Unknown's avatar

About badblokebob

Aiming to watch at least 100 films in a year. Hence why I called my blog that. http://100films.co.uk

The Pearl of Death (1944)

2013 #15
Roy William Neill | 66 mins | DVD | 4:3 | USA / English | PG

The Pearl of DeathThe Pearl of Death is one of the better-regarded films of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes canon, but somehow it didn’t quite click for me. That doesn’t meant there isn’t a lot to enjoy, however.

The story this time is adapted from Conan Doyle’s The Six Napoleons, and the main mystery seems to be pretty faithful. It’s a rather good one too, involving the hunt for a stolen item — the titular Borgia Pearl — that has been hidden in one of six china busts — the multiple Napoleons of Doyle’s title. It’s dressed up here with some nice touches: Holmes first rescues the priceless Borgia Pearl, but then quite spectacularly loses it. The notion of Holmes being doubted, of having to prove himself to reassert his reputation, is a good one — one recently borrowed by avowed Rathbone fans Moffat & Gatiss for their modern-day Sherlock, in fact. The film attempts to build up villain Giles Conover as a Moriarty-level nemesis, including borrowing some text from The Final Problem to describe him. Unfortunately, Miles Mander doesn’t quite convey the menace to pull it off, but Conover is a fair match for Holmes in places.

Evelyn Ankers and some other chapsElsewhere, Nigel Bruce gets to indulge in a slapsticky scene that, as ever, people who dislike this interpretation of Watson would be happy to do without. Also worth noting is the female lead, British actress Evelyn Ankers: she was a regular fixture of Universal’s horror features, terrorised in no less than The Wolf Man, The Ghost of Frankenstein, Son of Dracula, The Mad Ghoul, Captive Wild Woman, Jungle Woman, Weird Woman, The Invisible Man’s Revenge, and The Frozen Ghost! (Plus a previous Holmes film, Voice of Terror, to boot.)

The series’ regular director, Roy William Neill, manages his usual atmospheric and exciting touch in places, but others are a slight let down — both involving characters kept in shadow and their eventual reveal. The opening sequence features a disguised Holmes; supposedly disguised to the audience too, though I imagine many will guess it’s him. He’s mostly kept in shadow, on the edge of frame, or with his back to the camera — it’s quite effective, in fact. Sadly, there’s no commensurate whip-the-disguise-off reveal.

Later in the film, the monstrous Hoxton Creeper is shown in silhouette most of the time, with everyone talking about how disgusting ‘it’ is. Unfortunately, when it comes to finally revealing his hideous visage in the final moments… he just sort of turns around to listen to a moderately interesting conversation. Considering all the points when the Creeper could have been revealed to good effect, The Borgia Pearl... OF DEATHNeill somehow managed to pick one of the least dramatic. Neither of these reveal fudges are ruinous, of course, and are outweighed by the handling of sequences like Holmes setting off the museum’s alarm, the ensuing robbery, the villains stalking round a potential victim’s house, and so on. Still, I was surprised to find them so wanting.

The Pearl of Death won’t find a place amongst my very favourites of the Rathbone Holmes series, but I feel I may have, for some reason, been expecting too much from it. Only niggles and incidental points let it down, rather than anything fundamental, and a future reappraisal may one day bump it up in my estimation. Nonetheless:

4 out of 5

Pretty pictures

Aside

Look, up there! It’s a pretty new header image! Look at the blues and the lights and the… other stuff… I mean, there’s a lot going on. It’s pretty, right? Well, I like it. I hope you do too, naturally.

I’ve been meaning to replace the plain logo-on-white since I got this WordPress. Really, I just put it there as a temporary measure, and because I had no good ideas I just left it. Fastforward two years or whatever it’s been, and I’ve finally pulled my finger out. My original plan had been to do a thumbnail-montage, like what I had atop my old blog, but I think this is less cluttered.

At the same time, I’ve finally added header (aka featured, aka banner) images to my “list of reviews” and “reviews by director” pages. Both are pretty self explanatory, though note the selection process for the latter is not arbitrary: those are 20 of my most-reviewed directors (a mass tie for 13th meant there were 24 to choose from, so four 13th-ers had to be dropped). Can you identify them all? I’ll tell you for nothing: I couldn’t if I hadn’t Googled them to find the pictures.

For all this new prettiness, there’s still no picture on the “coming soon” page, however. Obviously that changes frequently and I have no desire to be updating the image every damn time I see a film, so I won’t be doing any kind of titles-based thumbnail-thing there. Other than that, all suggestions welcome!

Akira (1988)

2013 #61a
Katsuhiro Otomo | 124 mins | Blu-ray | 16:9 | Japan / Japanese | 15 / R

AkiraFor many Westerners of a certain generation, Akira was their first (conscious) exposure to anime. Not so me: a step or two down, Ghost in the Shell was my first (ignoring the odd glimpse of Pokémon or what have you) — it was one of my earliest DVD acquisitions, before we even had a DVD player, when I had to watch discs on my computer, where GitS’s menu just showed up as a black screen and I had to click around randomly to find ‘play’. Ah, memories.

Anyway, I came to Akira slightly later, and I confess I didn’t much care for it. I thought it looked great, especially the bike chases, but I lost track of the plot pretty quickly and found the ending a bit much — a bit too bizarre and kinda sickening. So I haven’t revisited the film for something like a decade, but always felt I should. I bought Manga’s Blu-ray release a few years ago, but it was the mention of this year being the film’s 25th anniversary that led me to finally pop it in.

Firstly, I watched it in Japanese this time, which is why it qualifies for coverage here (not that I need a reason to review a re-view these days, but that’s a different point of order). I had a quick listen to the English dub before viewing and it sounds a bit clunky with typically poor voice performances, so I went with the subbed version, where it’s pretty impossible to tell whether the acting’s any good or not (or at least, I always find it so. I go back and forth whether to watch anime dubbed or subbed, but that’s a discussion for another time). Having to read subtitles all the time does intrude on appreciating the visuals at points, but it’s workable.

Akira stillThe visuals remain something to be savoured; they’re probably the film’s strongest point, in my opinion. Akira was an expensive production and it pays off on screen. It’s not just the bike chases that I appreciated either, while an extra decade of experience made the ending a bit less freakish! The other strong point is the audio. The BD’s booklet goes on about “hypersonic” sound. I’ve no idea if that worked on my system, but it sounded fantastic regardless.

I don’t think the plot was as hard to follow as I previously felt (possibly thanks to an idea about where it was going), though the exact happenings at the climax are still unclear.

I liked Akira a good deal more this time round. Theoretically the only differences were HD, which is pretty but doesn’t fundamentally alter one’s opinion of a film’s content, and the Japanese soundtrack, which wasn’t my problem in the first place. The other big change, of course, is not in the film but in me — perhaps I’m just better positioned to appreciate it now. It’s not at the point where I’d number it among my personal favourites, but I now see some of what others get out of it.

4 out of 5

July 2013 + 5 Directors Whose Films I’ve Never Seen

Let’s get straight into it this month…


July’s films
A Field in England
#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 & PressburgerMichael Powell and Emeric 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
    Federico FelliniWinner 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 BuñuelLuis 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
    François TruffautOne 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
    Werner HerzogThough 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
    Baz LuhrmannThe 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…

Animalympics (1980)

2013 #16
Steven Lisberger | 75 mins | TV | 16:9* | USA / English | U

AnimalympicsOriginally commissioned as a pair of specials for US TV, Animalympics was dropped by the network when the US pulled out of the Moscow Olympics, then repurposed by its makers as a feature film. You might be able to guess the plot from the title: various animals compete in an Animal Olympics. It’s a series of sketches, essentially, although arranged to provide some narratives throughout.

I’ll confess I’d not heard of this before it turned up on Virgin Media’s PictureBox during their free month earlier this year, but apparently it has a cult following. When you look a the behind-the-scenes line-up, it becomes easy to see how: the small voice cast is led by Billy Crystal and also features Harry Shearer; the music is by 10cc’s Graham Gouldman; and most of the crew went on to create TRON — for those (like me) who don’t immediately spot the connection, Animalympics’ co-writer/director also wrote and directed said Disney computer adventure. Plus one of the animators was a certain Brad Bird, and slightly higher up the chain of command was Roger Allers, who later co-directed The Lion King. (There’s more interesting behind-the-scenes info on Wikipedia.)

But what of this effort? Well, it’s entertaining, holds up pretty well over 30 years on, and at 75 minutes doesn’t outstay its welcome. It’s easy to see how it was intended for TV, and where the split was (a Summer Olympics special and a Winter Olympics special, though some judicious editing mixes them together a little), but it’s more than serviceable as a feature. Animal loveAs per anything which is made up of sketches, some bits are funnier than others; and, as American animation, it is primarily aimed at kids, though I thought it was enjoyable enough for grown-ups too. Gouldman’s score is catchy in places, but nothing to rival The Things We Do For Love or Dreadlock Holiday or… I could go on for a few, actually. I’m just going to go listen to some 10cc…

Animalympics isn’t the kind of picture that’s going to break free of its cult status and achieve a widespread popularity, but for fans of those involved, or of a certain era of US animation, it’s good fun. Best watched around the Olympics for full satirical effect, at which times I imagine it could gain an even broader audience. Like me.

4 out of 5

* Made at 1.37:1 (because it was for telly), intended for 1.66:1 (because it was a film by then), the version I saw was either cropped or stretched to a full 16:9. ^

The Naked Gun (1988)

aka The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!

2013 #47
David Zucker | 85 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | USA / English | 15 / PG-13

The Naked GunClassic spoof from the makers of Airplane! As with that flight-based funny, it seems unlikely I hadn’t seen it ’til now… barring parts caught on TV, which fortunately didn’t dent the overall humour.

Time has arguably blunted it slightly, however: a meeting of anti-American leaders is tinged by most since dying. Era-specific jokes are few, instead offering the usual Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker mix of slapstick, visual puns and wordplay.

Note there’s a not-readily-available extended TV version with more gags. Some sound better than those in this cut!

Still, if gag-based comedy is your bag, there are few finer than Police Squad’s finest.

4 out of 5

The Naked Gun is on Film4 HD at 11:25pm tonight. I have no idea if they show the extended TV version over here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but 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.

LAMBing Live

The Large Association of Movie Blogs — who have the eternally witty URL www.LargeAssMovieBlogs.com, but are more commonly known as the LAMB — kindly entered me into their ranks earlier this week.

I am LAMB #1635, meaning I now have around 1,634 other friendly film blogs to go and check out. With my can-do attitude and ceaseless devotion to getting things done, I’m sure that will happen forthwith. (Shh, don’t tell them the truth, regular readers!)

If you don’t know about the LAMB, they have a handy-dandy FAQ here. You can read my application/introduction/whatever here.

Right, I ought to go ingratiate myself in some other way(s). Or I could just sit in the corner coughing my throat raw while my nose significantly bolsters Kleenex’s yearly profits, like I have been all week. Yeah, it’s gonna be that one.

(Incidentally, for those not versed in the wonders of three-years-old British early-evening telly, the title of this post is a reference.)

Broken Arrow (1996)

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but 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.

2013 #35
John Woo | 104 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Broken ArrowUS Air Force pilot Jon Travolta crashes a plane, steals a nuke, and former friend and colleague Christian Slater must stop his dastardly plan in this ever so ’90s actioner.

In his second Hollywood outing, Hong Kong action maestro John Woo (over-)directs his little heart out: there’s an endless array of slightly hilarious slow-mo, crash zooms, etc. Plus, it has the honour of featuring possibly the most gloriously OTT villain death in the history of cinema.

It all seems quite cheesy now, but still quite fun. Perhaps best suited to those nostalgic for a style of movie now gone by.

3 out of 5

Battleship (2012)

2013 #26
Peter Berg | 126 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

BattleshipBattleship never sounded like a good idea. An adaptation of a board game that in no plausible way resembles real life? At least Clue was aping a board game that aped Agatha Christie mysteries, and turned it into a farce at that; and a theme park ride adaptation like Pirates of the Caribbean could take the basics of the ride (which is really just a series of piratey tableaus) and thread them into a new story. And then someone mentioned Battleship was going to involve aliens, and it really all went to hell.

Unsurprisingly, Battleship the film is nothing like the game… except for one sequence where, for reasons I can’t remember in the slightest, the crew of the titular vessel have to try to shell the aliens without the usual modern gadgety shebang, and so it’s a bit like the board game. It’s shoehorned in but it’s still one of the more memorable bits.

Around this is a bunch of absolute codswallop that I don’t care to remember. It’s something to do with an alien invasion and they do it at sea and there’s only one ship that can stop them but the only person who can command it is the young loudmouth playboy recruit who has so much potential but never fully realises it… until now! Honestly, it’s that clichéd, and it would seem unashamedly so. Everything else about the film is Transformers-at-sea — huge robots, big punch-ups, shoot-outs, explosions, all the rest.

As if aware of how awful it is, the film attempts to make it wash with something sure to appeal to the American public and be uncriticisable: “aren’t veterans great!” Battleship fetishises the American armed forces in a way rarely seen — and that’s saying something. The ground resistance is led by an Iraq vet with no legs, still in physio, America, fuck yeah!hobbling up a mountain on prosthetics to realise he’s still worth something as he saves the day. America, fuck yeah! And when the main battleship is ruined, our plucky heroes have no choice but to co-opt the museum piece (literally) WWII ship; and because most of their crew is dead, the museum guides — all of them septuagenarian WWII vets — have to man their ship once again. To defeat those invading scum, just like before! AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

Ugh.

Oh, and Liam Neeson is in it. Barely. And he phones it in. And not a cool phone call like he’s famous for. All things considered, we can forgive that man some of his movie choices in the past few years, but this one must’ve been about the payday alone. Same goes for Rihanna. You’ve probably seen that article listing all her lines. As it suggests, she’s basically a glorified extra, and a poor one at that. Stick to getting your tits out in Irish fields, love.

You’ll notice I haven’t given Battleship the ignominy of a single star. Thing is, for all its awfulness, some of the action is OK, there are some (unearned) triumphant moments, and though the film’s veteran-worship is as transparent as its clear blue Hawaiian seas, it sometimes works. Kinda.

2 out of 5

Battleship featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Underdog (2007)

2013 #5
Frederik Du Chau | 74 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | U / PG

UnderdogIn this big screen live-action version of some old US cartoon, a dog gets superpowers and, naturally, becomes a superhero. That’s pretty much it.

The film is widely disliked, it seems, with a very low rating on IMDb; but I thought it was actually good fun. It’s not Citizen Kane, but it’s not trying to be — it’s a kids’ comedy-adventure, and kids will get the most out of it, but it also has enough wit and charm to see it through for some older viewers.

And there’s Peter Dinklage as the raving villain — you know that’s got to be good.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but 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.