About badblokebob

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

David Fincher Week

Posted on February 4, 2011 by badblokebob

David Fincher’s multi-Oscar-nominated latest, The Social Network, hits UK DVD and Blu-ray a week from Monday (and we’ll find out what, if anything, it’s won just two weeks later). As Fincher’s one of my favourite directors, and is responsible for several of my favourite-ever films, I’ve decided to mark the occasion with a David Fincher Week. The title of this post may’ve given that away.

Unfortunately Fincher has directed one too many films to make a neat week. Normally Alien³ would be the obvious candidate for elimination, what with its production troubles and Fincher leaving the project before editing began, but the ‘Assembly Cut’ included on the Quadrilogy DVD, and now Anthology Blu-ray, is closer to his vision (“closer” being the operative word). Besides which, I’ve not seen it, so it can have a new number, something Panic Room can’t. Neither can Se7en, The Game or Fight Club, but I have two of those on Blu-rays I’ve not yet watched and I’m rather fond of The Game.

But I’m going to include Panic Room anyway, because it’s nice to be thorough, and so just have a David Fincher Week-and-a-Day. Or slip the review in on the same day as the Zodiac Director’s Cut, because I’ve already reviewed that film and I doubt the extra, what is it, four minutes of footage makes much difference.

My viewing starts tonight, for a week running Friday to Friday — I’m relying on HMV to get The Social Network to me in timely fashion for that to work. I intend to start posting reviews on Sunday night — technically, Monday morning — which gives me a couple of days to write them, for a week running Monday to Monday. Neatness in both watching and reviewing, then.

For those unfamiliar with Fincher’s body of work, or who just fancy a handy reminder, here’s a handy timetable of when I intend to post my reviews:

Alien³: Special Edition	Monday 7th
Se7en	Tuesday 8th
The Game	Wednesday 9th
Fight Club	Thursday 10th
Panic Room	Friday 11th
Zodiac: Director’s Cut	Saturday 12th
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button	Sunday 13th
The Social Network	Monday 14th

So the week begins with a film I’ve seen in a cut I haven’t, ends with two films I’ve never seen, and along the way takes in several of my favourite-ever films. Lovely.

Right, I’m off to watch Alien³. See you Monday.

Well, Sunday, at midnight.

Hopefully.

My end-of-the-week summary can now be read here.

January 2011

Posted on January 31, 2011 by badblokebob

It’s live! (Well, I wrote it ‘live’.)

It’s Monday night! (Well, I posted it Monday night.)

It’s the January 2011 round-up! (At least that’s always true.)

Here we go again…

Following the success of 2010, 2011’s off to a good start. For one thing I’ve got every review from last year posted — I didn’t manage that until August (August!) last year.

More pertinently, though, the film-watching is off and running. Though I started later than ever this year (the first three years I managed to watch #1 on New Year’s Day; last year it was 8th January; this year 10th January), I’m suitably far ahead as January closes. The target for this month is to reach #8; last year I made it to #12; this year, I’ve made it to #12 again. Neat.

If I continue at this rate (which never happens), I’d reach #100 in early September and have a total of 144 by the end of the year. I shan’t be getting my hopes up.

This month’s films, then:

#1 Saw VI (2009)
#2 Exam (2009)
#3 Genevieve (1953)
#4 Synecdoche, New York (2008)
#5 Melinda and Melinda (2004)
#6 The Invention of Lying (2009)
#7 Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957)
#8 The Big Heat (1953)
#9 The Castle of Cagliostro (1979)
#10 The Three Musketeers (1973)
#11 Bolt (2008)
#12 The Four Musketeers (1974)

Next time on the all-new 100 Films in a Year monthly update…

February. I’m sure you knew that.

100 Films: The Interview

Posted on January 29, 2011 by badblokebob

The other week I was interviewed by film blog The Clapper Bored about… well, this blog. What I do, why I do it, how it’s gone, that kind of thing. If you’re interested you can now read the interview here.

Saw VI (2009)

Posted on January 27, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #1
Kevin Greutert | 92 mins | Blu-ray | 18 / R

The Saw franchise dragged itself to a seventh (and final? The advertising said so; no one cares enough to spoil it any more so I’ve no idea if it genuinely was) instalment this past Halloween, but here I am playing catch-up with the sixth — you know, the one that got soundly trounced by Paranormal Activity in cinemas.

It doesn’t start well. The opening sequence is awful, sinking to torture porn levels again (something I feel the Saw series mostly manages to rise above, if only slightly) in one of the worst examples I’ve personally seen. It’s unquestionably gratuitous, the only people who could possibly take an interest in it being those who want to see characters quite literally tortured — in this case, by hacking off bits of their own bodies. Some of the traps in Saw are clever or intriguing, even when they’re gruesome, but this is just the second murder from Se7en reenacted in an overlong fashion with prosthetics and too many gory close-ups. It’s uncomfortable to watch — not because it’s scary, but because it’s scary that anyone might find this kind of sequence enjoyable.

And then, almost suddenly, it gets good. It’s probably the best Saw movie since the first.

OK, it’s far from flawless. It’s still tangled up in the over-complex ongoing story, and peppered with flashbacks, varying from flash frames to large chunks, to try to help you follow it. On the one hand that’s lazy storytelling; on the other, much welcomed — the plot would surely be impossible to navigate without it.

But, as with all later Saw films, this is all a sideshow to the main attraction: the standalone ‘Game of the Film’, the Saw equivalent of ‘Monster of the Week’. Saw VI takes on a political dimension by tackling the thorny issue of American health insurance. It hardly presents a well-considered and in-depth debate, true, but the “evils of the insurance business” angle is a welcome motivation and adds something to both the plot and the denouement. The latter has the best twist a Saw movie has had for a while (following the non-twist of the fifth’s ending, a muddled one in the fourth, and a distinctly mixed effort in the third). It actually caught me unawares, so that’s some successful misdirection they pulled off right there.

Following it, there’s a nicely edited closing montage. Not particularly relevant — in other entries it’s used to expose the twist, here the twist is pretty self explanatory — but it’s oddly, briefly, rewarding for those of us who’ve sat through all the films so far (and, to be frank, if you haven’t sat through the others, you’d be mad to jump on at this point). Plus there’s an intriguing post-credits scene. No idea what it means or signifies, but it’s clearly laying the groundwork for something in the future.

Aside from that foul opener, the traps and games show a level of innovation and forethought the other films have sometimes lacked. In fairness, the game-of-the-film and its traps are often the best bit of any Saw film, and though some of these could be better sold — the moderately infamous shotgun carousel would be improved if we had a vested interest in the six competitors (though that would mean boosting the running time by having to introduce them all, so maybe it is better this way) — they are all amongst the series’ most engaging.

It wouldn’t do to not mention some of the other flaws — it’s far from perfect, of course. The plot is riddled with holes and improbabilities (even aside obvious ones about the construction of the traps and kidnapping of victims), while the acting is hardly top-drawer — there aren’t even guest stars big enough to rival Saw V’s “Luke from Gilmore Girls”, “Darla from Buffy / Dexter’s girlfriend” or “Chloe’s boyfriend from 24” — but then you don’t expect watertight plotting or RSC acting from a Saw film.

Note: this is an Extended or Extreme or Whatever Edition again. Minor differences only, I believe, which you can find listed here.

Fortunately this franchise entry doesn’t live or die by its relation to the ongoing plot arc or its final twist. But combine that solid surprise with the plot’s ripped-from-the-headlines basis and it earns a third star. At the risk of damning with faint praise, this is largely the best Saw since the first.

Surrogates (2009)

Posted on January 21, 2011 by badblokebob

2010 #118
Jonathan Mostow | 89 mins | Blu-ray | 12 / PG-13

The near future: most of mankind now lives through ‘surrogates’ — robots that look like perfect versions of ourselves (generally), which we control from elaborate machines sat around in our homes. The anonymity of the online world brought into the real one, essentially.

It is, on the one hand, an intriguing premise. On the other, it’s thoroughly daft.

Part of the problem is that Surrogates exerts too much effort establishing this world. The opening montage covers 14 years of future history to take us from the world we know to the world of the story, but in the process is so crammed with improbabilities I wouldn’t know where to begin listing them. The premise is dreadfully implausible; this just serves to highlight it. The whole film might fare better if it just asked the audience to suspend their disbelief — to just accept this world, not try to imagine it developing from our own — because as it is, the very unlikelihood of this coming to pass colours a lot of what happens after (at least, it did for me).

What happens after is a murder mystery-cum-action/adventure, and one that fails to satisfy on either front. It’s mainly a thriller, so the action sequences are rather tacked in — “I suppose we could manage one there, and another here, and that’s a little bit action-y” — while almost every plot ‘twist’ is startlingly unsurprising (though it does manage one half decent one).

Someone involved clearly thought they were being Profound and that the story explored issues of “what it means to be human” and all that kind of stuff. The concept does invite such musing, but it’s not well executed here. Mostow is more at home in the handful of action sequences, even if they are quite cheaply realised as well as being tacked on, and struggles to bring anything to the screenplay’s heavy-handed cod-philosophising that dictates events in too many of the subplots.

Plus, at only just over 80 minutes (before credits), it feels much longer. That’s never a good thing.

It’s a shame it’s been so mucked up, because there might be a good idea or two squirrelled away inside Surrogates. Conversely, that might be the problem: it’s a neat concept, but difficult to develop into a movie. Certainly it would need more skilled hands than these; hands that could avoid the pitfalls of a plot so predictable it becomes hard to list other movies that have the same story — you just know it.

If you want to muse on what makes us human in a world of near-identical robotic replicas, watch Blade Runner. If you want a plot about a future world where we coexist with robots peacefully until Something That Can’t Happen Does Happen, watch (the slightly underrated) I, Robot. If you want to get a little frustrated and lament missed opportunities, with a few flashes of inspiration, then rent Surrogates.

And that completes the reviews for 2010!

How Long is a Minute? (2001)

Posted on January 21, 2011 by badblokebob

2010 #103a
Simon Pummell | 1 min | DVD | U

60 seconds, naturally, which is also the length of this film. No surprises there.

At the length of a TV advert, there are two things that are hard with a 60-second short film: one is making them say or do much in such a brief period of time; the other is reviewing the result. Pummell’s point, more or less, is about how the same length of time can feel like a different length of time at either end of life. The film says it much more eloquently than that sentence.

There’s also a final shot that underscores the concept with the idea of youth having an effect on old age. In the sense of a baby and its effect on its grandmother, that is, not some kind of Benjamin Button-esque fantasy.

Though still as slight as a well-conceived advert, Pummell’s film succeeds by not over-reaching itself. He has a single philosophical thought, conveyed succinctly with a mixture of image and sound. That’s worth 60 seconds, surely.

How Long is a Minute? can be found on the BFI DVD release of Pummell’s feature, Bodysong, or as one of many one-minute films at stopforaminute.com.

A Good Woman (2004)

Posted on January 19, 2011 by badblokebob

2010 #121
Mike Barker | 89 mins | TV | PG / PG

A Good Woman adapts Oscar Wilde’s 1892 play Lady Windermere’s Fan, switching the setting to the Amalfi Coast in 1930. If one didn’t know better, one would believe that’s when and where it was always set.

And if one does know better, apparently one should hate it. Most reviews, which are largely negative, focus on it being a poor conversion of the play. I’ve never seen nor read the original and thought it slotted seamlessly into its new ’30s setting (even though I am of course aware that Wilde was not writing (or doing much else) by the 1930s).

It remains a very funny piece — well, I presume “remains” rather than “becomes”, because it seems this is purely thanks to Wilde’s outstanding wit rather than any particular skill in adaptation or acting. While I have nothing against either, it’s the witticisms — or one-liners, if you prefer — that give the film most of its quality.

Another point reviewers like to pounce on is the US cast members. Scarlett Johansson is neither here nor there, as per usual, but I thought Helen Hunt was quite good. It’s undoubtable that they’re overshadowed by British thesps like Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Campbell Moore however, but that’s just par for the course.

So it seems one’s perception of the film lies in what it is compared to. Compared to Wilde’s original, it may indeed be a pale imitation, relocated to an inappropriate country and period, with lacklustre performances and incongruous Wilde-penned lines crowbarred in. Taken without the context of the work it’s adapted from, however, I thought it was a flawed but, more importantly, highly amusing film.

Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

Posted on January 16, 2011 by badblokebob

2010 #120
George Seaton | 92 mins | TV (HD) | U

I saw the Richard Attenborough-starring remake of Miracle on 34th Street when I was younger and, while I don’t remember a great deal about it, I enjoyed it well enough at the time. As usual, however, all the People Who Know These Things say the original is much better.

I can’t compare (I don’t remember a great deal about the remake, remember), but I can say this version is a great Christmastime film, requisitely magical and heart-warming. The court case finale (or “second half”, more or less) is particularly enjoyable, not least The Bit With The Post Bags. I do like a good court room victory.

Edmund Gwenn is a marvellous, twinkly, thoroughly plausible Santa; John Payne a suitably lawyery lawyer, in the tradition of other crusading screen lawyers both before and since. And he looks so much like someone I could’ve sworn I’d seen him in something else; but I haven’t, so I’ve no idea who he looks like.

It’s wrong to post a review of such a Christmassy film in the middle of January — though not as wrong as the original release date which, at the insistence of Fox’s head Darryl F. Zanuck, was in May (May!) with promotion that played down the Christmas setting. Which, considering the whole story is about a man who thinks he’s Santa Claus, and whether or not he really is, is an impressively underhand piece of marketing.

Still, my January timing may explain the brevity of these remarks, but I’m not hanging onto this review for 12 months (Inglourious Basterds bugged me for most of last year, even if I only had myself to blame) — so, if you’ve not seen Miracle on 34th Street, do try to remember it come this year’s festivities — I believe they begin in about six months, knowing shops these days — because it’s worth a watch.

Iron Eagle (1986)

Posted on January 13, 2011 by badblokebob

2010 #122
Sidney J. Furie | 112 mins | TV | 15 / PG-13

You know how sometimes you see a bit of a movie on TV and you end up watching just long enough to get caught up so much you’re in for the long haul, no matter what the quality? No? Maybe it’s just me (usually around this time of year, it seems). Iron Eagle is, naturally, my latest example of this phenomena.

Quite what drew me to Iron Eagle I’m not sure. Perhaps it was seeing a young David Suchet. Perhaps it was the ludicrous ease with which a bunch of teenagers pilfered a variety of highly sensitive materials from an airforce base in the sequence I happened to catch upon ending a recording I’d been watching. Whatever it was, after being suckered for ten minutes I had to rewind and give it a full go. (Sadly my digibox’s rewind didn’t quite get back to the beginning of the film, but I don’t think it’s likely to change my opinion.)

The whole of Iron Eagle is like the sequence I mentioned: daft and implausible. The plot, for those unaware of the film (which included me), is that an American pilot is captured by Qatar due to flying into their airspace, even though he was hundreds of miles outside it. When he’s sentenced to execution and the US Government refuses to do anything practical to get him back, his teenage son — who he’s been illicitly teaching to fly fighter jets — resolves to steal one and go get his dad. Hells yeah! Or something.

Like I said, daft and implausible. And that isn’t necessarily a problem, but as you watch Iron Eagle you can’t help but wonder if the filmmakers are trying to convince viewers it could be plausible. And it isn’t. Not in the slightest.

Suchet would make an excellent villain — the role he’s cast in — but he’s criminally underused. He’s even dispatched out of hand at the end. None of the other performances are really worth noting. Jason Gedrick, as the son, may look the part — in an ’80s kinda way — of the kid who’s actually a hot-shot pilot, but his acting chops are choppy. He went on to be in Boomtown, incidentally, a much underrated cop show that I really rather liked. I don’t really recall him in it.

Talking of Other Things People Have Done, did you recognise the director’s name? Furie helmed not only the risible Superman IV (I’m not sure I’ve seen all of that, but I’ve seen enough to know it’s risible) and… The Ipcress File. The Ipcress File! I’ve not seen that either, but I think we all know this is a serious step down. Poor man. His career went on to include Iron Eagle II and the direct-to-video Iron Eagle IV. Yes, there are four of them, and apparently they’re even worse and not in keeping with the spirit of this first. Poor man.

On the bright side, the son likes to listen to music while flying his fighter jet (as you can see, the plausibility just goes on and on), one of his choice tracks being Queen’s One Vision. Anything featuring a Queen song multiple times can’t be all bad.

Odd Man Out (1947)

Posted on January 11, 2011 by badblokebob

2010 #115
Carol Reed | 111 mins | TV | PG

It may be a bit of a cop out to begin a review by pointing you to another, but I must recommend Colin’s heartfelt appreciation at Ride the High Country. It certainly inspired me to watch the film, which had been sat on my V+ box for over a year. As you’re going to read that (assuming you haven’t already), I’ll just offer a couple of observations I jotted down.

The consciously episodic story, screenwritten by R.C. Sherriff, author of the exceptional World War One play Journey’s End, presents us with an array of characters. James Mason is ostensibly the star, but he spends much of the film in a daze, drifting from group to group. And that’s fine — it leaves the way open for other characters to shine. For instance I liked the driver, Pat, played by Cyril Cusack. My notes don’t say why, but I thought his character was rather good — not a good guy, perhaps, but a good character. The real star, if anyone, is Kathleen played by Kathleen Ryan, who comes into her own during the film’s final act and its conclusion. I’d throw an adjective in front of “conclusion”, but perhaps you should discover it for yourself.

This episodic structure does make for some lengthy, perhaps even borderline dull, asides. I could do without F.J. McCormick’s Shell and, especially, Robert Newton’s Lukey. (You’ll also note Newton’s performance is criticised in Colin’s piece so, in aid of not sounding like I’m too easily influenced, I’d like to point out I didn’t make the connection between his comments and my own notes on Newton until afterwards.) Shell and Lukey have a bit of a point in the end, but I didn’t enjoy getting through them in comparison to the rest of the film.

What the structure really facilitates is the depiction of a cross-section of Northern Irish life, and particularly their reaction to “the organisation” — it doesn’t take a genius to guess what that means. As the opening scroll said, this is indeed concerned “only with the conflict in the hearts of the people when they become unexpectedly involved”, but by leaving out detail of the politically contentious background to the unrest, it perhaps robs the characters’ indecision of any basis. All bar a couple of exceptions fall into the “don’t want to pick a side, don’t want to get involved” camp, foisting Johnny out of anything to do with them ASAP, but at least it suggests such a view was widespread across people of all backgrounds.

The score, by William Alwyn, is really nice, particularly in certain places — for example when it begins to snow and Johnny wanders the streets, or at its most effective during the haunting climax, as Kathleen hauls a near-dead Johnny through the falling snow towards the safety of the shipyard as the police finally close in.

My notes also say “discuss the use of the kids? And Johnny’s visions?” I’m afraid to say I forget why. Comments on these elements are welcomed.

I hesitate to make a comparison between Odd Man Out and The Third Man, director Carol Reed’s more famous film noir, because I’ve not seen the latter for far too long; but I imagine this holds its own, because it’s certainly an engaging and suitably unusual entry in the genre.

100Films.co.uk

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

Author Archives: badblokebob