.

Overall, experienced documentary-maker Stevan Riley has put together an engaging work. Eschewing intrusive, dogmatic voiceover narration, Riley instead tells the story through interviews (both new talking-head pieces and archive-drawn audio), illustrative clips, behind-the-scenes photos and film snippets, and music. The latter elements are taken almost exclusively from the Bond franchise itself — one of the film’s early contentions is that the Bond novels were a mixture of autobiography and fantasy for creator Ian Fleming, so (as Riley has said in interviews) clips from the films seemed an appropriate way to cover his back story.

Saltzman, Fleming, CubbyAlthough ostensibly a history of the film series, Riley begins the story with Fleming’s wartime career and the birth of the Bond novels, then covers early attempts to get Bond on screen. Depth here means it actually takes quite a while to get to the entry of ‘Cubby’ Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, the producers who finally brought Bond to the big screen in the still-running series this documentary is meant to be about! Some have accused the film of being “the producers’ story”, as if that were a bad thing. It’s a behind-the-scenes tale, and with only a handful of people steering the series during its lifetime, naturally the throughline falls to them. Besides, cataloguing the changing roster of leading men is a story that’s readily and widely available, what with the on-screen action being (as it were) the ‘public face’ of the series.

With just over an hour-and-a-half to cover 60 years of history, the film’s biggest problem is length. There’s little time for nuance, instead offering a whistle-stop overview of the main events, highlighting key aspects here and there. Inevitably a lot of important things get short shrift — there’s hardly any detail on the birth of the iconic title sequences, for instance, or the series’ distinctive musical style. It’s both a blessing and a curse that detailed featurettes on elements such as these can be found on the series’ DVD and Blu-ray releases. A blessing, because the casual fan wishing to know more can look there for the detail they seek; a curse, because many fans will already have seen all of those featurettes (and they are numerous, including at least one dedicated thirty-minute-plus making-of per film) and find little new in Riley’s effort.

But there was never going to be time in a single feature to cover that much fine detail, so we must allow Riley some leeway. It’s also not his fault that Sean Connery refused to be interviewed, or that other key players are no longer with us and so can only be represented by occasionally familiar archive interviews, Cross Conneryplus second-hand recollections (sometimes, third-hand) of friends and relations. This is, perhaps, most keenly felt in the film’s discussion of Kevin McClory, the man who claimed he had some rights to make competing Bond films (Broccoli and Saltzman brought him in to the fold to make Thunderball, which he did own rights to and so being where his claims stemmed from; he was the man who later made Never Say Never Again, and continued to fight for filmmaking rights up until his death). Here he’s very much painted as the villain, not only as a constant thorn in the side of the series’ guardian-angel producers, but also it all but says he conned Fleming, and quite heavily implies the first Thunderball court cases contributed significantly (or even wholly) to Fleming’s death. Is that true? It might be. McClory isn’t here to defend himself, but then his friends and relatives who do pop up don’t seem to try too hard to justify him either.

The one section I would call a major disappointment is the coverage given to the Brosnan era. Dalton and Craig are equally brushed past, but the key tenants — why Dalton’s films floundered and how Craig, despite initial doubts, led a glorious rebirth — are covered. There’s surely much more to say about Brosnan, however. DVD was emerging as a dominant format around the time his Bond incumbency happened, meaning the special features on his films were put together as the movies came out. That’s great for on-the-ground as-it-happened making-of material, but naturally offers zero retrospective opinion, something all the previous films’ discs benefit from. Unfortunately, the Brosnan section here does little to redress the balance. You get the feeling there’s an awful lot going unsaid, particularly about Die Another Day and the way Brosnan was unceremoniously dropped in its wake. The fact the former leading man can’t even remember which way round Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough happened suggests something too… but I’m not sure what, because it’s never explored.

Happier timesAs a dyed-in-the-wool Bond fan, I was left wanting a bit more from Everything or Nothing; especially as someone who grew up during the Brosnan era, I feel there’s more to be told about that time. But for newer or casual fans, or those seeking a nostalgia-tinged flick through the highs (and the odd low) of the most enduring series in film history, it succeeds admirably. It’s just a shame they didn’t include it in the Bond 50 Blu-ray set — it would’ve been most welcome on the otherwise-pathetic bonus disc. But that’s a quibble for another day.

4 out of 5

Everything or Nothing comes to Sky Movies Premiere from tomorrow, Friday 15th February, and plays twice daily until Thursday 21st February.

Thor (2011)

2012 #37
Kenneth Branagh | 115 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

ThorDirector Kenneth Branagh brings all his Shakespearean know-how to one of the most innately successful of Marvel’s recent superhero movies. Perhaps lacking the mass appeal of Iron Man (specifically, of Downey Jr), Branagh spins a yarn of gods and mortals, humility and responsibility, without stinting on action or humour.

In the title role, Chris Hemsworth is an instant star; as his evil brother, Tom Hiddleston also seems to be commencing a considerable career. Too much building to The Avengers is its only major flaw. I had no interest in Thor before; now I’m desperate to read some of the comics.

4 out of 5

Marvel Avengers Assemble, aka Marvel’s The Avengers, comes to Sky Movies Premiere from Friday 15th February at 4pm.

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

My reviews of the other Marvel Phase One movies can be found at the following links: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America: The First Avenger; plus, the first two Marvel One-Shot shorts.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

2012 #2
David Yates | 130 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2After a decade on screen, the fantasy series comes to an action-packed conclusion. Adapting the final novel’s second half, it’s mostly finale, to both the seventh tale and entire series. The climactic Battle of Hogwarts takes up much of the film. A glut of combat and cameos, most surviving characters return. Many get their moment to shine, with particular gratification from Matthew Lewis’ Neville, Julie Walters’ Mrs Weasley, and Maggie Smith’s Professor McGonagall. Not flawless, with major deaths off screen and a Potter / Voldemort showdown less stirring than the novel’s, but exciting and grand enough for a fitting send-off.

4 out of 5

See also my overview of the Harry Potter films of David Yates.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 merited an honourable mention on my list of The Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

The Artist (2011)

2013 #12
Michel Hazanavicius | 101 mins | Blu-ray | 1.33:1 | France, Belgium & USA / English | PG / PG-13

With the important awards finally arriving (the BAFTAs this Sunday, the Oscars in a fortnight), last year’s winner is on Sky Movies Premiere from today. What better time to review it?

The ArtistBeginning in 1927, you could (and some have) accuse The Artist of being a remake of Singin’ in the Rain, only swapping the milieu of the musical for that of the silent film — both equally alien to modern audiences! The story concerns a silent movie star, one of the biggest names in the business, who is ousted when sound arrives and the public want new faces. Concurrently, an ordinary girl he bumped into (literally) at a premiere rises to become one of the new era’s biggest names.

I remember hearing about The Artist when it debuted at Cannes in 2011. It garnered some acclaim and sounded interesting, especially to someone who’s interested in both silent film and modern versions thereof. But I also got the impression it was seen as a curio, no more than a film fan’s film, and so hoped it would somehow make it over here eventually and I’d one day get a chance to see it. Things turned out a little differently, of course.

Some have said The Artist is over-praised and not a patch on any of the real silent films it seeks to emulate. I take umbrage with that. While it may not be to the level of the very best the silent era has to offer, in that case you’re comparing it to the crème de la crème of some 30 years of cinema; a time of invention and innovation to boot. They churned ’em out in those days, and I’d wager The Artist is more than equal to the period’s average output.

The StarBesides which, it isn’t a real silent film, and not just because it uses sound on one or two occasions, to very specific effect. Made 80 years after the invention of sound revolutionised cinema over night, The Artist is a tribute and homage to that great era — it’s not trying to beat them at their own game. It’s certainly not the first ‘modern silent’ either, but it’s an appropriate one to have received the most widespread attention (La Antena was a bit weird and The Call of Cthulhu a bit niche, for two other recent efforts). I think the general public still think of silent cinema as either a mustachioed villain tying a damsel to the tracks, people walking at double-fast pace, or slapstick comedy, so it can only be a good thing that The Artist gained such wide acclaim and introduced more people to a fairer understanding of the films of the time.

The film itself has much to admire, although it’s hard to put aside that its greatest impact is as a silent movie made in the 21st century. The black-and-white cinematography is frequently gorgeous, the 4:3 frame always precisely composed. LA’s Bradbury Building (now restored, but most familiar to film fans as one of the rundown locations for Blade Runner) lends its particular style to one memorable sequence: the long shots reveal staircases and floors so symmetrically squared The Girlyou’d believe they were a precisely-planned specially-constructed set, and unceremonious symbolism is created with former-star George being on the way down and Peppy being on the way up.

Director Michel Hazanavicius litters the film with subtle but clear markers such as this — the man and woman statues that move further apart on the sideboard as George and his wife grow distant; a marquee advertising Lonely Star as George slopes away from an auction of all his possessions; and so on. It may not be taxing to spot such allusions — I’m sure a hardened cinéphile would bristle at the very notion such visible signs could be considered symbolism at all — but they’re still neat.

As George, Jean Dujardin exudes all the requisite charm of a silent movie idol, while later silently conveying his sliding confidence and sink into depression. Bérénice Bejo is equally charming as kind-hearted Peppy, while James Cromwell offers able support as a loyal chauffeur.

There’s no denying the real star of the film, though. Winner of the Palm Dog and a fixture of the red carpet this time last year, Uggie steals every scene he’s in. Whether he’s doing a trick (his party piece, pretending to be shot, makes a neat throughline to a tension-breaking pay-off) The Dog!or just faithfully following George around, he draws your attention. I might think that was just me (we’ve been over my love of terriers before), but his near-constant presence during last year’s awards suggests otherwise. And boy can he run!

Sometimes acclaimed films suffer when divorced from awards season hype. Some people have certainly felt this way about The Artist. Personally, I think they do it a disservice. As a tribute to silent cinema, made in a flawless imitation of the style, it’s marvellous. As a romantic comedy, it’s sweet and funny with an occasional dramatic edge (more than you might expect from all the cheery trailers and clips). Much like its stars — all three of them — I found it charming.

5 out of 5

The Artist is on Sky Movies Premiere twice daily until Thursday 14th February. The British Academy Film Awards 2013 are on BBC One at 9pm on Sunday 10th February.

The Lady Eve (1941)

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I’ve decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future, when I eventually watch these again, I may well update with something longer; but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, Wikipedia defines a drabble as “an extremely short work of fiction of exactly one hundred words in length”. I first encountered it in a non-fiction book, so I’m going to decide Wikipedia is wrong and that it really means any complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

So, the first of these ‘drabble reviews’ is…

2012 #25
Preston Sturges | 90 mins | TV | 1.37:1 | USA / English | U

The Lady EveScrewball romantic comedy starring Barbara Stanwyck as a con woman who falls for her latest mark, ale heir Henry Fonda, until he discovers the truth and ditches her — and she vows revenge by conning him again. Packed with wit, Stanwyck shines as a slightly kooky, thoroughly daring con artist. Hers is the role with all the power, but Fonda’s gentler portrayal of her unconfident target is equally vital. It’s only let down by the ending, which rushes a conclusion in two minutes and didn’t seem to quite make sense. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it makes an unfortunate dent.

4 out of 5

Scre4m (2011)

aka Scream 4

2012 #45
Wes Craven | 111 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Scre4mI had heard Scre4m (Scream 4, if you prefer) was dreadful; a misguided, belated attempt to revive a once-popular franchise. Personally, I thought it was fun.

Set ten years after the trilogy-closing Scream 3, the new movie wisely kicks off in years-later-sequel mode, re-introducing us to the (surviving) old characters and setting up a selection of new ones ready to be sliced ‘n’ diced. Unlike some subsequent horror franchises, Scream was never about inventive deaths, so the focus on character and storyline (relatively, at least) makes for a welcome change of pace from gore-riddled modern US horror movies.

One of the hallmarks of the original films, as I’m sure you’ll recall, is that they featured characters who were very aware of the rules of the horror movie. It played on these mercilessly, said characters employing knowledge of decades’ worth of horror films and horror sequels in order to (try to) survive. That’s not gone in Scre4m, which sets its sights on the US horror predilections that have followed since; mainly remakes and reboots. Sadly, there’s probably more on-the-nose dialogue-y exposition-y stuff about the poor quality and predictability of remakes than actually integrating such criticism into the film itself; but then again the parallels to the original Scream are there for those who care to look.

Arquette CoxIt also leads to quite a good extended bit where some characters reel off a list of recent remakes, which rather highlights just how far it’s gone now. There’s lots of examples of this fun ‘meta’ stuff for film fans; for real-world-stuff too, including references to Courtney Cox and David Arquette’s marriage, Emma Roberts being in the shadow of Julia Roberts, and so on.

In a nod to the rise of ‘torture porn’ films, Scre4m frequently reminds us that the rules have changed. I think what it really proves is there are no rules any more. Which on the one hand is fine — filmmakers have spent decades trying to subvert our expectations and surprise us in the horror genre — but on the other means the intelligent viewer can never be surprised, because every possibility is racing through our mind. Which, again, is fine — that’s the point: like every kind of murder mystery from Agatha Christie on, half the game is guessing the killer. And if you want to get suckered in to the jump scares, or think it through so thoroughly you remain ahead of them, that’s fine too. I think that’s one of the reasons horror movies have always appealed so much to teens: they’re still naive enough, unfamiliar with the rules of film enough, to get caught out by those things; whereas an older, seasoned viewer can see them coming.

New generationBut, ultimately, all the discussion of horror movies and their rules is just window dressing: if there aren’t rules any more (which there don’t seem to be), it’s impossible for the characters to use them to survive, or for it to lend much self-reflexive weight to how the killer behaves. The only moment when it might be of use is when they predict the climax will occur at a party, and it turns out they’re having a party that very night! But then they go ahead with anyway. So much for that then.

Like so much of the film, Marco Beltrami’s score is amusingly overblown. He makes it sound like something terrifying is happening when someone sits in broad daylight typing “I don’t know what to write” on their computer. I had similar thoughts on bits of the acting, the murders, and so on — there’s an element of a wink and a nudge, of deliberately hamming it up. I think that some would see this as a lack of skill in the acting/writing/directing departments, but I think it’s a choice. Or I choose to think it’s a choice, take your pick. Arguably the resultant mix works as well as a comedy as it does a horror movie. This, I think, is part of why the Scary Movie movies are so reviled — they simply take the piss out of something that is, to one degree or another, already taking the piss.

In many respects, Scre4m is kind of old school. It fits better in the era of the original trilogy and/or earlier horror films than with the development of the genre in the intervening decade. Old skoolThough as the main development has been torture porn, and it criticises that explicitly from the very first scene, perhaps that’s still OK. In fact, they’re one step ahead again, with a nod to the most most-recent development (the Paranormal Activity-led “found footage” boom), which actually plays a more central role than the torture porn stuff.

It’s fair to say that a chunk of nostalgia for the originals colours my liking of Scre4m. Perhaps it plays best to those who saw the first three at the right age, i.e. mid-to-late teens or so. I shouldn’t think it would engage a new audience all that much, especially ones versed in the gorier Saw and Final Destination franchises. But for those of us with fond memories (to one degree or another) of the first three films, it’s kind of a nice little revisit.

3 out of 5

January 2013 + 5 Films That Deserve Sequels

I’ve decided to give these monthly updates a mini overhaul for 2013, to make them more interesting and engaging for you, dear reader. That means a variety of regular sections beyond just the list of films I watched. I’ll introduce them as we go, so without further ado…


What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

I introduced this the other day, so look there for a full explanation. Naturally enough, I’ll be giving monthly updates on my progress.

So, I know, the suspense must have been killing you since Monday — but I can now reveal that this month’s selection from the “12 for 2013” is… City Lights.

I’m not intending to progress through the films in any particular order, but this is both the oldest (1931) and shortest (83 minutes on PAL DVD). Next in age is Bicycle Thieves, and in length is… Bicycle Thieves. So, there you go.


January’s films

The full list for January includes…

It Happened One Night#1 Underworld: Awakening (2012)
#2 It Happened One Night (1934)
#2a A Trip to the Moon (1902)
#3 The Extraordinary Voyage (2011)
#4 Django (1966)
#5 Underdog (2007)
Dredd#6 Dredd (2012)
#7 Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part II (2013)
#7a You Only Live Twice (1967)
#8 Armored Car Robbery (1950)
#9 The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec (2010)
#10 City Lights (1931)


Analysis

Rather than just list the films, isn’t it more interesting to try to ascertain what — if anything — that means? I think so. So here’s putting that in perspective, as to how I normally get on and the such like.

Sometimes statistics can be very revealing, displaying correlations you might not expect but are evidently there. Unfortunately, my January viewing is not one of those times. You might think how many films I watched, or even how quickly I watched my first film, would be an indicator of how high my final tally will be, but past years show this just isn’t the case. For example, on four years I’ve watched film #1 on New Year’s Day — 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012. Their respective totals were 129, 100, 94 and 97. The two years I didn’t (2010 and 2011) were my most successful Januarys ever, both reaching 12 films. In 2010 my final total was 122; in 2011, it was 100.

With a total of 10 for January, 2013 stands two ahead of target pace (the speed which would see me reach precisely 100 films in precisely 365 days), is double 2008 and 2009, and equal to last year. Should I keep up this pace, I’ll end the year having seen 120 new films. Then again, one of the few correlations you can see is that January’s total has never been an accurate indicator of my average viewing.

But hey, there’s a first time for everything.


Finally, each month I’m going to compile an informal little list on a topic inspired by a film (or films) in that month’s viewing. This month it’s…

5 Films That Deserve Sequels

  1. Dredd
    DreddFans have waited decades for a decent cinematic translation of the iconic 2000 AD lawman, and they finally got it last year. The filmmakers mooted a trilogy; the pathetic US box office take seemed to put the brakes on that; but now it’s doing great business on DVD and Blu-ray. Who knows if we’ll get a sequel, then, but the exciting future world depicted in the first film deserves further exploration.
  2. The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec
    The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-SecAnother mooted trilogy that seems to be in limbo — when you look into the first film, no obvious quotes crop up denying a sequel, but the first was released in 2010 and there’s no sign of a follow-up being in the works. I don’t know how well it went down in its native France, but I thought it was a daft, exciting, funny entertainment and I’d love to see more.
  3. Eastern Promises
    Eastern PromisesA sequel has been on and off ever since David Cronenberg’s London-set Russian gangster thriller gained some popularity on its release back in 2007. Though the original resolves its main plot, it leaves many others tantalisingly dangling. I only quite liked the film, but I was left salivating at the potential for some kind of crime epic held by a continuation.
  4. The X Files: I Want to Believe
    The X Files I Want to BelieveI don’t really mean a sequel to the standalone(-ish) second X Files movie, but a third film in the series — more a direct sequel to the first movie and the end of the TV series. 2012 would’ve been the perfect year for it, but a poor critical and box office reception for the second film (coming up to five years ago now) seems to have killed any chance.
  5. Unbreakable
    UnbreakableM. Night Shyamalan’s leftfield take on the superhero genre is, for my money, the best of his films. Ever since it first came out he’s talked about how the entire movie was originally just act one of a longer piece, and that he might produce the rest as the next two films in a trilogy. Instead, he’s made numerous unrelated but increasingly bad films. Time to return to your last great one, M.?

And one that doesn’t — well, shouldn’t get one:

    Toy Story 3
    Toy Story 3As Christopher Nolan said while describing his decision to make The Dark Knight Rises, “how many good sequels are there? …are there any great second sequels?” Whether he bottled lightning three times is widely open for debate, but there’s little doubt that Pixar managed it. Toy Story is a brilliant film; in my estimation, Toy Story 2 is even better; and Toy Story 3 is their equal, a beautiful capper to a generation-defining trilogy. So if managing to make a good sequel is rare, and managing to make a good second sequel is nigh impossible, why even consider trying it again? Nonetheless, there’s been rumours of a fourth Toy Story. I sincerely hope it never happens.

Agree? Disagree? That’s what there’s a comments section for! Which films do you think should (or, indeed, shouldn’t) get the sequel treatment?


Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

The year’s shortest month is often one of my best for total viewing, usually finishing in the low to mid twenties. How will 2013 fare? It can’t be any worse than 2009, when I only reached seven.

Plus, it’s the Oscars, which means I’ll sign up for Sky Movies for a bit at some point. Actually, that’s probably why February usually does so well…