Ip Man 2 (2010)

aka Yip Man 2 / Ip Man 2: Legend of the Grandmaster

2012 #79
Wilson Yip | 104 mins | TV (HD) | 2.35:1 | China & Hong Kong / Cantonese, Mandarin & English | 15 / R

Ip Man 2Picking up more or less where the first film left off, this sequel sees Ip and his family settled in Hong Kong, struggling to get by as he attempts to set up a Wing Chun school against opposition from the existing establishments.

The main thing to note about Ip Man 2 is that it has stunning fight sequences, especially a large sequence in the fish market and a one-on-one tabletop challenge. The latter sees star Donnie Yen take on legend Sammo Hung, which I imagine was a treat for genre fans (though it’s not their first encounter). For those of us less well versed in this world, it’s still a bloody good fight scene.

The first Ip Man was about considerably more than just action, but that’s where its sequel sets its focus. Human drama remains, but it doesn’t ring quite as true and perhaps isn’t trying to be as much of a feature as before. Ip Man’s relationships with his wife and with his students are hinted, told with plenty of shorthand — she’s pregnant, goes into labour just before his big fight (not that he knows), that kind of thing. They’re quickly tucked away as something for those really interested, rather than playing an essential part.

The only major downside comes when the Brits turn up for the final act. Stereotyped and poorly acted, presented with palpable jingoism and xenophobia, A game of Hung Mantheir presence and storyline drag the film down.

Still, at least it’s all wonderfully shot. Dismissing the clichéd desaturated look of the last film, here we get something a little more colourful, though never close to garish, with well chosen angles and superlative editing.

Ip Man 2 doesn’t have the same majesty as the first, but there’s an enjoyably pulpish sensibility in its place. Fast-moving and literally action-packed, on that level it entertains.

4 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Extended Version (2002/2005)

2013 #40a
Chris Columbus | 174 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | PG / PG

Harry Potter and the Chamber of SecretsThis extended cut takes the already-lengthy second instalment in the Harry Potter franchise and pushes it to nearly three hours (though if you lop off the extensive end credits it’s more like two-and-three-quarters). As with the extended version of the first film, it was originally created for the US TV premiere, then later released on the Ultimate Edition sets, and simply integrates the DVD’s deleted scenes back into the film.

The difference in running time is 13½ minutes, spread across 19 different extensions. (Per usual, a list can be found here.) As you might guess, many are short snippets, running as little as 18 seconds when viewed among the deleted scenes (and those tend to include scene-setting bits from the theatrical version and a copyright notice). Unsurprisingly, then, many are of little significance, often just fleshing out minor characters (Colin Creevey gets to tell his backstory; Justin Finch-Fletchley gets to introduce himself) or adding comedy beats (a floating cake at the Dursleys’; Crabbe and Goyle bumping into ‘themselves’).

So are any especially beneficial? Well, one fleshes out what happened to the flying car (setting up its return to save the day a few minutes later), and there are extra moments to clarify Harry’s awareness of the other students’ worries about him. There’s a bit more Lockhart, once again showing how self-centred he is (it’s surprising how little Kenneth Branagh is in the film actually, so this is welcome), and a tiny bit more Quidditch. There’s also a nod to a subplot with Filch that then doesn’t go anywhere, and one or two minor continuity errors are accidentally introduced (the most obvious is that Hermione tells Harry and Ron they’ll need to take Crabbe and Goyle’s uniforms when using the Polyjuice potion, but then in a new scene she’s stolen some).

Harry Potter and the School BulliesThe longest extension comes near the start, when Harry misspeaks while using Floo powder and ends up in the nasty part of Diagon Alley. In the theatrical version he just walks out of the creepy shop, but here he has to hide as Malfoys Senior and Junior enter to sell some items. Though it has the advantage of showing us how Lucius treats his son when out of sight of more respectable wizards, and possibly seeds something for later films (what is the one item Malfoy isn’t prepared to sell?), it dilutes the introduction of Jason Isaacs’ villain, which in the theatrical version came slightly later in the bookshop, where he bumps into Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys as they’re leaving Lockhart’s signing. It’s a more effective, more dramatic introduction to someone who will become a major character as the series progresses.

The film itself has held up well over the last 11 years, I think. Columbus was oft derided as a mediocre director at the time; a workmanlike filmmaker installed to simply guide the book faithfully to the screen. He’s not exactly an astounding presence behind the camera, but he’s more than adequate, and some sequences even exhibit flair. The biggest downside of the adaptation, once again screenwritten by Steve Kloves, is that it lacks tension. J.K. Rowling’s mystery-laden plot is very well constructed, but the adaptation doesn’t pay enough attention to hyping up that it is mysterious. The most glaring omission is that Ginny Weasley, so central to the denouement, barely appears until the finale. On the bright side, the lengthy running time does allow more space for all of the familiar characters to grow — particularly the three leads, who already feel considerably older than in the first film (and this in the only Potter film that was story-accurately shot exactly one year later).

Harry Potter and the Annoying House ElfThere are, arguably, three notable additions to the cast this time out. The first is Lucius Malfoy who, as discussed, will come into his own later. Then there’s Gilderoy Lockhart, a preening wizard celebrity played with relish by Kenneth Branagh. He’s often very amusing and there’s not enough of him. And then there’s Dobby. Apparently Dobby is a beloved character; apparently kids really like him. I’ve always found him intensely irritating, and was surprised how much Rowling made me warm to him in Deathly Hallows. I thought that might make him more palatable at the start… but it doesn’t. He’s wonderfully realised, though — despite the age of the film, much of the CGI holds up really well.

Chamber of Secrets isn’t the best film the Harry Potter series has to offer — it lacks the introductory wonder of the first and the portentousness of later films. Viewed in isolation, it can also look like a total aside from the series’ main story arc… but, as those familiar with later events will know, there’s actually a lot of important stuff introduced (and, in some cases, dealt with) here. Whatever you think of Rowling as a writer, she did a helluva job plotting out her grand story over seven tales.

4 out of 5

In a fortnight’s time, I aid and abet the Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone: Extended Version (2001/2004)

aka Harry Potter and the Bastardised American Title

2013 #38a
Chris Columbus | 159 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | PG / PG

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's StoneOriginally created for the film’s US TV premiere in May 2004, then later released on the film’s Ultimate Edition in 2009 (and not making it to the UK in HD until the Wizard’s Collection last September), this Extended Version of the first Harry Potter film adds six-and-a-half minutes of new bits and bobs to the already lengthy adaptation.

Having not seen Philosopher’s Stone for something approaching a decade, I wasn’t sure I’d be able to spot what had been added, especially when the new inclusions were so small. And, indeed, I couldn’t — but the film all seemed so very familiar. As it turns out, there’s a very easy way to find out what’s new, as well as explain why it didn’t jump out at me: look in the disc’s deleted scenes section.

Included on the film’s original DVD release back in 2002, albeit under a series of frustrating mini-games, were six short deleted sequences and one extended one. I owned that DVD, and I found and watched those scenes… and it’s those and those alone that were added back into the film in 2004. I suppose that’s unsurprising really — they were fully mastered, and presumably if there’d been any more (or any more Chris Columbus was prepared for viewers to see) they would’ve been included on the DVD too. (If you own the US Ultimate Edition or any version of the Wizard’s Collection, the scenes can now be found in HD on the special features Blu-ray.)

So what’s new? A couple of snippets of the Dursleys, a bit with Harry and Hagrid on the way to Diagon Alley, an extended scene in Snape’s first class, an extra beat with the three leads after they defeat the troll in the bathroom, an introspective moment at Christmas, and a fuller version of the kids finally discovering who Nicholas Flamel is.Harry Potter and the Floating Feather (See all of that with pictures here.) Are any of these of great consequence? Not really. I presume the first three were cut to get to Hogwarts that bit quicker, while the classroom scene displays a petulance from Harry that isn’t entirely in keeping with how he’s been presented to that point. The others were, I suppose, sacrifices for time and pace, though as they’re so short in such a long film, they hardly make a mark.

As for the film itself, it holds up surprisingly well after 12 years and seven increasingly-dark follow-ups. The child actors aren’t that bad, all things considered; the adult cast are a constant delight; the CGI looks surprisingly good (some digital stunt doubles notwithstanding); John Seale’s cinematography looks gorgeously film-like on Blu-ray (especially when you take a look in some of the documentaries that merrily mix clips from all the films — Half-Blood Prince in particular looks like a horrendous mess of OTT digital post-production).

At the time Philosopher’s Stone received criticism for journeyman directing from Columbus and a too-faithful adaptation of Rowling’s novel. Ironically, one of the top threads on IMDb’s forum for the film now complains that it’s not faithful enough. The truth is closer to the former than the latter, but that doesn’t make it a bad film. True, it may struggle to convert those new to the world of Potter, and perhaps a Lord of the Rings-style brisk theatrical version followed by a more extensive and faithful Extended Edition would’ve been the way to go… but whereas every film of any quality can get such treatment these days, Harry Potter and the Game of Chessthat wasn’t common practice back at the turn of the millennium (unless your name was Ridley Scott), so the filmmakers can’t be blamed for not doing it. As it stands, I think they mostly struck a fair balance between fidelity and the fact it’s an adaptation. Similarly, Columbus’ direction is rarely exemplary, but it’s competent with some memorable moments.

Even if the Extended Version makes little difference (even for fans it couldn’t be described as essential), I still enjoyed revisiting Philosopher’s Stone. It marks the beginning of an attempt to re-watch the entire saga over eight consecutive weeks, which will hopefully be both fun and interesting — already, I’m spotting links and connections to later events that wouldn’t have been apparent when first viewing the film. Harry Potter isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I think they’re an entertaining, well-put-together series of fantasy adventures. Plus, as child-driven worldwide media phenomena of the 21st Century go, it’s the only one I can think of that isn’t offensively awful.

4 out of 5

Tomorrow, I open the Chamber of Secrets

Stiff Upper Lips (1998)

2012 #96
Gary Sinyor | 91 mins | TV | 4:3 | UK & India / English | 15 / R

Stiff Upper LipsSpoof of British ‘Heritage’ films and TV series, particularly the work of Merchant Ivory. It was probably a bit belated: released in 1998, you’ll note most targets are from the ’80s. It only even made it to TV recently (I watched on Radio Times’ recommendation). Specific targets include Brideshead Revisited and A Room with a View, with individual sequences riffing off the likes of Chariots of Fire and Orlando.

A mite sex obsessed — though, arguably, that’s only highlighting the original works’ undertones, so in that respect makes fair mockery. At worst, however, it feels like American Pie in period dress.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. 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.

Back Bill!

I’ve backed a few Kickstarters now (if you want, you can see which here), but I’ve not felt compelled to blog about any before, especially as I generally try to keep this blog ‘on topic’. I’m going to (try to) give one a little push now though…

Alex Cox is beloved to a certain generation and type of film lover for his Moviedrome introductions on BBC2 in the ’80s and ’90s (a bit before my time, sadly). He’s also contributed similar to DVDs and Blu-rays from the likes of Masters of Cinema and Argent Films. And of course he’s a filmmaker in his own right, directing movies such as Repo Man, Sid & Nancy and Repo Chick. His latest endeavour is an adaptation of Harry Harrison’s comic sci-fi novel Bill the Galactic Hero Bill, the Galactic Hero(described by no less than Terry Pratchett as “the funniest science fiction book ever written”), and he’s trying to fund it through Kickstarter.

I won’t go over all the details of the project here, because you can just as well get them from the horse’s mouth on the film’s Kickstarter page (I was going to embed the video, but it doesn’t seem to work with WordPress). I think it sounds like a potentially entertaining, alternative kind of SF film, one I’d be very interested in seeing — which is why I’m trying (in my own limited-readership way) to raise awareness of it.

There’s a nifty website called Kicktraq where you can monitor the progress and projected outcome of Kickstarter campaigns. It now shows that Cox’s campaign is projected to cross the line, but when I first wrote this it was suggesting things were touch-and-go; that Cox might fall short by as little as 3%. If Bill were to suffer a weak final few days I imagine that could still happen — it’s just a projection after all. For those unfamiliar with Kickstarter, it ends like Dragons’ Den: you have to get all the money you ask for (or more) or you don’t get any. At the time of posting, Cox’s campaign has precisely 5 days and a little under $9,000 left to go.

If you’ve never used Kickstarter before, the concept is fairly simple: you pledge money to a project; if the project reaches its monetary goal before the time is up, you’re automatically charged for the amount you pledged; if the project fails to reach its minimum amount, no money is ever taken. In return for your cash, you get rewards. For the silly richWhat’s on offer varies from project to project, of course. In Bill the Galactic Hero’s case, you can get everything from a PDF of the screenplay for $10 (c.£6.50), to an Executive Producer credit, lunch with the director, and a bunch of other stuff for $10,000 (c.£6,530). At more reasonable levels, you can get a digital copy of the finished film (+ the screenplay) for $25 (c.£16), or a DVD or Blu-ray copy (+ the download and screenplay) for $50 (c.£37, including international shipping). There are various other levels with various other incentives.

I promise not to use this blog to start shilling every Kickstarter that interests me, but this one’s relevant and needs a little help. If you think it might appeal, it costs nothing to have a look at its page, and if it and the rewards on offer look good, please consider backing it.

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

2013 #22
John Carpenter | 96 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / PG-13

Big Trouble in Little ChinaKurt Russell gets embroiled in a fever dream of mystical Chinese tomfoolery in San Francisco’s Chinatown in this cult ’80s adventure from writer/director John Carpenter.

Released as a mildly-edited PG in UK cinemas but afforded a semi-uncut 15 on video, it consequently passed me by in my childhood video rental days, which I think would’ve been the best time to see it. It doesn’t make much sense, it’s scrappy around the edges, but at times it exhibits a kind of loose fun and modest excitement. I can see why it appeals to those who saw it at the right age.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. 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 Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

2013 #27
Peter Jackson | 170 mins* | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA & New Zealand / English | 12 / PG-13

The Hobbit: An Unexpected JourneySo here we are: nine years after his last tour of duty in Middle-earth, and after a Guillermo del Toro-shaped attempt at not having to serve again, Peter Jackson returns to the world of hobbits, dwarves, elves, orcs, and the rest, to tell the tale some have been clamouring for him to make since Fellowship of the Ring turned out to be a film of landscape-changing brilliance over a decade ago. Well, a version of that tale, anyway.

The Hobbit, as I’m sure you know, sees a younger Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm in The Lord of the Rings and a prologue here; Martin Freeman for the bulk of the film) coerced by the wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen again, of course) into joining a party of dwarves setting out to reclaim their gold and/or homeland, stolen by the dragon Smaug (that’s Smowg, not Smorg). In this version, emphasis is firmly on “homeland” rather than “gold”, and there’s a bunch of other stuff drawn in from the masses of appendices and associated material that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about Lord of the Rings. In the process, Jackson and co have mutated The Hobbit from a simple tale of adventure that happens to take place in the same universe as The Lord of the Rings and has some shared characters and locations, and turned it into a film (well, a trilogy) that is both standalone adventure and grand prequel to his already-made epic.

There’s endless discussion to be had about the choices Jackson and co-screenwriters del Toro, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens have made in this transformation of a beloved novel (and there’ll be even more in future parts, I should imagine, when they start introducing new characters they’ve created themselves). I can sympathise with those who wanted a single-film, straightforward, faithful adaptation of the novel (I sincerely hope there’s a fan edit to adequately fulfil that desire once the trilogy is complete); but there’s also so much in Tolkien’s world, much of it with direct (if inessential) relevance to Lord of the Rings, that it might have seemed a shame to miss this opportunity to get it on screen. Gandalf surveys the running time aheadAnd, I have to say, as someone who hasn’t read the novel since primary school, I couldn’t spot the joins. I could take some guesses, but not many, and considering how long the film is I’m sure there must be quite a lot added.

Putting aside questions of adaptation (others have already discussed that at great length and with much more authority than I), how does it survive as a film in its own right? The reviews have been mixed, but I would say it fares very well. It may lack the epic world-changing grandeur of Lord of the Rings, but as an epically-scaled action-adventure fantasy I found it to be most entertaining. It treads a tricky path mixing action, humour, world-building, politicking, legend, and plot, and some would assert some elements dominate more than they should, or are mishandled — I’ve heard the humour called too childish, the action too like a videogame, and so on. For me, the balance worked. It’s not perfect — it takes forty minutes for the cast to leave the opening location of Bag End, which is fine in a fan-pleasing extended edition but feels excessive in a theatrical cut — but it ticks enough boxes and hits enough bases to entertain. And at the end of the day, it is an entertainment.

I have to wonder if viewing at home affects one’s perception of The Hobbit’s length and pacing. For one thing, from a personal point of view, I saw all of the theatrical Lord of the Ringses in the cinema, and the Extended Editions only on DVD — coming to The Hobbit first on DVD, am I automatically associating it with the extended experience? Even as I write it, I think that’s a pretty spurious argument. More so, however, there’s all those factors of the home viewing experience that are often cited in its favour over the cinema: you can start when you want (no trailers!), pause for a snack or the loo or just the hell of it; and it’s also commensurate with, say, marathoning TV shows, where you might watch several hours in one go anyway. As it is, I didn’t pause The Hobbit once, watching it right through in one go as per the cinema — Gollum has a bigger role aheadbut I could have, and knowing you can do something makes all the difference. There’s also the little timer on the Blu-ray player, which means I can know that it took forty minutes to get out of Bag End rather than just thinking it feels like it. Does that somehow make it more palatable? Would I have been as bothered as others by the film’s length and pacing had I seen it in a cinema initially? It’s tough — nay, impossible — to say, because while there are those other subliminal factors, I also felt like I flat out enjoyed the film for itself, not just for my potential ability to escape it. But it is long and it is episodic, so maybe the association of watching individualistic episodes of TV back to back feeds into the acceptance of that? It’s a circular argument, so we’ll leave it there.

Besides issues of faithfulness and length, the film’s other big controversy (as if it didn’t have enough!) is the whole HFR argument, which seemed to plague all previews and early reviews. I can’t enter into that, but I can say it hasn’t filtered down to the Blu-ray experience — if it should look clearer and sharper and less motion-blurred-y, it doesn’t to any extent that stops it feeling like a Movie. The whole thing looks gorgeous, as you’d expect, though I won’t credit that to the cinematography lest Christopher Doyle comes round and gives me what for. In other technical fields, the make-up, models and CGI are all as up to snuff as you’d expect from this team. They’re probably exceptional, in fact, but hamstrung by the fact we expect them to be. If they’d fluffed something people would have noticed, but what could they do to stand out? Gollum may be better-realised than ever, but he was so good before that few will notice; other sequences, like the fighting rock giants, are awesome but perhaps get lost in the mix.

Thorin awaits the enemy aheadHoward Shore returns to deliver another fantastic score. After he composed the iconic Fellowship theme for, um, Fellowship, I thought he could never muster anything else as monumental. And, in fairness, that theme is still the defining aspect of the series’ score (its absence here is at times felt, by me at least); but he produced another excellent motif for Two Towers (Rohan), and Return of the King (Minas Tirith), and once again here, this time related to the dwarves. Much like John Williams on the Star Wars prequels, Shore is charged with retrofitting his score to begin before but ultimately dovetail with the following/preceding trilogy, and I think he pulls it off (as much as a musical dilettante like me can spot such things). Locations and characters familiar from Lord of the Rings come with their musical cues intact, which blend seamlessly with the new material. I hadn’t bothered to pre-order the soundtrack CD, but I hopped online to get it as soon as the film finished.

The Hobbit film trilogy will long remain a controversial subject. It was always going to. The book is a light children’s adventure tale, while Jackson is making the film in the context of a successful blockbuster epic set in a dark/realistic fantasy world — he couldn’t have made it too whimsical and still had it gel with the existing films. Plus: if he’d done a straightforward adaptation in a single film, would it have felt underwhelming? Does it need a ramped-up sense of the epic in order to compete with its chronological sequel? For Tolkien fans, no; for a mainstream audience, perhaps it does. And for the latter it clearly worked, taking over a billion dollars worldwide, albeit aided by 3D ticket prices.

Bilbo reads aheadWithout the breadth and world-changing story of The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit was always going to be a somewhat smaller experience. By emphasising the backstory of the dwarves’ stolen homeland and the hints of war-to-come that will ultimately lead in to Rings’ story, Jackson has made it considerably more epic — for good or ill. For me, the whole experience clicked. I don’t think it’s as good as Lord of the Rings, but it is the next best thing.

5 out of 5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is available in the UK on DVD, Blu-ray and via on-demand services from Monday 8th April.

My review of the Extended Edition can now be read here.

* According to the BBFC, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey runs 32 seconds longer on disc than in cinemas. I’ve no idea why. ^

March 2013 + 5 Favourite Fantasy Films

This update arrives a little later than normal (though it’s not much, is it) because I was up ever so late last night night watching… well, read on and I’ll tell you.


What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

Most of this month’s viewing was given over to getting value for money out of my Sky Movies subscription, which meant I once again had to squeeze my WDYMYHS film in at the last minute. And so I chose…

Once Upon a Time in America, Sergio Leone’s near-four-hour gangster epic.

At such a length it was perhaps not the ideal thing to be squeezing in right at the end, but I planned to dedicate two nights over Easter to Leone’s masterwork… and ended up watching it in a single sitting. And it doesn’t feel as long as it is, which is always a good sign.


March’s films in full

#22 Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
#23 Johnny English Reborn (2011)
#24 Anonymous (2011)
#25 Garfield (2004)
#26 Battleship (2012)
#27 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
#28 Haywire (2011)
#29 Meet the Parents (2000)
#30 The Raven (2012)
#31 Conan the Barbarian (1982)
#32 My Week with Marilyn (2011)
#33 Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness (2012)
#34 The Italian Job (2003)
#35 Broken Arrow (1996)
#36 Flightplan (2005)
#37 The Debt (2010)
#38 Once Upon a Time in America (1984)


Analysis

Let’s cut to the chase: this is 100 Films’ most successful March ever. It’s the highest total I’ve ever reached by the end of this month, only equalled twice before: 2010 and 2011. But they were both bolstered by strong Januarys and Februarys — meaning that, in isolation, this is the most films I’ve ever watched in March. It’s also my second best month of all time, beaten only by December 2008, in which I raced through 19 films to make it to exactly 100 in my second year.

The high tally is thanks largely to my obsession with getting value for money out of my Sky Movies subscription, which pushed almost all other concerns aside this month. In the end, only three of the 17 films I watched didn’t come courtesy of Sky: The Hobbit, because I got the US Blu-ray early and just had to see it; a last-minute squeezing-in of this month’s WDYMYHS film; and, of all things, Dungeons & Dragons 3, because it was on telly and I kinda fancied it.

All told, I watched 18 films on Sky this year (four of them in the closing days of February). That’s two more than I managed last year, when I had the service for a week or two longer, so that’s good too. I’ve also recorded a couple more for future viewing, so even better.


Inspired by three different films this month, plus the fact I’ve started listening to the highly entertaining Nerd Poker podcast, this week’s top five is…

Five Favourite Fantasy Films

How do you define Fantasy? Say it to most people and they picture a Lord of the Rings-type alternate-world sword-and-sorcery epic of monsters and other creatures. But it’s also used, not inaccurately, to cover the likes of Pirates of the Caribbean, Toy Story, Groundhog Day, and some things that might appear to be sci-fi — IMDb’s Top 50 Fantasy films includes three Star Warses and Avatar. Are any of these wrong? No. But none of those are eligible for what I mean here. So do I actually mean sword-and-sorcery films, then? Well, according to a bit of Googling, Lord of the Rings isn’t (I didn’t think it was).

So, in this instance, by “Fantasy” I actually mean some indefinable concept that isn’t just swords-and-sorcery but isn’t the entirety of fantastical cinema; that has some arbitrary rules that I can’t even begin to define (if I think it counts, it counts; and vice versa). And so from that helpful explanation, my selections are…

  1. The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy
    The Lord of the RingsOf course. Some would argue it’s cheating to include an entire trilogy as one film, but Jackson made it as one film and it’s really a single tale that has to be divided to make it possible in cinemas, both financially and for the sake of the audience’s posteriors. But I’ve watched it in a single sitting, something I’ve not managed with some much shorter works, so that makes it OK by me. And I’ve spent all my words here saying that because, really, do you need me to tell you why this tops the list? (Not that this is a ranked list. But if it were, this would top it.)
  2. Highlander
    HighlanderI did think my main rule for this list would be “set at least partly in an alternate world” (see things like Narnia and Stardust), but that would rule out Harry Potter (which is clearly Fantasy) and this. If we’re talking swords-and-sorcery, this definitely has swords and it probably has sorcery too. How else do you explain immortality? Except with some BS sci-fi claptrap in the sequels that no one, not even their makers, wants to remember. It may be campy and ever so ’80s, with the most hilarious array of mismatched accents ever committed to film, but goodness me do I love it.
  3. Stardust
    StardustA modern, British-tinged take on the tone of The Princess Bride — two elements that give this the edge, for me. It’s also less of a spoof, more of a straight take on a fantasy adventure with an awareness of the comical and a resolute lack of po-faced-ness. There’s a reason Neil Gaiman’s a beloved author, and there’s a reason Matthew Vaughn is a mainstream filmmaker we should all keep a very close eye on.
  4. Merlin
    MerlinThis is a bit of a cheat, because it’s actually a two-part miniseries… but in its entirety it’s shorter than Return of the King, and for some inexplicable reason is listed as a film on Wikipedia, so I’ll allow it. Starring Sam Neill as the titular wizard, it follows his life as it intersects with King Arthur and co, rather than focusing on the latter. It co-stars Miranda Richardson as a deliciously evil Queen Mab, and the rest of the cast is an all-star line-up including Helena Bonham Carter, Isabella Rossellini, John Gielgud, Rutger Hauer, James Earl Jones, Martin Short, and Lena Headey. The extensive special effects looked incredible at the time and still hold muster, but of course it’s the storytelling that really attracts.
  5. The 10th Kingdom
    The 10th KingdomIf Merlin was a bit of a cheat, this is a great big one, because The 10th Kingdom is actually a seven-hour miniseries. But tough, because I love it and it’s not well enough known. Here in the UK it aired on Sky back in the days before I had said channel, and so my first encounter was through the excellent, lengthy novelisation by Kathryn Wesley (actually Kristine Kathryn Rusch and Dean Wesley Smith). It took me six years (felt longer) and an import of a Scandinavian DVD (for extra special features) to finally see the series, and while an early-’00s US network TV show couldn’t entirely live up to the budget bestowed by my imagination, it did a pretty fair job. Also, it’s immeasurably better than the similarly-themed but (disappointingly) more-successful Once Upon a Time.

And one I don’t like…

    Dungeons & Dragons
    Dungeons & DragonsQuite what inspired this turn-of-the-millennium wannabe-blockbuster I don’t know — it came out the year before the double-whammy genre kick-start of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter… but it feels much more than a single year older. It’s not all bad — some of the scenic effects shots are quite good, and there’s a certain joy in Jeremy Irons’ ludicrously campy performance — but, mostly, it is. The CGI is dreadful, the acting isn’t any better, and the location work makes it look like Power Rangers. If it wasn’t bad enough in itself (which it was), the glossy quality of Rings and Potter just 12 months later revitalised the genre to the point that this was blissfully consigned to ignominious oblivion.

    For all that, I currently have a bizarre urge to watch it again…

So, what are you favourite fantasy movies? Did I err by missing out a Harry Potter, or a Narnia, or a Disney, or The Hobbit? Should there have been more from the genre’s ’80s boom? Should Highlander and/or The 10th Kingdom be stricken from the list? Feel free to use your own arbitrary rules too.


Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

Now that I’ve sacrificed my Sky Movies subscription to the Great God of I Only Got It For The Oscars But Was Contractually Obliged To Keep It For A Month (And Golly Isn’t It Pricey!), it’s back to my DVD and Blu-ray collection, which is in serious need of some attention. Titles you may expect to see in next month’s list include Argo, The Amazing Spider-Man, Looper, This is Not a Film, Men in Black 3… Whether they will turn up is another matter…

One you won’t see, however, is Game of Thrones season two. Because it’s a TV series, isn’t it. But that’s where I’m going to begin my post-Sky Movies viewing. Shh, no spoilers please.