About badblokebob

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

Family Guy Presents Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story (2005)

Posted on May 28, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #47
Pete Michels | 85 mins | DVD | 15

Following Family Guy’s cancellation after three seasons, it somehow found a new lease of life on DVD, posting surprising sales in what was, I suppose, the early years of the format’s mass take-off. This led to a rethink by Fox and a belated (as in, several years later) renewal for the animated sitcom. This story was originally intended to form a three-part opener to the first season back, but Fox wanted a direct-to-DVD movie too — presumably to capitalise financially on that previous success — and so those three episodes were retooled into a feature.

We know how this can turn out.

And it does feel like three Family Guy episodes stitched together. Much like that other stitched-together-from-three-animated-TV-episodes movie, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the events of part one (or the first twenty-odd minutes) seem entirely separated from the two-parter that makes up the back hour. Fortunately the Family Guy team seem to have more common sense than their Lucasfilm counterparts, choosing to link back round to the start for their film’s climax, tying it all together after all. Nice work.

The plot is more or less suitably movieised — despite that first-part almost-disjoint, it’s a more-epic-than-usual tale of Stewie’s origins (sort of) — though it seems slightly held back by its genesis as three TV episodes and the need for it ultimately to be split back up (it was broadcast, censored, as a three-parter at the end of the comeback season). With subplots that begin and end within each half-hour(-ish) segment, it plays about as well as watching a three-parter back to back… which is more than can be said for that Star Wars film. Consequently, it also feels just like regular Family Guy — the same level of humour, basically — though it seemed to me like there were more scatological jokes than normal, some of them going on too long as well. If you’re not a regular viewer of the series, references to running jokes will pass you by; equally, the nature of its humour, often based in cultural references, means that some bits that are obviously jokes will elicit no more than bafflement from a non-versed viewer. Still, there’s plenty of more universal humour too. It relies on the usual style of numerous non sequitur flashbacks and asides. Which, again, is fine — that’s their style; it would be wrong to be anything else.

The need to turn three TV-aimed episodes into a movie — and, somewhat ironically, back again afterwards — does have a few effects on proceedings. Various bits had to be cut for the broadcast version, most for the silly technicalities of US TV rules — the fact the DVD is rated 15 over here, the same as the series normally is, shows how arbitrary US regulations are. It feels like there are a few more jokes that are slightly dirtier than normal and there are a few extra swear words, but they consciously didn’t go OTT with them and, thankfully, it shows. But actually, most of the stuff that’s cut (as detailed on the commentary or in full here) is for those daft US rules; so, stuff that just steps over a certain line; stuff that, to be honest, most Americans wouldn’t even notice.

Also, contractually the film had to make a certain length, so there’s some conscious padding in there — though, as they note on the commentary, they did their best to make the padding funny too. Take the intermission, for instance, which features just voices over a black “Intermission” screen: dirt cheap to animate (what with there being no animation) but it both adds a bit to the running time and smoothes the jump between parts two and three.

I don’t know how much I’ve reviewed the film and how much shared some behind-the-scenes tidbits here, but if you like Family Guy… well, you’ve probably already seen this (it’s been out, what, six years? I’m behind here), and if you don’t like it there’s nothing to change your mind. And if you’ve always been curious but never given it a go, don’t start here — I don’t think it would be incomprehensible to first-time viewers, but I don’t think it’s the best introduction to the series either, and it probably makes more sense if you know the characters a bit.

This score reflects that lack of universal appeal; for regular viewers, I’d say it’s good quality and probably four stars.

Make/Remake: Assaults on Precinct 13

Posted on May 23, 2011 by badblokebob

In the second of my irregular series looking at films and their remakes / re-imaginings / shameless cash-ins, we sample the grand tradition of Hollywood taking a beloved cult flick and recycling it as a shinier, blander, lowest-common-denominator-aimed property.

In this instance the original film in question is John Carpenter’s action exploitation movie Assault on Precinct 13, made just before he’d begin to build his reputation as a Master of Horror, and the shiny remake is by Jean-François Richet, made just before he’d gain some critical cache with his two-part crime biopic Mesrine.

The question, as ever, is: is either film as good or as bad as the standard perception of originals and their remakes would have us believe? These may be surprisingly muddy waters…

Assault on Precinct 13
(1976)

the siege is the key element but doesn’t start until quite far into the film…

The first third-ish of the film, where the ragtag group of people wind up in the station, is a bit random, but that’s also kind of the point: this group of people stand up to protect one man, even though they have no idea why he’s there. Very moving.

Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

Posted on May 23, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #55
Jean-François Richet | 104 mins | DVD | 15 / R

John Carpenter’s rough-and-ready ’70s exploitation B-movie is remade as a slick ’00s action B-movie dressed up as an A-movie by director Jean-François Richet (who would go on to find far greater critical acclaim with his two-part French crime epic Mesrine).

James DeMonaco’s screenplay presents an essentially new story built on the premise of the original film. So we’re still in a police station on its last night before closing down, there’s still a group of prisoners who turn up to be left in the cells overnight, and there’s still a gang outside laying siege to the handful of people holed up within — but, other than that, all other details are replaced or re-arranged. Which is a good thing, really — who wants a virtually-identical remake? For that you can watch the original. Unfortunately, the new stuff isn’t necessarily as compelling as what it’s replaced.

For starters, there’s now a surfeit of character backstory, and yet for all that extra work I’d argue we probably care about these characters less than those in the original. The original’s quasi-horror element is also sadly lost, by turning the faceless demonic gang into an enemy that not only has a face (in the form of a leader) but also a proper motive and everything. In part this is just the difference between ’70s and ’00s moviemaking, especially when what was an exploitation B-movie becomes mainstream action fare, but it makes things more bland.

I don’t have hard timings to back this up, but I think the siege starts earlier and lasts longer here. It certainly felt that way, in part because the character of the father (whose act of revenge leads the gang to the precinct in the original) is gone. Of course, the film is about the titular assault on the titular station, so I think this refocussing is more than fair enough. It, naturally, emphasises the siege element of a film about a siege, something the original almost reneged on with its lengthy setup.

Generally, however, things could do with tightening up here. Even if the siege seems to start earlier, the beginning especially goes on too long. One might well argue it did in the original too, but this isn’t emulating that — an awful lot of what happens is new, as I said: many of the characters and situations from the original have no corollary in the remake. Besides, there are some scenes included in the DVD’s deleted scene package that I think have more of a place in the film than some of what’s left.

The prologue is an excellent case in point. It seems to serve a purpose in setting up Ethan Hawke’s backstory… but we’re told all we need to know about that in the body of the film. In fact, if the opening were lost, why Hawke’s character is the way he is might unfold as more of a mystery throughout the film, which would make it an awful lot more interesting. The only reason the prologue is necessary is if you want to begin your movie with an action sequence… so that’s why it there then. It’s also set in a sun-drenched summery atmosphere, totally at odds with the well-evoked wintery New Year that pervades post-titlecard. Consequently, looking back on the prologue, it feels even more out of place. I think it’s also designed to set a Gritty tone, with its rundown apartment and drugs deal and all that palaver; probably because the rest of the film is too far-fetched, if you were hoping viewers were going to be in mind of The Wire or something. For all kinds of reasons, then, it doesn’t work; it should’ve gone.

At least the changes allow the film to be moderately fresh. If only the basic concept is the same, that allows for all sorts of new twists and surprises. It’s a Hollywood blockbuster so you can still spot who’ll survive to the end — mostly — but a few twists and surprises are thrown in here and there. I don’t know how many of them the trailer decided to reveal, but going in relatively blind (always easier for a not-terribly-successful film once it’s become a few years old) may well be beneficial.

In terms of the representation of race on screen, this is a film that could certainly be seen as a step backwards. While the original had a black police officer in charge of a white criminal, here not only is the lead officer white — as are all but one of the dozens of other policemen — but all the criminals inside the precinct are black or (in one case) hispanic. Ouch. You could try to argue we’ve developed past the need to force anti-stereotyping in casting; or you could argue this is a mainstream studio remake that felt the need to fall back on the familiar. It might not be a noticeable point were it not for it being so markedly different to the original.

Assault on Precinct 13 Mk.II has the decency to only take the original’s concept and craft a modified narrative around that, at least giving it some kind of point. Judged on its own terms, though it wastes too much time on over-familiar character beats it emerges as a moderately entertaining, if bland, action-thriller.

See also my comparison of this and the 1976 original here.

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Posted on May 23, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #50
John Carpenter | 87 mins | TV | 15 / R

Assault on Precinct 13, it has always seemed to me, is an acclaimed cult classic of the action genre. I could probably find some references to support this — I know it’s on Tarantino’s list of the top seven exploitation movies, for starters — but for speed let’s just assume I’m right. Thing is, on initial impressions at least, I didn’t quite get that. It felt like an unexceptional low-budget ’70s exploitation B-picture to me.

It’s quite possible — indeed, it’s pretty much certain — that it is a low-budget ’70s exploitation B-picture, but one that for some reason stands above the others. I’ve not exactly seen many to compare. It’s reputation may also, I wager, be nostalgia based: what looked shocking or exciting or innovative to impressionable young audiences a few decades ago may not work quite the same now, when even cheap direct-to-DVD movies can afford some half decent CGI and the occasional actor you’ve actually heard of, never mind the feats a theatrical B-grade movie might pull off.

Anyway, back to the film in hand. It’s the last night at a rundown old police station. It’s manned by a skeleton staff because technically it doesn’t close ’til morning, but the phones have been disconnected and most of the equipment’s been taken, including the weapons. A prison transport arrives for a reason I can’t remember, wanting to put its handful of prisoners in the station’s cells. Then a man runs in the front door. No one in the police station ever finds out why he’s come (we do though, but I won’t say in case you’ve never seen the film), but following close behind him are a huge gang who lay siege to the cut-off station. So the cops and the prisoners must work together to fend them off.

Such is the plot, basically. Obviously there’s more to it, but I’m not aiming to explain the whole thing — the siege is the key element (note the “assault on” bit of the title) but doesn’t start until quite far into the film, hence the stretch of plot. The first third-ish of the film, where the ragtag group of people wind up in the station, is a bit random, but that’s also kind of the point: this group of people stand up to protect one man, even though they have no idea why he’s there. Very moving. Nonetheless, some of the machinations of the plot are a tad comical, like when the aforementioned man chases the gang: all but one of them run off for no good reason, letting him kill the one he’s after — by sheer luck, it seems — before they all come back to chase after him. Um, what?

The film is ostensibly an action movie, of which there is certainly some. The halfway shoot-out is an almost comedically repetitive symphony of bullet-ridden violence. Deliberately comedic, I wonder, or just laughable? By contrast, the finale feels rather short. Maybe it was to gloss over the implausible plan our heroes concoct, but there are a few jumps in there that feel a tad unnatural, like something’s been cut out. And how the cop is supposed to have made the impossible shot through all that smoke I don’t know.

I say “ostensibly an action movie” because there’s actually a fair dose of horror stylings in there too. The gang are real enough in theory, but they’re presented as a faceless hoard, performing voodoo-esque rituals, coming and going as if by magic, doing things our heroes can’t necessarily explain, attacking in almost random waves… They feel almost supernatural; one might go so far as to say they play more like zombies than an organised criminal force. It’s no surprise that Carpenter would next helm Halloween, a seminal horror movie if ever there was one, and later cement his reputation as a horror director with the likes of The Thing.

There’s a couple of good deliberately comic bits too, almost all of them coming from Napoleon, the main criminal, though they’re only good in a slightly cheesy ’70s action B-movie kinda way. Laurie Zimmer’s female lead, Leigh, is possibly the next best (or just best, but next-most-memorable) member of the cast. She’s only a secretary, but she’s a strong woman who holds her own, despite being shot in the arm. Seems it might be a shame her acting career was so short. I should probably also note that the main cop character is black and the main criminal is white, which I imagine was revolutionary in the ’70s. To be honest, it would probably go against the norm today — note how the remake reverted to (stereo)type.

More praiseful reviewers than I have described Carpenter’s film as “rough, raw” and “lean, mean, genre-defying”, which is true; others have noted that it’s “largely composed of borrowed pieces”, which might be right; and still others say there’s “no mistaking the modern racial and sexual politics encoded in the distinctly western elements”, which I also more-or-less agree with. And another says that, “like Night of the Living Dead, it offers a protagonist who is black, a morality that is grey, and social commentary in the guise of horror”. Neat. (All these quotes were quickly nabbed from Rotten Tomatoes; full attribution there.)

I can see why someone felt this was ripe for a remake. Critics soundly trashed that as “not as good as the original”, and that may well be the case; but maybe it’s just that a ’00s action B-movie couldn’t withstand the nostalgia attached to its ’70s counterpart. Or maybe this original represented something for its era that isn’t as present today — after all, most if not all of the most groundbreaking films of all time can/will look nothingy if watched many decades later without the appropriate context.

I did quite like Assault on Precinct 13 but, as has probably been made clear, didn’t quite identify with the love many hold for it. I suspect you had to be there.

See also my comparison of this and the 2005 remake here.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Posted on May 20, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #56
Jon Favreau | 125 mins | Blu-ray | 12 / PG-13

With Thor out a couple of weeks ago and Pirates of the Caribbean 4 just hitting cinemas, 2011’s blockbuster season is well and truly underway. While you all head out to the cinema and enjoy this year’s delights (or disasters), I intend to do some catching up on the tonne of stuff I’ve missed from the last year or two (or three, or more).

Starting, naturally, here…

I’ve always contended that the first Iron Man film was overrated. That’s not to say it was a bad film — I gave it four stars and, having re-watched recently, I liked it even more — but I think it took critics and audiences by surprise and that led to a level of praise from both sets that was unduly high. It’s not unreasonable: who would’ve expected anything special from the movie adaptation of a B-list superhero, helmed by a low-recognition director, starring a one-time leading man just about on his comeback? When it turned out to be both fun and funny, I think people overreacted. I saw it later, after hearing all that praise, so I think (without wishing to sound immodest) my view was slightly more tempered.

It’s for similar reasons I think Iron Man 2 has been underrated — I would contend that it is, more or less, as good as the first film. That didn’t seem to be the consensus at the time of release, which ranged from mediocre to rubbish. I don’t agree at all — and, again, I think this is in part due to viewers’ expectations. When one thinks a first film is better than it is, expectations for the sequel are heightened; when said sequel is only as good as the first film really was, it looks a lot worse by comparison — it fails to reach the audience’s over-raised expectations.

That’s my take, anyway. This being a review, I shall now offer more thoughts on why I think it’s a good action-adventure flick.

For starters, it relies on the story rather than the action. There are certainly some good sequences of the latter (more about those later), but there’s also a lot of story in between them — it’s not wall-to-wall explosions and punch-ups. Neither was the first, if you remember, and so it fits in that respect. It’s helped along by the ending of the first film, in which Tony Stark revealed he was Iron Man. That’s not something you do in superhero movies, which immediately lends this one a few new plot devices to play around with. Considering the burgeoning critical assessment that all superhero movies ever only tell the same two or three stories (an argument I think has a lot of validity), it’s nice to see anything to challenge the norm.

So does the reliance on technology. Yes, Batman uses kit rather than powers gifted via supernatural or ‘scientific’ means, but even Christopher Nolan’s real-world version of that character takes the tech as read and gets on with some moral-based superhero antics. Iron Man does less of the hero stuff (see again: fewer action sequences; also, Stark’s self-centred character) and indulges a little more in arms-race tech-development, a very plausible side effect of this superset being unveiled to the world. The development of the technology is as much part of this story as the genre-typical mental anguish of the hero(es) and/or villain(s), which, again, makes it a little different.

This time, Iron Man faces two enemies. A recipe for disaster, some would say — look at Batman & Robin or Spider-Man 3. That conveniently ignores Batman Returns or The Dark Knight though, doesn’t it. Here it works because they’re two notably different characters and they complement each other — it’s the Penguin and whover-Christopher-Walken’s-character-was rather than Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy, if you will. They play to different sides of the hero: one is fighting Stark, one Iron Man (though there is naturally crossover); though they’re both intelligent, one functions as the brains and the other as the brawn. Mickey Rourke may go slightly underused, but it’s also part of the character, a quiet, thoughtful, intelligent hulk partnered with Sam Rockwell’s jabbering wannabe-Stark.

Turning to the action sequences, I think they’re better all round than the first film’s efforts. Iron Man comes up against things that are his match, rather than just the occasional virtually-unopposed rescue of a third-world village or what have you. The climax is certainly better than that in the original. Iron Man 1‘s climax was a brief encounter lacking punch, literally; here we have a more advanced villain with some variety in his weapons — it makes for a more visually interesting affair. Both films have been criticised for being just robot-on-robot fights, the same fault that riddled Transformers. I disagree. In Transformers you couldn’t tell who was who; in both Iron Mans, you can — that’s kinda important. Sure, a non-robot-suited villain would make even more of a change, but I don’t think it hampers this finale too much.

I also wonder if some negative reaction stemmed from being shown too much in the trailers. I distinctly remember how underwhelming I found Wanted at the cinema because I felt like I’d seen it all; watched again later on Blu-ray, I enjoyed it a lot more. With Iron Man 2 I’m obviously distanced from trailers by a good year or so, and though one of their best moments is missing from the final cut, and the suitcase-suit is unavoidably spoilt by being so thoroughly screened during the promotion, watching now doesn’t have all the trailer-generated expectation to live up to. That famous Onion spoof about the first film’s trailer is, perhaps, even more applicable to the sequel.

Despite that cut I mentioned (the whole little sequence where Pepper throws Iron Man’s helmet out of the plane, for the interested; which, actually, would make a nice counterpoint to one of the final scenes — maybe that cut is a fail after all), other nice moments abound — Rhodey’s opening line, for instance, which acknowledges the change in cast member without harping on about it. Admittedly, however, there’s no comic highlight quite as memorable as the best bits from the first film, though I did laugh out loud plenty often throughout (when I was meant to, I hasten to add).

The greatest negative reaction, however, seemed to be reserved for one subplot: some called the film little more than a two-hour trailer for The Avengers. That’s unfair. Aside from one unnecessary scene featuring Captain America’s shield and Agent Coulson leaving for New Mexico, and the fact that the film assumes everyone will know who Nick Fury is despite him being introduced fleetingly after the credits of the last film, the whole S.H.I.E.L.D./Avengers Initiative thing is worked into the plot well. If we didn’t know it was the beginning of the build-up to The Avengers, I think it would have sat much better with viewers. Even if it does end up blatantly laying the foundation for further stories, that’s hardly uncommon in franchise films of all kinds these days — at least we know this series will definitely pay it off, unlike so many franchise-wannabes that don’t make it past their first film. Plus, the film’s primary plot has its own villains and comes complete with a resolution; Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D. and co are a subplot that feed other subplots.

Naturally the film isn’t perfect — it’s a bit slow in the middle and some bits could stand to be chopped — but overall I think it stands up much better than the critical and audience consensus implied. While watching I kept waiting for it to turn sour; to suddenly see what everyone had moaned about. Halfway through the screen fades to black, then fades back up to introduce Nick Fury — “oh, here we go,” I thought, “everyone moaned about the Avengers stuff; this must be where the whole film goes south; and handily marked by that fade too” — but no, I kept on enjoying it. The clock kept ticking, it kept not getting bad.

I enjoyed Iron Man 2 more or less as much as I enjoyed Iron Man, and that’s rather a lot.

Iron Man 2 begins on Sky Movies Premiere today at 3:45pm and 8pm, and is on every day at various times until Thursday 26th May.

Death Race (2008)

Posted on May 18, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #33
Paul W.S. Anderson | 98 mins* | TV (HD) | 15 / R

Sometimes, I wonder what I’m playing at. The list of films I haven’t seen but really should is quite extraordinary, from enduring classics like Lawrence of Arabia and Seven Samurai to recent praise-magnets like Scott Pilgrim and Black Swan (and those are just from some of the ones I actually own), yet I choose to spend my evening watching B-movie tosh like Death Race because it happens to be on telly.

There’s no denying that Death Race is B-movie tosh, I don’t think, but at least it’s an example of fairly entertaining B-movie tosh. The plot barely matters, but for what it’s worth it concerns a car race in a near-future prison where those who don’t die in the weapons-laden encounters stand a chance to earn their freedom. Jason Statham’s character is — of course — innocent, but once thrown into this world must escape by its rules. Yadda yadda yadda.

Basically, everything that happens is an excuse to get to some action sequences, in which cars race around a circuit and attempt to destroy each other in some moderately creative ways. It caters perfectly to its intended audience: there’s fast cars, sexy girls, lots of action, big explosions. It doesn’t always make sense — those sexy girls are really shoehorned in — but that doesn’t really matter. It’s Entertainment, for a certain type of person, and it surely hits all the points it should hit. And I expect it says something about that intended audience that the end credits begin with a “do not attempt this at home” notice.

Ian McShane is the most watchable out of an adequate cast. Who would’ve guessed Lovejoy would end up as a consistently entertaining presence in various US productions? Only the villains really get short shrift, being so readily defeated that there’s no real jeopardy, no sense they might not get their comeuppance. Their simultaneous best and worst moment comes in a dreadful, meaningless line about shitting on the sidewalk. Who doesn’t love a good “wtf?” bit of dialogue?

You can tell writer-director Anderson likes his computer games — as if the numerous films he’s made based on them weren’t enough, he brings their influence here too. For instance, the weapons are only activated by driving over special hotspots, which are only a big floating icon away from being like computer game power-ups. I’m surprised Anderson didn’t go the whole hog and have them be projected holograms.

Even if it’s all about the action, it could be worse: I’ve seen plenty of films featuring weaker dialogue, weaker acting and an even less relevant story. Death Race does everything it sets out to do competently, delivering a couple of decent action sequences and even a couple of laughs along the way. Not exceptional enough to be particularly memorable, but it is fun — if you like this kind of thing — while it lasts.

* I know it’s largely immaterial, but I’m not really sure how long the version I watched ran. It was definitely the theatrical version (as opposed to the extended version, which looks to contain several minutes of unnoticeable additions and tweaks), which IMDb say runs 98 minutes, but the BBFC place at 105. I’ve used IMDb’s answer purely because as I watched it on TV it would’ve been PAL, so this number is closer, whatever the truth.

The movies everybody’s seen but you

Posted on May 17, 2011 by badblokebob

I may have mentioned iCheckMovies.com before, but in case not, it’s a fun (if you’re someone like me) site where you can tick off movies you’ve seen. I guess that’s in the name. It started out wholly based around “best ever” lists but has since widened to include all movies (and much TV). The focus remains on completing / seeing how well you’re doing on various lists, it’s just now you can tick anything — which is handier in my opinion, especially as some titles have a tendency to yo-yo on and off lists.

Anyway, one of the lists they have — amongst the usual suspects like the IMDb Top 250 and They Shoot Pictures’ Top 1000 and the Empire 500 — is the iCheckMovies Most Checked. It does what it says on the tin: these are the movies checked by the most people. These are the movies everybody’s seen.

Of course, being a website, the user-base skews younger, and that’s reflected in the list: the top 10 spans 1994 to 2008. Widen that to the top 25 and you can only add two films from the ’80s and one from the ’70s — and two of those are Star Wars. Of the whole 250 included there’s only ten from before 1970, and six of those are Disneys. Kids today, eh?

Even if it does only reflect what a certain demographic have seen, it’s still fun (if you’re someone like me) to see what films everyone’s seen except you. So in that spirit, here are the top ten films everyone else has seen that I haven’t (with their current place on the overall list in brackets).

10) Requiem for a Dream (#98)
9) Amelie (#94)
8) The Big Lebowski (#89)
7) The Hangover (#87)
6) District 9 (#83)
5) A Clockwork Orange (#82)
4) Bruce Almighty (#80)
3) The Shining (#62)
2) Braveheart (#53)
1) Up (#39)

And I own six of those too.

Do feel free to go find out what you’re a social pariah for missing out on here. Report back in the comments, if you like.

UPDATE (25/7/2012)

It’s been over a year since I first posted this, and in that time a few things have shifted around on this list. I thought I may as well offer an update.

In terms of the top most-ticked movies (the tiny picture on the left — you can see it at a legible size here), The Dark Knight remains #1, The Matrix has dropped to #5, Forrest Gump has taken its place at #2, Fellowship of the Ring has dropped to #7, The Lion King has moved up to #3, Toy Story has moved up to #4, and Finding Nemo comes in at #6.

In terms of my unseen films (deep breath, this’ll get long…)

Up is still first, but is now #24 overall (up 13 places);
Braveheart is now fourth, down 16 places to #69;
The Shining is still third, but has risen seven places to #55;
Bruce Almighty has tumbled to seventh, but only down five places to #85;
A Clockwork Orange and District 9 swap places, to sixth and fifth respectively. The Kubrick changes one place to #83, while Blomkamp’s South African sci-fi rises five to #78;
The Hangover is the big grower, now second and risen a massive 35 spots to #62;
The Big Lebowski remains eighth, slipping a slight three places to #92;
Amelie drops to tenth, and eight spots to #102;
Requiem for a Dream is the only one to leave the top ten completely — it’s now twelfth, falling nine spots to #107;
and its replacement is A Bug’s Life, in ninth. No idea where that was 14 months ago.

And what can we learn from this? Not much, really. But thanks to general rearrangements I’ve clearly seen more well-seen films than I had before: whereas my #10 used to be #98, it’s now #102; so whereas I had only seen 90 of the top 100, now I’ve seen… 91. Well, every little helps.

What I can also see is I’ve not watched a single one of these in the last 14 months, despite now owning seven — if you include A Bug’s Life, eight. Story of my life…

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

Posted on May 15, 2011 by badblokebob

This is the 500th review of a feature-length film to be posted on 100 Films. Moderately appropriate, no?

2011 #52
Marc Webb | 95 mins | Blu-ray | 12 / PG-13

Directed by Marc Webb (The Amazing Spider-Man), starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt (The Dark Knight Rises), with a supporting cast that includes Chloë Grace Moretz (Kick-Ass), Matthew Gray Gubler (All-Star Superman), and Clark Gregg (Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers)… (500) Days of Summer has nothing to do with superhero movies. Plenty of people involved in making it aren’t connected to superhero movies — mainly (what with her being the titular Summer) Zooey Deschanel. So why am I listing all of those connections? A slightly random bit of fun, that’s all.

That’s a phrase which might also summarise Webb’s directorial philosophy when it comes to this work. Much as the bracketing of 500 in the title has as much reason as Tarantino misspelling the whole title of his World War 2 movie, so Webb throws in directorial flourishes — asides, homages, fantasy sequences — in a broadly similar vein to Tarantino’s grab bag use of familiar tropes in the likes of Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds. I was going to spotlight some of Webb’s exhibitions, but they quickly become hard to keep track of, never mind list. It’s not that the film lacks a coherent style — much of it is shot ‘normally’, for want of a better word, and works — but that there are a variety of asides and short sequences that spin off in different directions. They all sit surprisingly well within the story though — yes, some (perhaps all) are showing off a bit, but in a way that, by and large, works. And I’m a little bit glad I can’t quite list them all, because half the fun of (500) Days of Summer is watching what looks like a borderline-mainstream indie rom-com that suddenly throws these curveballs at you.

The plot follows greetings card writer Tom (Gordon-Levitt) as he falls in love with his boss’ new assistant, Summer (Deschanel), for the 500 days from when he first meets her to… well, that’d be the ending. It doesn’t do it linearly though — c’mon, this is an indie-ish ’00s film, did you really expect it to be chronological? This is just one of the aforementioned flourishes, though I suppose it’s one that’s more attributable to screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber. Unfortunately — but predictably — the re-jigged chronology rarely has a point. It makes some juxtapositions that would be less slap-round-the-face obvious if they weren’t forcibly placed side by side — and therefore better for it — but most of the time it’s harmless. At least the regular use of a day counter to let us know where we are, a) makes it less confusing than other chronologically challenged films that want you to spend most of your viewing time working out what takes place when (I’m looking at you Alejandro González Iñárritu), and b) lets Webb have some fun with the counter towards the end.

Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel seem fundamentally likeable (the latter especially, I must say — let’s put her in the same camp as Carey Mulligan), making the relationship work all the better for the viewer. Or you could be jealous of beautiful people having fun, I suppose, but the early painfully-real awkward bits help overcome at least some of that. Meanwhile, Moretz plays the “pre-teen wise beyond her years” that she’d go on to be in Kick-Ass and Let Me In. Not that those three roles are identical by any means, but you can see how one led to the other.

An opening voiceover warns the viewer that “this is not a love story”. Of course, it is, just one without the traditional ending. Don’t worry, no spoilers here, but I will say that romantics would do well to heed this warning anyway, otherwise they might find themselves disappointed. However, viewers who are prepared for a story that rings true, in a way those routine rom-coms starring the likes of Jennifer Aniston never do, may well be pleasantly surprised. It’s not wholly unique — one might readily draw comparisons with Before Sunrise or Garden State, though I don’t think it’s necessarily as quirky (not a criticism, just a point) — but equally it doesn’t feel derivative.

I confess, I wasn’t really expecting to like (500) Days of Summer — something about the hype, indie-ness and my mood that day made me think I’d find it a bit too irritating, probably with too-cool characters I didn’t care about, gimmicks I’d find pointless, and a sense of déjà vu at indie rom-com antics. I think some viewers may find these irritants do crop up, at least in places — like I say, there are shades of other indie-rom-coms — but thanks to some sweet scenes, directorial flourishes that work, proper laugh-out-loud moments, and the sense that the plot is at least grounded (if not wholly residing) in the way most real relationships pan out, Webb’s debut feature overcomes the vast majority of its potential drawbacks to make for an entertaining and meaningful film. You can see why he was picked for the supposedly more teen-life-focused Spidey reboot.

An Education (2009)

Posted on May 12, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #51
Lone Scherfig | 100 mins | Blu-ray | 12 / PG-13

It seems that every year, come Oscar season, there’s a British-made film we’re led to back so thoroughly that it gains nothing but incessant praise from every (British) quarter. Just to look at recent years, from the 2006 selection it was The Queen; from 2007, Atonement; and at the awards for 2008 and 2010 we were actually backing the big winner, Slumdog Millionaire and The King’s Speech respectively. I’m not going to say any of these films support my next point, but it often feels like the Great British Hope is being over-praised. Everyone here gets so caught up in Oscar fever that the one British film with a chance becomes The Greatest Film Ever Made for a couple of months, then when viewed with a steady head months or years later it often turns out to be good, but not that good.

An Education was the Great British Hope of 2009. It could’ve had Best Actress, or Adapted Screenplay, or even Best Picture… but unlike The Queen, Atonement, Slumdog Millionaire and The King’s Speech, it didn’t take home a single award. “How could they neglect such a masterpiece,” I’m sure some Brit with Oscar fever cried. Particularly when they gave Best Actress to Sandra Bullock. So we know what to expect when viewed 14 months after its Oscar ceremony was held, with an appropriately steady head… but, actually, it turns out that An Education is — to use a properly British expression — bloody good.

Based on a true story, the film tracks 1960s schoolgirl Jenny (Carey Mulligan) as she falls for an older man (Peter Sarsgaard) who represents a culture- and glamour-filled escape from her drab suburban life and its focus on getting a place at Oxford. It’s a romance and a coming-of-age tale, albeit one with a more naturalistic bent than your regular offering; more down-to-Earth and British than either something Hollywoodised or American-indie-fied. There are, perhaps, few massive surprises in the plot — anyone who doesn’t guess this won’t end well has somehow failed to encounter a “schoolgirl falls for glamorous older man” story before — but Nick Hornby’s screenplay and Scherfig’s direction execute it all with admirable conviction. You don’t feel like you’re watching something familiar.

Plus, Jenny’s induction into her new friends’ higher-class world isn’t marred by the usual abundance of “embarrassing faux pas” humour that such tales normally fall back on. I’ve never understood where the entertainment value is supposed to lie in seeing the character we’re asked to like being put through the kind of social embarrassment that happens all too often in real life and that we’d really rather like to forget. Perhaps it’s only missing here because these characters have to like Jenny throughout the film, rather than abandoning her as an inexperienced little girl after just one scene; but whatever the reason, thank heavens for it.

I’ve read some complain there’s no ending. I can only presume they walked out of the cinema or stopped their DVD before the film reached, y’know, the end. Sometimes I appreciate how people can criticise the lack of an ending, even when I disagree (see: In Bruges), but not here. An Education shows us all we need to see and comes to the conclusions it needs to come to, no more.

The ’60s are wonderfully evoked with an excellent use of locations — the sequence in Paris stands out, using landmarks and recognisable locations without once letting on it was shot almost 50 years late —, costume design, and some intermittently stunning photography. The last isn’t to say it doesn’t all look great, just some bits really pop out. Credit to DoP John de Borman, then, for making Jenny’s school and home life appear drab and stifling and her new-life seem glamorous and fun, without slathering either on too thick or making the difference glaringly obvious.

The film hangs on Carey Mulligan, justly nominated for her performance. Quite aside from whether the performance is awards-worthy or not, it’s effortlessly watchable. Mulligan is exceptionally easy to fall in love with — if you haven’t already when she was Ada Clare or Sally Sparrow, I’m sure Jenny Mellor will enchant you. On the other hand, some have found her character too pretentious or naïve — maybe your own background will dictate if you see these negative traits. Jenny is probably a little of both, but I wouldn’t say she’s wholly naïve and I wouldn’t say she’s pretentious, exactly — she’s clever, and she wants to experience the world. What’s wrong with that?

The whole cast are uniformly excellent, mind. Alfred Molina’s scene-stealing oppressive/comedic dad is the most obvious contender, but Olivia Williams is also memorable in a relatively tiny role, and Emma Thompson makes an effective cameo as the authoritarian headmistress. Rosamund Pike is also noteworthy for playing against type as vacuous-but-kind Helen, mercilessly teased by her ‘friends’ but sadly aware that she’s not keeping pace with them, despite her efforts. That Jenny is so clearly her intellectual superior but still takes advice from her and doesn’t sink to the boys’ teasing is an additional credit to that character. Plus there’s Dominic Cooper, the new James McAvoy in terms of the sheer volume of films he pops up in. Surely he’s now only a Last King of Scotland away from McAvoy-level stardom?

It’s slightly remiss of me not to mention Peter Sarsgaard, what with him being the other half of the film’s romantic relationship. He’s good, his Colin Firth-esque accent pitch-perfect, but while he’s spot on in the part — absolutely no complaints — I can’t think of any scenes where there isn’t someone else (usually Mulligan or Molina) grabbing the spotlight.

As noted, this was in danger of being of those films that aren’t as good as everyone said — the kind of British film where everyone jumps on the bandwagon of Our Oscar Contender and smothers it with undue praise — but An Education manages to withstand all that. It’s an excellent film, liable to provoke a beautiful kind of envy or faux-nostalgia (depending on one’s own (lack of) experience of the worlds and times Jenny gets to see); and even if it doesn’t, it remains funny, moving and, even if you feel you may’ve heard a similar story before, rather truthful.

The UK TV premiere of An Education is on BBC Two and BBC HD tomorrow, May 13th, at 8:30pm.

Up in the Air (2009)

Posted on May 9, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #25
Jason Reitman | 105 mins | TV | 15 / R

Sometimes, it’s best to just come clean: I don’t have much to say about Up in the Air.

The plot, as you’ll likely know (it was an Oscar Best Picture nominee after all, meaning everyone’s heard of it… for a couple of years, anyway), concerns George Clooney playing someone who flies around America firing people for bosses too chicken to do it themselves. He’s very proud of the air miles he’s accumulated. He meets Vera Farmiga who also does something that involves flying around the country a lot and begins an on-off sex-based relationship with her. Anna Kendrick joins Clooney’s company and creates a plan to do his job via videoconferencing, thereby saving tonnes (sorry, tons — this is an American film) of cash by not having to fly people like Clooney all around the country. Clooney does not like this, so takes her out on the road for a bit to show her the reality of the job.

That’s probably a fair chunk of the film explained, which is not something I usually like to do, but the real point of it — whatever, exactly, that point may be — occurs once all these events are set in motion. And there are a few twists to the plot anyway, which I’m not even close to revealing there.

Cowriter-director Jason Reitman has created a surprisingly likeable film. It’s easy to see how Clooney’s character — very much the centre of the piece — could be irritating or vapid or any number of other negative adjectives, but instead he’s… well, he’s George Clooney, isn’t he? He’s all charm. If you were going to be fired, you’d probably want George Clooney to be doing it. For a character who is essentially an expansion of the Fight Club Narrator’s “single-serving friend” concept, he gets to become quite rounded and go on quite the journey. (Not just plane journeys either. Ho ho.)

The tone is pitched firmly at comedy-drama (or “dramedy”, if you’re American), which — as we know from experience — means it’s neither the most dramatic nor funniest film you’ll ever see. It does both nicely enough though, eliciting laughs and smiles where appropriate (and sometimes where not, naturally) and providing food for thought on occasion. It might be airplane food, but not everything’s cordon bleu.

Up in the Air got its Best Picture nom in the first year the Oscars went back to 10 nominations for the big prize. I’m not sure many would disagree that it’s one of The Other Ones — one of the ones that quite probably wouldn’t’ve been there if it hadn’t been for the category doubling in size. And if it was, it’d be The Other One — the token indie/comedy nomination that everyone knows isn’t going to win but was quite good all the same.

So I liked Up in the Air, and I even had more to say about it than I thought, but I didn’t love it. Indeed, while I’m not intending to avoid it as one would a bad film, I feel no particular desire to ever watch it again. It is, if you will, a single-serving film.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Author Archives: badblokebob

About badblokebob

Family Guy Presents Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story (2005)

Make/Remake: Assaults on Precinct 13

Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Death Race (2008)

The movies everybody’s seen but you

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

An Education (2009)

Up in the Air (2009)