April 2013 + 5 Worst Superhero Movies

Yes yes yes, it’s May, it’s the summer, it’s exciting. But before all that, let’s take a little peek at how 100 Films’ seventh year fared in April…


What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

It was bound to happen eventually: I didn’t see a WDYMYHS film this month. It just never panned out, especially over the last few days. The aim is to watch one in the early days of May to make up for it, and then of course another later.

So moving on:


April’s films

Ted#38a Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone: Extended Version (2001/2004)
#39 The Last Boy Scout (1991)
#40 Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, aka 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
#40a Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Extended Version (2002/2005)Harry Potter x4
#41 The Dinosaur Project (2012)
#42 Ted (2012)
#42a Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
#43 Man on a Ledge (2012)
#43a Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)


Analysis

A slow month this one, as you can see, though with five brand-new films watched (alongside four already-seen Harry Potters), it’s far from my worst ever. And that’s with the first week given over to Game of Thrones season two, too. And it’s not even my worst April: 2010 only had three films. Plus, ending at 43, I’m marginally ahead of this time in 2010 and 2012, only a little behind 2007 and 2011, and at double (or more) where I was in 2008 and 2009. Also, as April is precisely one-third through the year, the target number is 33, and I’m well ahead of that.

As you may have guessed, I’ve mounted a re-watch of the Harry Potter series, one every Sunday. This was started almost on a whim, but rather neatly I’ll be watching one on every Sunday in April and May (if it continues to plan). As I’ve never reviewed the first four, I’ll be covering them with full-ish reviews (the first two definitely count as extended cuts anyway, and those pieces are already up — see above); and for the sake of completeness, I’ll attempt some kind of overview on the final four too.


5 Worst Superhero Movies

Inspired by Fantastic Four 2… which then wasn’t that bad so didn’t make its own list. There are too many awful alternatives.

I was going to go with “comic book movies”, but then you really have to broaden the remit. I imagine the results are more or less the same anyway. As ever, there’s the caveat that I haven’t seen loads of films, so these are the worst I’ve seen (so no Catwoman, The Spirit, never-released Fantastic Four, etc).

  1. Superhero Movie
    Superhero MovieYou might have expected Batman & Robin to top this list. It would be a fair choice. But, believe it or not, it actually has some redeeming features. Not many, but some. This woefully unimaginative spoof has none whatsoever. I’m not even sure it had any laughs. OK, it might not be a ‘real’ superhero movie… but then again, look at the title. It counts.
  2. Batman & Robin
    Batman and RobinThese days, it’s difficult to imagine Hollywood managing to kill off a franchise they didn’t want to. Even those which are consistently a bit rubbish. I imagine this is where they learnt their lesson, turning a reliable cash cow into a despised monstrosity. How the genre got back on its feet just a few years later (and grew stronger than ever) is a minor miracle.
  3. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
    The League of Extraordinary GentlemenI really wanted to like this — a great concept, based on a great comic, with great people involved in the film — and on its release, I convinced myself I did. But it’s a bit of a mess really, isn’t it; and the needs of being a PG-13 blockbuster wrecked a lot of the comic’s best ideas. Shame. (It has left me always abbreviating the comic’s title as LXG too, though.)
  4. The Punisher (1989)
    The PunisherI don’t actually know that much about the Punisher, but I don’t believe this is a very good rendition of the comic (where’s the skull emblem?!). And even if it is, it isn’t a very good film. I’ve largely wiped it from my memory, but I recall it being the twin sins of boring and amateurishly made. The two ’00s movies starring the character didn’t go down well, but I can’t imagine they’re worse.
  5. Elektra
    ElektraA lot of people didn’t like Daredevil. I did. It has flaws, certainly, but it got a lot right. Nonetheless, I had no particular hopes for this spin-off featuring a fan-favourite character who had been mediocrely rendered on screen first time out (and not recast). Low expectations were good, because it’s a mess that doesn’t deliver in any notable respect.

And one I do like…

    Mystery Men
    Mystery MenThere are many great superhero movies, but this is an undervalued one. Coming in the genre’s quiet period, between the death of the Batman franchise and the rebirth afforded by X-Men, I think this all-star comedy would fare better today. That said, I’ve not seen it for years, and sometimes comedy dates badly, so maybe I should’ve re-watched before putting it here… But I definitely did love it.

There are plenty more films that deserve a place on this list — what should I have made room for?


Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

Can I post more reviews?!

Can I watch two WDYMYHS films?!

Can I reach the month’s aim: #41?!

…which I’ve already passed. Tension, deflated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 out of 5

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

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

aka Harry Potter and the Bastardised American Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 out of 5

Tomorrow, I open the Chamber of Secrets

Back Bill!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

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

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

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

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

March 2013 + 5 Favourite Fantasy Films

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


What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

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

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

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


March’s films in full

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


Analysis

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

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

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


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

Five Favourite Fantasy Films

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

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

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

And one I don’t like…

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

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

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


Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

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

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

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

2013 #31
John Milius | 125 mins* | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Conan the BarbarianMost films have a reputation of one kind or another, even if it’s only in certain circles and you have to go searching to find it. I suppose Conan’s is best summed up by its status on iCheckMovies: it appears on one official list, the 500 Essential Cult Movies; a list of films so cult-y, I’ve only seen 98 of them. So it’s not a film of great critical acclaim, or box office success; heck, it’s not even on the Empire 500, which surprised me because I’d always thought it was fairly popular — I mean, they bothered to remake it!

You may recall I didn’t care for the remake. Nothing new in that. Unfortunately, I didn’t much care for the original either.

Actually, that’s a mite unfair. I watched the film in two halves, and while the first almost bored me (to be blunt, I fell asleep halfway through; though it wasn’t wholly the film’s fault), the second was more entertaining. The first is episodic, a series of near-disconnected sequences telling Conan’s life story. Towards the middle, the last few of these coalesce into a series of events that drive the film into a proper narrative, which takes us through to the end.

John Milius, directing and co-writing (with, of all people, Oliver Stone), chooses to play much of the film with very little dialogue. It’s a striking effect that often pays off, both creating a sense of an epic story passed down the ages (how often, if someone tells you a tale from myth or legend, is there dialogue?), and minimising the potentially negative effects of his cast. For all his skill as an action man, Arnie is hardly a great actor. Conan and FriendsThe guy doing the voiceover narration is godawful though, and there’s far too much of him. It’s never made clear why he’s the one telling the story either, unless I missed it.

Telling the story visually allows Milius to conjure up some fantastic visuals on occasion. The murder of Conan’s mother is a particularly striking moment, as is the way Conan is aged from preteen moppet to muscly Arnie mere minutes later. A giant temple teeming with disciples offers multiple instances for impressive shots, the huge set and numerous extras creating a sense of scale that CGI will never match. Then there are the action sequences, again somehow heightened without people yelling meaningless nothings at each other. Conan and friends raiding the temple to rescue the princess, and the subsequent graveyard battle, are two particular standouts.

In places the film has aged badly. It looks more ’70s than ’80s, which considering it’s from the start of the decade shouldn’t be a surprise. Not that that’s a problem, just an observation, albeit one that perhaps emphasises age. Much of it looks good, but for every expertly-realised giant snake there’s the two villainous henchman who look like Spinal Tap rejects.

Darth Vader and Spinal Tap

Most of the film is actually a well-realised fantasy landscape (shot in Spain, which I think helps — America always somehow looks like America on screen, whether it’s doubling for a fantasy world or an alien planet or even just another country), but those two kicked me out of it every time they showed up.

My initial assessment of Conan was possibly a bit harsh, born of finding the first half of the film a struggle. The second half, while not perfect, has much more to commend it. The film ends with a “there’s much more story to be told” epilogue (even though the film tells a complete tale in itself — take note, present franchise filmmakers!), which does lead me to want to see the sequel, even if those who love even this hate it. We’ll (and by that obviously I mean “I’ll”) see.

3 out of 5

* There are goodness-knows-how-many different versions of Conan. I watched one of them. (I think it was fairly uncut though). ^

Meet the Parents (2000)

2013 #29
Jay Roach | 103 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Meet the ParentsTime flies: this is 13 years old! Originally a Jim Carrey vehicle (feels obvious once you know), Ben Stiller is the prospective son-in-law meeting Teri Polo’s parents (Robert De Niro, Blythe Danner) for the first time. Disaster ensues in a riot of unfortunate events targeting our hapless hero.

Some may find it too cruel, but there’s a requisite soppy ending… though I can’t be alone wishing Stiller abandoned Polo and her awkward family. De Niro almost steals the film as the over-protective father; the (in)famous lie detector scene is fine, but a Ronin-spoofing traffic-light-halted car race is the real highlight.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

The Raven (2012)

2013 #30
James McTeigue | 106 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA, Hungary & Spain / English | 15 / R

The RavenJohn Cusack stars as literary giant (figuratively) Edgar Allan Poe in this wannabe-Victorian-Se7en from the director of V for Vendetta.

Set in the days leading up to Poe’s death (a period in the author’s life which is apparently shrouded in mystery), the film sees a serial killer recreating horrendous scenes from Poe’s tales, leading the police to rope in the author in the hope he can help solve the case. A game develops between the killer and the writer, as they race against time to stop more deaths and all that palaver.

Dark and gruesome with the killer having a clear line to follow in his murders? Wannabe Se7en, see. Unfortunately, it doesn’t follow up on that notion too well. Screenwriters Hannah Shakespeare (helluva name to live up to) and Ben Livingston don’t seem to know what to do with Poe’s tales, so there’s no rhyme nor reason to the killings — they’re plucked at random, possibly from the killer’s most favouritest stories, possibly just the ones someone thought would be the most cinematic. And whereas Se7en’s gore is shocking because it’s used sparingly, is kind of plausible, and is set very much in the real world, here we get a kind of gothic horror feel, complete with copious CGI blood at points.

That said, I got the feeling that The Raven is sort of an R by default. (Note that it received a 15 over here, which is also the stomping ground of harder-edged PG-13s.) There’s gore and the odd swear word, but none of it is lingered on. Most of the obvious blood ‘n’ guts is constrained to one scene, and I believe I counted the PG-13’s requisite single use of the F-word. Holmes and Watson...That they didn’t tone it all down just a smidge to match, and so go for the box office-friendly PG-13, is a surprise in these days.

Setting aside comparisons to Fincher’s masterpiece, I’ve read that one critic described The Raven as “Saw meets Sherlock Holmes”. Obviously I maintain that my allusion is better, but I can see where they’re coming from. However, apart from one murder inspired by The Pit and the Pendulum and someone being (temporarily) buried alive, it’s not that Saw-like; and it lacks the humour or action of Ritchie’s Holmes, or the deductive reasoning of any version. But, y’know, aside from that… Additionally, the climax is somewhat reminiscent of A Study in Pink. Might be coincidence, but on the other hand that episode did go out nearly two years before this was released…

I don’t know how historically accurate this tale is, but I imagine not very — I expect we’d know if Poe had been involved in a headline-making murder investigation that led to his death. But that’s fine — it’s the embodiment of the notion that a fiction film is an entertainment, not a history lesson. As for the author’s characterisation, I don’t know much about Poe, but can’t imagine Cusack is an accurate interpretation. He’s solid as this interpretation, though: a charming, roguish figure, living hand-to-mouth through his fondness for alcohol and dramatic wooing of a woman whose father hates him.

A right pair of BritsThe rest of the cast are from Hollywood’s usual go-to for period tales: Brits; if not entirely then mostly so. (The film was shot in Hungary and Serbia, so I suppose our thesps have the additional advantage of being geographically favourable to Americans.) You know you’re getting a level of quality there, then, though for me Kevin R. McNally lets the side down (again). He’s only a supporting character and is fine most of the time, but there’s one bit when he’s talking to the lead detective and just rattles off his line… It’s not the world’s greatest speech, but you can hear there was meant to be more nuance and quiet in there.

That could be the fault of the director, of course. A first assistant director for the Wachowskis in the days of The Matrix trilogy, James McTeigue graduated to feature directing with the adaptation of V for Vendetta, which I think is a very good film. He followed it with Ninja Assassin, which by all accounts is dreadful (I have, by one way or another, wound up with the BD, so someday I’ll find out). I think The Raven suggests his first film may have been fluke, or was at least aided by his mentors (who were also writers and producers on V). The actual direction-y directing here is mostly fine, although on the whole the film is too dark; sometimes literally too dark to see what’s going on, and that’s not aided by occasionally clunky editing.

I’ve not even mentioned the inappropriately modern title sequence (doubly bad as it comes after a rather sombre ending), or that the neat use of a raven in the film’s logo on the poster remains the entire project’s strongest aspect.

Bad review?Se7en is probably my favourite film ever made, but criticisms that it’s quite a standard detective mystery are not invalid. It’s enlivened by Andrew Kevin Walker’s writing (great dialogue, engrossing structure, etc), some top-drawer performances (Freeman, Pitt, a loopy-calm Spacey), and, probably most of all, David Fincher’s inestimable touch. In making such a comparison it’s easy to see that The Raven lacks any of these, which renders it a solid period mystery, but no more.

3 out of 5

The Raven is on Sky Movies Premiere at various times this week.

Garfield (2004)

2013 #25
Pete Hewitt | 77 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA / English | U / PG

GarfieldBill Murray presumably needed some money, otherwise why else voice the titular food-loving sort-of-fourth-wall-breaking moggy in this juvenile adaptation of the long-running newspaper strip? Offering little in the way of laughs, the film’s main success is the cute (real) dog who co-stars as Garfield’s competriot, Odie. The real wonder is how they got him to interact with the CGI cat. Elsewhere, animals are live-action with CG mouths, giving an unsettled presentation of the film’s four-legged characters. Meanwhile, humans Breckin Meyer and Jennifer Love Hewitt engage in a charmless romantic subplot. Oddly, one for dog lovers (with fast-forward to hand) only.

2 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.