Let’s get straight into it this month…

July’s films

#59 A Field in England (2013)
#60 The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult (1994)
#61 The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976/1978)
#61a Akira (1988)
#62 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

Analysis

The second half of Wimbledon and tireless preparations for the exacting standards of a single-night guest put paid to film-watching for the first week of July (including the innovative multi-format premiere of A Field of England on 5th July, missing which provoked a reaction in me that begins with π and ends with -ssed off… though I did catch up with it soon after). Of course, that left three weeks to make up for it…

Except on the weekend of one of those weeks, my sister was getting married, which somehow turned into a near-week-long exercise in travelling and doing family stuff. Of course, that left two weeks to make up for it…

Except on returning from said wedding I went down with a cold so nasty it left me uninspired when it came to watching films, especially those that required my critical faculties to be, if not firing, then at least present. It’s still lingering now, actually.

Which means July ended up being, effectively, a week. (Well, maybe 10 days.) Bearing that in mind, I’m less downhearted that I only managed four films — I mean, that’s the same as last month, and I didn’t even have any excuses then. Plus I re-watched and will review Akira, so on that basis July still wins. Hurrah.

Keen-eyed regulars will have noticed the omission of the What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen section, and even-keener-eyed ones will have noticed no film from that list on this month’s viewing. Sadly, yes, I missed it again — see above for my excuses. That puts me two behind now, after also missing April. Still, there are five months left yet, so we’ll see.

In historical context, this month’s total of four is the same as in 2008 and 2011; in 2009 July was my worst month ever: the only time I’ve not watched a single film all month. The overall total of 62 puts me one ahead of last year, but well behind the low 70s of 2007, 2010 and 2011 — three of the four years I’ve reached 100. Oh dear. On the bright side, I also reached 100 in 2008, and I’d only made it to #49 by the end of that July. On the other hand, I did have to watch an exceptionally-high 19 films that December to even scrape through, so…

Nice to end on a cheery note, eh.

5 Directors Whose Films I’ve Never Seen

As this month marks the first time I’ve seen films directed by John Cassavetes and Ben Wheatley (separately, obv.), and as I noticed back in May that there seem to be an uncommonly high number of new-to-me important directors this year, I thought I’d take a look at some of the other significant or surprising helmers that I’ve not seen a single movie from.

This was done with the help of lists at They Shoot Picture’s, Don’t They? — both their old rated list and the current Top 250 Directors. Rather than just take the first five, however, I weeded them out on dual provisos of, a) subjective importance (i.e. ones I’d never actually heard of got dropped), and b) subjective obscurity (i.e. what were the realistic chances I’d have seen one of their films). That’s why, despite ‘only’ scoring 8 out of 10 and ‘only’ coming 32nd on the Top 250, my #1 on this list is…

1. Powell & Pressburger
   Also known as The Archers, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger loom large in the history of British cinema; and internationally, too, in part thanks to Martin Scorsese’s unabashed fondness for their work. Significant films I’ve missed include A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus, and The Red Shoes.
2. Federico Fellini
   Winner of the highest number of Oscars for Best Foreign Language Film (five), the Italian writer-director is “one of the most influential filmmakers of the 20th century”. He’s the only member of TSPDT’s Top 250’s top 10 (at #4) that I’ve not seen anything by. Significant gaps in my viewing include La dolce vita and 8½.
3. Luis Buñuel
   Just five names attract a perfect 10 score on TSDPT’s rating system, and this Spanish-born surrealist is the only one absent from my checklist. Significant misses include Un Chien Andalou, Viridiana, Belle de Jour, and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.
4. François Truffaut
   One of the founders of the French Nouvelle Vague (alongside the likes of Jean-Luc Godard, who I have seen films by), Truffaut is still probably best known for his first film, The 400 Blows; or to a different audience for ’60s sci-fi adaptation Fahrenheit 451. Other significant oversights include Jules et Jim and Day for Night.
5. Werner Herzog
   Though only at #52 on TSPDT’s Top 250 (there are 11 above him I’ve not mentioned), there’s no denying the notoriety of Herzog, the man who once got shot while being interviewed by Mark Kermode, amongst other bizarre anecdotes. Key works include Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Fitzcarraldo, and Grizzly Man — and, unlike any of the others, he’s still going!

And one TSPDT regards with snobbery…

Baz Luhrmann
The theatrically-inclined Australian scores just 3 on TSPDT’s ranking, their lowest awarded mark. Only five others suffer this ignominy, and the only one I’ve heard of is Ed Wood. According to TSPDT, none of Luhrmann’s films are Highly Recommended, Recommended, or even Worth a Look. The best he can hope for is Strictly Ballroom being classed “Approach with Caution”. I’ve heard some Shakespearean scholars deem his 1996 Romeo + Juliet possibly the definitive screen interpretation of one of the Bard’s most famous plays, but TSPDT reckon it’s a “dud”. So too Moulin Rouge… which they then have to acknowledge (grudgingly, I imagine) is on their own list of the 21st Century’s Most Acclaimed Films (at #60 of 250 too, which isn’t bad).

Mr. Luhrmann has no real connection to the top five up there — I’ve seen some of his films; I’ve not seen all of them, which would’ve been a point of contrast — but his besmirchment caught my attention.

Which notable directors are missing from your own viewing experience? Or perhaps there are some you’ve managed to thankfully avoid? Mine would’ve been Uwe Boll… oh, would’ve been…

Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

After the typically quieter J-months, August often sees a surge in my viewing. Fingers crossed for one this year too, as despite being ahead of goal (that’d be 58) I’m clearly off-pace to reach 100…

It’s June! It’s the halfway point of the calendar year! What a good time to assess a year-long task, eh?

But first…

In the name of…

I can now unveil a major new undertaking (for me): the complete 100 Films review database, sorted by director.

Creating this page involved taking nearly 800 reviews from their title-sorted 28 categories on the existing list, looking up the director for each film, then re-sorting them into a new list that eventually came to include 537 categories (that being one per represented director, of course). It’s taken over four months of work (on and off), but it’s finally here — and is perfectly easy to update going forward, thank goodness.

I have no idea if this is of use to anyone. Probably not. But it’s a slightly interesting, different way of looking at my review archive. For instance, compiling it threw up some odd things, such as James Hill. Who, you may ask? Indeed it’s no surprise I hadn’t noticed I’d watched two films directed by him. More interesting was what they were: lovely family animal movie Born Free, and Hammer-esque Sherlock Holmes vs Jack the Ripper thriller A Study in Terror! He also directed Lunch Hour, part of the BFI Flipside strand, so he may one day acquire a third entry. That’s more than some incredibly well-known directors have.

Anyway, if you want to have a peruse and somehow missed the links above and the one in the menu, it’s here.

What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

Statistically speaking, my selection for WDYMYHS threw up a few interesting ratios. For instance, exactly half the films hail from the 1950s; there are 9 in black & white vs. 3 in colour; and also 9 in English vs. 3 in foreign languages (French, Japanese, Swedish); and 5 on DVD vs. 7 on Blu-ray.

Having so far watched a third of the films, it’s got to the point where I can see what needs to be done to keep these numbers roughly in proportion. So, if I wanted to do such a thing, I came to the conclusion that I needed to watch a 1950s black & white English-language film on Blu-ray. That left two options: The Night of the Hunter or Touch of Evil. And this month I watched…

Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil.

No particular reason for choosing one over the other, although during the time I was pondering this the BFI announced their exciting Gothic season, the trailer for which included a clip from Night of the Hunter, which led to the thought that I might put it off until such a time as it coincides with whatever the BFI are up to. But we’ll see.

Those familiar with Evil’s multiple versions (there are five included on Masters of Cinema’s Blu-ray release) may like to know that I watched the Reconstructed Version in 1.37:1, as recommended here.

June’s films

#55 The Bourne Legacy (2012)
#56 The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
#57 The Hitch-Hiker (1953)
#58 Touch of Evil: Reconstructed Version (1958/1998)

Analysis

I talked last month about the shape of this year’s viewing emulating most previous years, and that continues in June, a month which has never seen my viewing reach double figures. Nonetheless, this year’s four is the poorest on record (behind last year’s five).

More interesting, however, is what it might tell us about the year as a whole. It’s exactly half way, after all, giving enough time to settle down from the exuberance of the year’s first three months and paint a picture of how I’m getting on this year. At 58, I’d call it “not bad”. Clearly I’m well over the halfway mark, and ahead of this point in 2008, 2009 and 2012 to boot… though as I failed to make 100 in two of those years, and only scraped it with a mad dash in the other, such facts aren’t that comforting.

What about June as an indicator of my final tally? It’s not that hot, to be honest, showing just how erratic my viewing can be across the year. It was closest (or I was most consistent) last year, when I reached 51 by June, giving a ‘prediction’ of 102, and I made it to 97. 2010 was similarly close: 64 in June gives 128, and I made 122. But in other years it’s ranged from 18 under (2009) to 34 over (2011), so it tells us nothing. More exciting that way, eh?

With only four films to consider there’s not much more to say (50% from the ’00s and 50% from the ’50s means nothing when it’s out of four, does it), so moving swiftly on:

5 Sequels That Killed Their Franchise

There have been innumerable bad sequels, especially in these franchise-driven days of modern Hollywood movies… but which have gone down so badly they’ve actually killed off their series? Not just been the final film, but actively led to the series’ demise. (This was inspired by The Bourne Legacy — although #5 is reportedly in development, if they don’t have a serious rethink then I expect Legacy will wind up a member of this club.)

1. Batman & Robin
   Obvious, I know, but it really is the archetype. Burton delivered two Bat-films that were critical and commercial successes; Schumacher delivered one that didn’t go down so well but turned a healthy profit… and then this. A critical disaster, a box office flop, the series went down with it. It took others to revive the superhero genre, a seven-year gap, and a ground-up reboot to save the series.
2. The X-Files: I Want to Believe
   Six years after the TV series ended (was that all?), ’90s favourites Mulder and Scully returned. Hopes for a third film dealing with the series’ cliffhanger-ish ending were dashed by this low-key supernatural fable, released in a glaringly inappropriate summer slot, with none of the aliens casual viewers expected and too many incidental ties to the series. Some still whisper about a third movie, but 2012 was the perfect time and that’s long gone.
3. Terminator Salvation
   The first three Terminators all recycle the same plot to some degree, but with Salvation they finally pushed forward. Unfortunately bad word of mouth before release plus constant rumours about final-act twists did the film no favours. It was meant to launch a new trilogy, but instead killed the company who held the rights. A fifth film is in development now, but it sounds like it’ll go back to aping the first.
4. Blade: Trinity
   The first Blade was something of a breakout hit in the late ’90s, leading to a Guillermo del Toro-helmed sequel that helped put him on the mainstream map. This third entry was designed to launch a spin-off movie for its supporting stars, but behind the scenes woes resulted in a messy film that flopped both critically and with audiences. A TV series did follow, but that was reportedly awful too and didn’t last long.
5. Saw VI
   “But there was a Saw VII,” you cry.
   “But there was meant to be at least a Saw VIII,” I reply.
   When Saw VI lost its opening weekend to Paranormal Activity, someone guessed a shift in horror-fan tastes and called time on this annual scare saga, leading to it wrapping up in film #7. The Final Chapter, as it was advertised, actually did better at the box office, but by then it was all done.

And one that actually revived a franchise… briefly…

The Final Destination
This fourth entry in the Death-defying horror franchise was due to be the series’ last — hence the definitive article title. In no small part due to being released in 3D in the immediate run-up to Avatar, the movie was a surprise box office hit, becoming the series’ highest-grossing entry, and New Line did an about-face and greenlit a fifth movie. Unfortunately for them, The Final Destination was utter shit, so the marginally-better Final Destination 5 became the series’ lowest earner. In the US, anyway — worldwide, it actually wound up just a few million dollars short of its predecessor. Nonetheless, instead of having a neatly-monikered send-off, the series seems to have limply disappeared.

There are many more sequels that have killed their franchise, so are there any I should have mentioned? And what about that even trickier question: films that have taken an ailing series and turned it around?

Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

With the halfway point passed (did I mentioned we’re halfway through the year?), it’s full steam ahead into the second half. 100 films don’t just watch themselves, y’know.