Gary Sinyor | 91 mins | TV | 4:3 | UK & India / English | 15 / R
Spoof of British ‘Heritage’ films and TV series, particularly the work of Merchant Ivory. It was probably a bit belated: released in 1998, you’ll note most targets are from the ’80s. It only even made it to TV recently (I watched on Radio Times’ recommendation). Specific targets include Brideshead Revisited and A Room with a View, with individual sequences riffing off the likes of Chariots of Fire and Orlando.
A mite sex obsessed — though, arguably, that’s only highlighting the original works’ undertones, so in that respect makes fair mockery. At worst, however, it feels like American Pie in period dress.
In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post some ‘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.
(described by no less than Terry Pratchett as “the funniest science fiction book ever written”), and he’s trying to fund it through 
What’s on offer varies from project to project, of course. In 
Kurt 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.
Of 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.)
I 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.
A 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.
This 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 
If 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 
Quite 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.
Ridley Scott’s not-an-
And then, to top it off, it doesn’t have a real ending! They may as well slap “to be continued” on screen, such is the obvious lack of conclusion. It’s immensely frustrating, only to be topped off with a “in case we don’t get the sequel” bit of connective tissue to the Alien series. Mysteries and unanswered questions aren’t a problem in and of themselves — there are plenty in Prometheus’ franchise forbears, 
No character is fully developed. Some barely register, suggesting too big a cast, while others suffer from being plain stupid, or doing inexplicably stupid things, or just piss-poor acting. There’s some thing made about Shaw (Noomi Rapace) being religious or a true believer or something, but it’s not properly explained and doesn’t go anywhere. David (Michael Fassbender) and the way he’s treated by the other characters are both very interesting areas, and clearly of huge thematic resonance, but he acts inconsistently for no obvious reason, and despite the horrendous things he does to Shaw at one point, she just gets on with him again in the next scene, and… well, that’s far from being the film’s only plot hole or inconsistency.
The daft thing is, I think a lot of people would’ve been happy if it had chosen to just go all-out as a schlocky alien horror movie. That’s what Alien is: an exceptionally well-made haunted house movie in space. There’s no shame in that (well, maybe in cinéaste circles, but pish.) But that’s not where Prometheus pitches itself. There’s too much other stuff for it to be just that; stuff that’s apparently aiming to be Profound. So when the horror does turn up, it doesn’t belong.
Prometheus is a funny old beast, then. There’s lots of good stuff in there, but also lots of baffling decisions and confusing shifts of tone, emphasis, style… Considering it was made by an experienced master-filmmaker, who was presumably granted all the time, freedom and money he wanted to craft the film he desired, it’s baffling how it ended up feeling like such a hodge-podge. Many fans have blamed Lindelof, brought in late on to re-write the screenplay; but considering Scott ruined 
Most 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 
The 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.
Time 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.
John Cusack stars as literary giant (figuratively) Edgar Allan Poe in this wannabe-Victorian-
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.
The 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.
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.
Bill 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.
Batman movies have a habit of provoking strong reactions. 
One of the main reasons the film succeeds is that look back at Bruce Wayne’s early days as a crime fighter. Batman’s origin is oft told — too oft, truth be told — but they thankfully don’t rehash it here. Instead, early in Batman’s career Bruce falls in love and finds happiness, causing him to question whether to continue down the path he’s already dedicated his life to. The scene where he talks to his parents’ grave, expressing his guilt at potentially finding happiness after so much mourning, is one of the most powerful, emotional moments in all of Batman’s many iterations.
But instead of falling in some nasty halfway-house, Phantasm turns up trumps on all fronts.
100Films.co.uk 