As last Monday I reviewed the latest Marvel movie, Iron Man 3, let’s this week turn our attention to the latest Marvel shorts: Item 47, released on Blu-ray a year ago this week; and Agent Carter, out on Blu-ray this month.
I’m sure you can guess which is which of these links:
August is over, meaning summer is too. If you’re the kind of person who hates it when the nights draw in and the days get colder… booyahsucks! You’ve just had a heatwave-lashed summer — it’s my turn now!
Ahem, anyway — let’s talk films:
What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?
After failing last month, I kicked off August with a WDYMYHS film, in a concerted effort to catch up the two I’m behind. That film was Bicycle Thieves, once voted Sight & Sound’s greatest film of all time. Also one of just three foreign films on the list, for whatever that’s worth. Unfortunately, that was where my viewing wrapped up this month, meaning I’m still two behind. Must try harder.
I did post the first WDYMYHS-related review, however: January’s contribution to the challenge, City Lights.
#63 Bicycle Thieves, aka Ladri di biciclette (1948)
#64 Immortals (2011)
#65 The Falcon and the Co-eds (1943)
#66 Sharknado (2013)
#67 Side by Side (2012)
#68 The Imposter (2012)
#69 Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunter (Extended Cut) (2013)
#70 Jack Reacher (2012)
#71 The Falcon Out West (1944)
I always illustrate the above list with the poster(s) of my favourite film(s) from the month’s viewing (if you’ve not noticed that before, knock yourself out going over my old progress reports). This month, much to my surprise, it is indeed Jack Reacher. And you know what else was fun? Hansel & Gretel. It’s a month full of surprises!
Watching 100 films in a year means getting through 8⅓ of the things every month, so, with a total of 9, this August is practically a model student. It’s certainly a marked improvement on the meagre four I managed in both June and July. However, it’s the fourth month this year not to crack double figures, and is down on last August’s tally of 12. Those were all short Saint and Falcon films, though, so in running-time terms I’m probably tied.
Closing out the month at #71 makes this my weakest year-to-date since 2009. Back then I’d only made it to #44, so by comparison I’m flying. Although this means I’m behind a year that I failed to make it to 100 (last year, when August ended at #73), I’m also ahead of one where I did: 2008, when I’d only reached #59. The target for August is #66, so I’m five ahead really. Hope is most certainly not lost then, especially with a third of the year still to go. It’s not as if I don’t have plenty of DVDs, Blu-rays, recorded and downloaded films to watch. Plus I’m currently enjoying NOW TV’s 30-day free movies trial. Might write a dedicated post on that service sometime soon.
And as if that wasn’t enough choice…
The nights are drawing in; the good telly’s starting up; the kids are off back to school this week — yes, the summer’s over. What’s on in cinemas is the other sign of this, of course; but as this is a film blog, that’s the point I was building to. I think the only major ‘summer blockbuster’-y movie left is Riddick, and as I won’t be seeing that I can officially confirm I’ve not been to the cinema once this season. That’s partly personal laziness/apathy; partly that whenever I begin to seriously consider making the effort, something conspires against it. Hey-ho.
The flip side is that, for me, the summer movie season is about to begin! That should help with the aforementioned final tally. Thanks to studios’ (wannabe-)piracy-beating speed when it comes to getting films onto disc these days, Star Trek Into Darkness should be with me tomorrow, and Iron Man 3 a week later. Even though Man of Steel is going to take until the start of December to get here, I hope my other summer most-want-to-sees (The Wolverine, Kick-Ass 2, etc) aren’t quite so tardy… but if they are, well, I’ll just wait, won’t I.
One final quick note before the top five bit: early in August I finally updated the header images on most of the blog’s main pages. I posted a post about it, but as I flagged it an “aside” it only went out to those who get emails. I thought I’d just mention them again, then, because I do rather like ’em. You can read a little more here.
5 Adaptations That Changed the Book’s Title
Inspired by the film adaptation of Lee Child’s One Shot morphing into Jack Reacher, I thought I’d do a quick run-down of five other notable or lesser-known movies that changed their source’s title. Why? Who can say…
In researching this list I was surprised to discover a few films I didn’t know were adaptations. That might be a good list for another time, though that list, and this one, could be almost entirely filled by a single franchise: Die Hard. While the first film is based on Nothing Lasts Forever, to one degree or another, the second takes its title and basic concept from 58 Minutes; the third was based on a spec script called Simon Says, which also nearly became Lethal Weapon 4; and the fourth on an article called A Farewell to Arms. Only the fifth seems to be inspiration-less — which is a pretty accurate description based on what I’ve heard…
As evocative as the title of Philip K. Dick’s novel is, someone clearly wanted something punchier, to the extent they purchased an entire screenplay just to get their hands on its title: Blade Runner. The second Dick adaptation also underwent a title change, from the equally unwieldy We Can Remember It For You Wholesale to the equally snappy Total Recall. More recent films (Minority Report, Paycheck, A Scanner Darkly, The Adjustment Bureau) have been more faithful… titularly, at least.
Just as prone to retitling as Dick is Stephen King. Oh sure, there’s Carrie and The Shining and, y’know, all the rest; but there are at least two notable exceptions, and the first is The Body, adapted as Stand By Me — altogether more wholesome, no? The story comes from King’s Different Seasons, a collection of four stories that has been ¾ adapted: the other two are Apt Pupil, filmed as Apt Pupil; and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, which underwent a less drastic title change. I can only presume the fourth story isn’t much cop.
Aww, a nice novel about some birds! What a pleasant motion picture that would make; no doubt in the vein of Springwatch, but fictional and cinematic. But no, dear reader, no! That’s not the style of the author of The Day of the Triffids, is it? And so to make sure you knew you were watching a sci-fi horror thingamie, the retitling bods gave us Village of the Damned. They’re damned! Damned! Etc. And in the ’90s, horror maestro John Carpenter did it again with a remake. Almost weirder than that, a quick look on Amazon suggests no tie-in edition of the novel with the new title, ever. Which I guess is a good thing.
“But there is a film called I Am Legend,” I hear you cry. And so there is — now. But before 2007, Richard Matheson’s exceptional post-apocalyptic vampire/zombie novel was filmed twice: once in 1964 as The Last Man on Earth, and again in 1971 as The Omega Man. I guess that’s the snappy title brigade at work again. Presumably the Will Smith-starring version stuck to source to convey some kind of weight, while the film itself titted about with all kinds of over-CG’d action movie nonsense.There are so many to choose from, I feel I could run this list again next month. I even have more than one option worthy of the closing “opposite” segment, which this month is (of course) a film that notably didn’t change its title…
Despite having one of the most glaringly French titles ever committed to paper or celluloid, Les Misérables has been adapted multiple times — but always as Les Misérables. It’s the lack of a solid English translation that does for it — even Google Translate won’t bother converting it. Now it’s just a brand in its own right, and no doubt we’re all saying it totally wrong… which is probably why everyone just calls it “Les Mis”. (Or if you’re American, “Les Miz”; because if you miss something you’d say you mis it, right?)As I mentioned, there are copious examples of this kind of palaver I’ve left out. Please do share any personal favourites — or grievances — in the comments below. For instance, I’ve never seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory because I loved the book as a child and the retitling has always rubbed me up the wrong way.
Next month on 100 Films in a Year…
is September.
Look, up there! It’s a pretty new header image! Look at the blues and the lights and the… other stuff… I mean, there’s a lot going on. It’s pretty, right? Well, I like it. I hope you do too, naturally.
I’ve been meaning to replace the plain logo-on-white since I got this WordPress. Really, I just put it there as a temporary measure, and because I had no good ideas I just left it. Fastforward two years or whatever it’s been, and I’ve finally pulled my finger out. My original plan had been to do a thumbnail-montage, like what I had atop my old blog, but I think this is less cluttered.
At the same time, I’ve finally added header (aka featured, aka banner) images to my “list of reviews” and “reviews by director” pages. Both are pretty self explanatory, though note the selection process for the latter is not arbitrary: those are 20 of my most-reviewed directors (a mass tie for 13th meant there were 24 to choose from, so four 13th-ers had to be dropped). Can you identify them all? I’ll tell you for nothing: I couldn’t if I hadn’t Googled them to find the pictures.
For all this new prettiness, there’s still no picture on the “coming soon” page, however. Obviously that changes frequently and I have no desire to be updating the image every damn time I see a film, so I won’t be doing any kind of titles-based thumbnail-thing there. Other than that, all suggestions welcome!
Let’s get straight into it this month…
July’s films
#59 A Field in England (2013)
#60 The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult (1994)
#61 The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976/1978)
#61a Akira (1988)
#62 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
The second half of Wimbledon and tireless preparations for the exacting standards of a single-night guest put paid to film-watching for the first week of July (including the innovative multi-format premiere of A Field of England on 5th July, missing which provoked a reaction in me that begins with π and ends with -ssed off… though I did catch up with it soon after). Of course, that left three weeks to make up for it…
Except on the weekend of one of those weeks, my sister was getting married, which somehow turned into a near-week-long exercise in travelling and doing family stuff. Of course, that left two weeks to make up for it…
Except on returning from said wedding I went down with a cold so nasty it left me uninspired when it came to watching films, especially those that required my critical faculties to be, if not firing, then at least present. It’s still lingering now, actually.
Which means July ended up being, effectively, a week. (Well, maybe 10 days.) Bearing that in mind, I’m less downhearted that I only managed four films — I mean, that’s the same as last month, and I didn’t even have any excuses then. Plus I re-watched and will review Akira, so on that basis July still wins. Hurrah.
Keen-eyed regulars will have noticed the omission of the What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen section, and even-keener-eyed ones will have noticed no film from that list on this month’s viewing. Sadly, yes, I missed it again — see above for my excuses. That puts me two behind now, after also missing April. Still, there are five months left yet, so we’ll see.
In historical context, this month’s total of four is the same as in 2008 and 2011; in 2009 July was my worst month ever: the only time I’ve not watched a single film all month. The overall total of 62 puts me one ahead of last year, but well behind the low 70s of 2007, 2010 and 2011 — three of the four years I’ve reached 100. Oh dear. On the bright side, I also reached 100 in 2008, and I’d only made it to #49 by the end of that July. On the other hand, I did have to watch an exceptionally-high 19 films that December to even scrape through, so…
Nice to end on a cheery note, eh.
5 Directors Whose Films I’ve Never Seen
As this month marks the first time I’ve seen films directed by John Cassavetes and Ben Wheatley (separately, obv.), and as I noticed back in May that there seem to be an uncommonly high number of new-to-me important directors this year, I thought I’d take a look at some of the other significant or surprising helmers that I’ve not seen a single movie from.
This was done with the help of lists at They Shoot Picture’s, Don’t They? — both their old rated list and the current Top 250 Directors. Rather than just take the first five, however, I weeded them out on dual provisos of, a) subjective importance (i.e. ones I’d never actually heard of got dropped), and b) subjective obscurity (i.e. what were the realistic chances I’d have seen one of their films). That’s why, despite ‘only’ scoring 8 out of 10 and ‘only’ coming 32nd on the Top 250, my #1 on this list is…
Winner of the highest number of Oscars for Best Foreign Language Film (five), the Italian writer-director is “one of the most influential filmmakers of the 20th century”. He’s the only member of TSPDT’s Top 250’s top 10 (at #4) that I’ve not seen anything by. Significant gaps in my viewing include La dolce vita and 8½.
One of the founders of the French Nouvelle Vague (alongside the likes of Jean-Luc Godard, who I have seen films by), Truffaut is still probably best known for his first film, The 400 Blows; or to a different audience for ’60s sci-fi adaptation Fahrenheit 451. Other significant oversights include Jules et Jim and Day for Night.
Though only at #52 on TSPDT’s Top 250 (there are 11 above him I’ve not mentioned), there’s no denying the notoriety of Herzog, the man who once got shot while being interviewed by Mark Kermode, amongst other bizarre anecdotes. Key works include Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Fitzcarraldo, and Grizzly Man — and, unlike any of the others, he’s still going!And one TSPDT regards with snobbery…
The theatrically-inclined Australian scores just 3 on TSPDT’s ranking, their lowest awarded mark. Only five others suffer this ignominy, and the only one I’ve heard of is Ed Wood. According to TSPDT, none of Luhrmann’s films are Highly Recommended, Recommended, or even Worth a Look. The best he can hope for is Strictly Ballroom being classed “Approach with Caution”. I’ve heard some Shakespearean scholars deem his 1996 Romeo + Juliet possibly the definitive screen interpretation of one of the Bard’s most famous plays, but TSPDT reckon it’s a “dud”. So too Moulin Rouge… which they then have to acknowledge (grudgingly, I imagine) is on their own list of the 21st Century’s Most Acclaimed Films (at #60 of 250 too, which isn’t bad).
Mr. Luhrmann has no real connection to the top five up there — I’ve seen some of his films; I’ve not seen all of them, which would’ve been a point of contrast — but his besmirchment caught my attention.
Which notable directors are missing from your own viewing experience? Or perhaps there are some you’ve managed to thankfully avoid? Mine would’ve been Uwe Boll… oh, would’ve been…
Next month on 100 Films in a Year…
After the typically quieter J-months, August often sees a surge in my viewing. Fingers crossed for one this year too, as despite being ahead of goal (that’d be 58) I’m clearly off-pace to reach 100…
The Large Association of Movie Blogs — who have the eternally witty URL www.LargeAssMovieBlogs.com, but are more commonly known as the LAMB — kindly entered me into their ranks earlier this week.
I am LAMB #1635, meaning I now have around 1,634 other friendly film blogs to go and check out. With my can-do attitude and ceaseless devotion to getting things done, I’m sure that will happen forthwith. (Shh, don’t tell them the truth, regular readers!)
If you don’t know about the LAMB, they have a handy-dandy FAQ here. You can read my application/introduction/whatever here.
Right, I ought to go ingratiate myself in some other way(s). Or I could just sit in the corner coughing my throat raw while my nose significantly bolsters Kleenex’s yearly profits, like I have been all week. Yeah, it’s gonna be that one.
(Incidentally, for those not versed in the wonders of three-years-old British early-evening telly, the title of this post is a reference.)
It’s June! It’s the halfway point of the calendar year! What a good time to assess a year-long task, eh?
But first…
I can now unveil a major new undertaking (for me): the complete 100 Films review database, sorted by director.
Creating this page involved taking nearly 800 reviews from their title-sorted 28 categories on the existing list, looking up the director for each film, then re-sorting them into a new list that eventually came to include 537 categories (that being one per represented director, of course). It’s taken over four months of work (on and off), but it’s finally here — and is perfectly easy to update going forward, thank goodness.
I have no idea if this is of use to anyone. Probably not. But it’s a slightly interesting, different way of looking at my review archive. For instance, compiling it threw up some odd things, such as James Hill. Who, you may ask? Indeed it’s no surprise I hadn’t noticed I’d watched two films directed by him. More interesting was what they were: lovely family animal movie Born Free, and Hammer-esque Sherlock Holmes vs Jack the Ripper thriller A Study in Terror! He also directed Lunch Hour, part of the BFI Flipside strand, so he may one day acquire a third entry. That’s more than some incredibly well-known directors have.
Anyway, if you want to have a peruse and somehow missed the links above and the one in the menu, it’s here.
What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?
Statistically speaking, my selection for WDYMYHS threw up a few interesting ratios. For instance, exactly half the films hail from the 1950s; there are 9 in black & white vs. 3 in colour; and also 9 in English vs. 3 in foreign languages (French, Japanese, Swedish); and 5 on DVD vs. 7 on Blu-ray.
Having so far watched a third of the films, it’s got to the point where I can see what needs to be done to keep these numbers roughly in proportion. So, if I wanted to do such a thing, I came to the conclusion that I needed to watch a 1950s black & white English-language film on Blu-ray. That left two options: The Night of the Hunter or Touch of Evil. And this month I watched…
Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil.
No particular reason for choosing one over the other, although during the time I was pondering this the BFI announced their exciting Gothic season, the trailer for which included a clip from Night of the Hunter, which led to the thought that I might put it off until such a time as it coincides with whatever the BFI are up to. But we’ll see.
Those familiar with Evil’s multiple versions (there are five included on Masters of Cinema’s Blu-ray release) may like to know that I watched the Reconstructed Version in 1.37:1, as recommended here.
#55 The Bourne Legacy (2012)
#56 The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
#57 The Hitch-Hiker (1953)
#58 Touch of Evil: Reconstructed Version (1958/1998)
I talked last month about the shape of this year’s viewing emulating most previous years, and that continues in June, a month which has never seen my viewing reach double figures. Nonetheless, this year’s four is the poorest on record (behind last year’s five).
More interesting, however, is what it might tell us about the year as a whole. It’s exactly half way, after all, giving enough time to settle down from the exuberance of the year’s first three months and paint a picture of how I’m getting on this year. At 58, I’d call it “not bad”. Clearly I’m well over the halfway mark, and ahead of this point in 2008, 2009 and 2012 to boot… though as I failed to make 100 in two of those years, and only scraped it with a mad dash in the other, such facts aren’t that comforting.
What about June as an indicator of my final tally? It’s not that hot, to be honest, showing just how erratic my viewing can be across the year. It was closest (or I was most consistent) last year, when I reached 51 by June, giving a ‘prediction’ of 102, and I made it to 97. 2010 was similarly close: 64 in June gives 128, and I made 122. But in other years it’s ranged from 18 under (2009) to 34 over (2011), so it tells us nothing. More exciting that way, eh?
With only four films to consider there’s not much more to say (50% from the ’00s and 50% from the ’50s means nothing when it’s out of four, does it), so moving swiftly on:
5 Sequels That Killed Their Franchise
There have been innumerable bad sequels, especially in these franchise-driven days of modern Hollywood movies… but which have gone down so badly they’ve actually killed off their series? Not just been the final film, but actively led to the series’ demise. (This was inspired by The Bourne Legacy — although #5 is reportedly in development, if they don’t have a serious rethink then I expect Legacy will wind up a member of this club.)
Obvious, I know, but it really is the archetype. Burton delivered two Bat-films that were critical and commercial successes; Schumacher delivered one that didn’t go down so well but turned a healthy profit… and then this. A critical disaster, a box office flop, the series went down with it. It took others to revive the superhero genre, a seven-year gap, and a ground-up reboot to save the series.
Six years after the TV series ended (was that all?), ’90s favourites Mulder and Scully returned. Hopes for a third film dealing with the series’ cliffhanger-ish ending were dashed by this low-key supernatural fable, released in a glaringly inappropriate summer slot, with none of the aliens casual viewers expected and too many incidental ties to the series. Some still whisper about a third movie, but 2012 was the perfect time and that’s long gone.
The first three Terminators all recycle the same plot to some degree, but with Salvation they finally pushed forward. Unfortunately bad word of mouth before release plus constant rumours about final-act twists did the film no favours. It was meant to launch a new trilogy, but instead killed the company who held the rights. A fifth film is in development now, but it sounds like it’ll go back to aping the first.
The first Blade was something of a breakout hit in the late ’90s, leading to a Guillermo del Toro-helmed sequel that helped put him on the mainstream map. This third entry was designed to launch a spin-off movie for its supporting stars, but behind the scenes woes resulted in a messy film that flopped both critically and with audiences. A TV series did follow, but that was reportedly awful too and didn’t last long.
“But there was a Saw VII,” you cry.And one that actually revived a franchise… briefly…
This fourth entry in the Death-defying horror franchise was due to be the series’ last — hence the definitive article title. In no small part due to being released in 3D in the immediate run-up to Avatar, the movie was a surprise box office hit, becoming the series’ highest-grossing entry, and New Line did an about-face and greenlit a fifth movie. Unfortunately for them, The Final Destination was utter shit, so the marginally-better Final Destination 5 became the series’ lowest earner. In the US, anyway — worldwide, it actually wound up just a few million dollars short of its predecessor. Nonetheless, instead of having a neatly-monikered send-off, the series seems to have limply disappeared.There are many more sequels that have killed their franchise, so are there any I should have mentioned? And what about that even trickier question: films that have taken an ailing series and turned it around?
Next month on 100 Films in a Year…
With the halfway point passed (did I mentioned we’re halfway through the year?), it’s full steam ahead into the second half. 100 films don’t just watch themselves, y’know.
When David Yates joined the Harry Potter series halfway through, as the director of its fifth instalment, his main prior experience was in TV — quite a change from the series’ track record, which had included acclaimed or successful movie directors. But he seemed a wise choice nonetheless: one of his stand-out works on TV was State of Play, a complex conspiracy series that suggested he’d be the right man to handle Order of the Phoenix for two reasons. Firstly, the novel includes a significant ‘resistance thriller’ aspect, similar to the edgy underground-investigation style of State of Play. Secondly, the lengthy novel was to be condensed into a single reasonable-length film, necessitating an ability to tell a story clearly and concisely. State of Play may not have been concise (it’s a six-hour story, after all), but it was complicated and it was clear.
The resulting film is, arguably, one of the series’ strongest because it is so different to the others. If the much-discussed ‘darkening’ of the films really kicked in with Goblet of Fire and the death of Cedric Diggory, Phoenix only cements this tone. Our heroes are persecuted throughout — and not just the lead kids, but Dumbledore and the rest of the Hogwarts establishment too, as a Ministry of Magic in denial about the return of Voldemort seeks to crush the dissenting voices of Harry and his headmaster.
Their main weapon is Dolores Umbridge, perhaps the series’ most despicable villain, because she is so horrendously plausible. She seems to be all sweetness and light, but it masks a dangerous streak that sees her eliminate any fun from the school and, in one of the most sadistic sequences in either the novels or the films, she has Harry write lines with a magic quill that cuts each one into the skin of his left hand. The Potter series actually has its share of nuanced villains, but Umbridge is thoroughly unlikeable. Though she’s defeated and carted off at the end of Phoenix, she resurfaces in Deathly Hallows. I don’t recall if her final fate is expounded upon, on page or screen, but I’d quite like to see her ripped to shreds.
In one of the numerous special features on the Harry Potter Blu-rays, producer David Heyman notes that most directors finish a film of Potter’s scope and want a rest, or at least a change of pace. It’s why Alfonso Cuarón and Mike Newell only have one each to their name; it’s why the Bond films haven’t had two back-to-back entries from the same director since the ’80s; and so on. Not so Yates, however, who ended Phoenix hungry for more. Or hungry to establish a film career, take your pick. And so he also took on the next film, Half-Blood Prince.
It’s easy to accuse Half-Blood Prince of being all prelude to the climactic events of Deathly Hallows; it certainly feels that way first time through. There’s considerably more to it than that, even if the titular mystery is barely a subplot — especially in the film version where, once again, the sheer length of the novel necessitates massive cuts to the source text. But perhaps the most remarkable thing is how funny the film is. Between the return of Voldemort, the suspicion cast on Harry, and a devastating final battle, Phoenix is an incredibly gloomy film; as things roll towards the climax, packed with more deaths and villain victories, Deathly Hallows is too; and sandwiched in between, with one of the saga’s most gut-wrenching finales, you’d think Half-Blood Prince would be more of the same.
But not so. Yates approached his follow-up with a stated aim of introducing more comedy, believing the three leads to be talented in that area but not having had a chance to show it in his dour first film. So here we get a whole subplot given over to Ron’s attempts to join the Quidditch team, as well as much focus on the trio’s romantic entanglements — teenage love always being a good topic for humour. The film is not without its dark side, but peppered liberally throughout are those comedic subplots and scenes that are liable to see the viewer laugh perhaps more than in any other Potter film. It’s easy to miss this element — the main plot is, as always, getting darker and more serious — but once it’s been highlighted (as the makers do in the film’s special features) I think it becomes very noticeable.
Perhaps the other most notable aspect of Half-Blood Prince is the cinematography. Like most of cinema throughout the ’00s, the Harry Potter series shows a gradual shift from a very filmic look, to digital intermediates, to (in some cases) a wholly digital output. This is where it becomes most notable, I feel, with many sequences (especially those involving extensive CGI, like the Quidditch) graded and smoothed to the point where they look almost like a concept art painting rather than a real-life sequence. This is especially obvious if you watch any clip-laden series-spanning documentary, where Half-Blood Prince clips rub shoulders with any previous film and stand out like a sore thumb; but even in the movie itself, without that outside context, it’s sometimes highly noticeable.
The other thing it is is dark — not the story, but the visuals. This reaches its nadir in Deathly Hallows (both parts), which include some shots so dark it looks like some light-black shapes may, perhaps, if you squint and strain, be moving over some dark-black shapes. It’s ridiculous. I have no idea if it functioned OK in the cinema, but on a TV at home it most definitely does not. This seems to be a growing trend in films, though the Potter finale contains some of the worst examples I’ve yet seen. I don’t know the reason, but I presume it’s a tech thing — cameras that can function better in low light; 
grading the film in perfectly-calibrated conditions so they can really push it to extremes, not considering how most end-users will view it; and, much like fast-cut action scenes, an over-familiarity with the material that means the director/editor/grader can see what’s going on because they’ve watched it dozens (or hundreds) of times, which doesn’t work for a first-time viewer in the middle of the film. As you may be able to guess, I’m not a fan.
By the time of these final two films, it seems Yates has moved from being a TV director skilled in complex plotting, to one very much at home with big effects-driven set pieces. The Battle of Hogwarts, which consumes around 90 minutes of the final film, is an epic and often jaw-dropping affair, though still laced through with the final plot developments and the completion of various character arcs. That said, it’s far from perfect, undermined by a pair of apparently opposing sets of decisions: on the one hand, to flesh out fan-favourite moments to give them too much emphasis (Mrs Weasley’s duel with Bellatrix is over-played; Harry and Voldemort’s final confrontation is amped up to the point it loses the book’s emotion); on the other, slavish faithfulness leaving some moments without enough emphasis.
The biggest crime of the latter is the very end: the battle over, Harry, Ron and Hermione stand outside Hogwarts, survey some of the damage, have a little chat… and then it abruptly cuts to a couple of decades later for the epilogue. For me, it doesn’t feel as if there’s enough space there, enough time to breathe, to consider the impact on the series’ supporting cast — many of them favourite characters, as vitally important to the viewer as they are to the lead trio. How will the Weasleys cope with their losses? What about those others who have lost almost everyone they hold dear? Where have the Malfoys gone? There are nods to this in a montage around the Great Hall / makeshift mortuary, but it feels underplayed; like we need a scene of life-goes-on normality set a few weeks or months later, 
not a sudden smash-cut to a few decades on where we see how some characters’ lives have developed. I know some people complain about Lord of the Rings’ multitudinous endings but, one, they’re wrong, and two, Potter only has one and an epilogue — sure, the first completes the drive of the storyline and the second is a neat coda, but in between I feel we need more of a character-based resolution.
But hey-ho, it is what it is.
In the end, the TV director hired for a very specific filmmaking skill wound up in charge of exactly half the Harry Potter series. If there was a half to have a single voice in charge of, it’s this one, with one long narrative permeating the films in a way it doesn’t the first four. And yet, for that, each has a distinctive style and voice — well, apart from the two parts of Deathly Hallows, which are really one long film split into halves. Was it the right move, for the series? It clearly produced popular movies, but, thanks to the storyline, it’s already easy to regard the Potter series as four or five stories rather than seven, the last three books merging into one epic tale in three acts — a trilogy, if you will — rather than discrete stories, like the first four. By putting the same man behind the camera for them all, the films just emphasise this point. But maybe that doesn’t matter.
It’s hard to offer a final summary of the Harry Potter series. Some people see them as mediocre and overblown; for others, they are their life. Personally, I think they develop from sometimes-uncertain roots in the early films, to a flourishing series of epic fantasy movies. There are often niggles of one kind or another, be it acting (I forgot to discuss Emma Watson’s eyebrows!), or cartoonish designs, or too-faithful adaptation, or abbreviated adaptation, or what have you — but none of these are ever-present. More importantly, every film offers something to enjoy, and the growing maturity — of not only the cast, but also the filmmaking — means their impact only increases when viewed as an entire eight-film saga.
One for the ages? Movie and genre fans of a certain age might say, “don’t be so daft”; but I wouldn’t be so certain.
It’s a bumper crop of things to discuss in this month’s update!
It’s only the biggest*, bestest** 100 Films update ever!
So, as Graham Norton might say, jump on it!
No, er, I mean — let’s start the show post!
[Imagine a 100 Films title sequence here. Or don’t, whatever.]
What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?
The path to not-quite-making-it-to-100-films is paved with good intentions (as is the path to making-it-to-100-films-or-more, but the failure path has more paves), and my plan to watch two WDYMYHS films this month is now another slab in said path. So I bump that idea to next month, because, hey, I did watch one. And that one was…
Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, aka Det sjunde inseglet if you speak Swedish or want to be one of those people who always uses the original title regardless.
Despite owning Tartan’s impressive Bergman Collection DVD set for a number of years, this is actually my first experience of Bergman. Once, I noted how many significant directors have been new to me in the course of 100 Films. I thought I’d done it on an individual year, but it was in my review of The Great Dictator. I don’t believe I’ve ever done the former, probably because it’s never actually been noteworthy. However, it’s felt like there have been a few this year, so that’s something I may add to the end-of-year stats.
But that’s still seven months away. You want to know what I’ve been watching in the past 31 days, right? Right?
#44 The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
#45 The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
#45a Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
#46 Tintin and the Mystery of the Golden Fleece, aka Tintin et le mystère de la Toison d’Or (1961)
#47 The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)
#47a Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
#48 Django Unchained (2012)
#48a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
#49 On Dangerous Ground (1952)
#50 Les Misérables (2012)
#51 And Now for Something Completely Different (1971)
#52 Shane (1953)
#52a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)
#53 Ray Harryhausen: Special Effects Titan (2012)
#54 The Seventh Seal, aka Det sjunde inseglet (1957)
This month’s tally of new films rests at 11, more than double what I achieved last year and drawing equal with May of 2011.
It’s also an anniversary, because May 2010 was my first of these regular monthly progress reports. Three years! My my, time flies. Back then I managed 16 new films, at the time my joint-second highest month ever. Show off month.
Back in 2013, May is my joint second highest of the year — behind March (which is the current second highest month ever) and tied with February. That’s a pretty solid start to the year — more so than last year, and while 2011 and 2010 show a similar shape (double-figure Januarys, Februarys, Marchs and Mays with a relatively weak April), I’ve reached #54 this year, while in 2011 it was… oh, #58. Well, in 2010 it was… oh, #57.
Hey, you can’t win ’em all.
In terms of the films themselves, there’s an uncommonly high number from the ’50s this month — three, whereas my year-to-date only featured one other. There’s no particular reason for that, it’s just one of those coincidences. There’s also four films from 2012 alone, which is more to be expected as I continue to catch up on last year’s cinematic releases. There’ll definitely be more of that next month.
For most of this month I’ve been running a poll on readers’ favourite Harry Potter films (you may have noticed it — it’s sat on the left of the front page). It’s been interesting to see how many votes I’d attract, especially with near-relentless badgering about it on Twitter at some points. As it turned out, better than I’d feared. That’s what bombarding Twitter can do.
Well, I’m not closing the poll, but as it hasn’t received any new votes in weeks, let’s look at what my tiny sample thought.
The clear victor is the Alfonso Cuarón-helmed franchise-revitalising third film, Prisoner of Azkaban, which scooped exactly 50% of the vote. Its supremacy in this poll was never in doubt, lingering around that percentage throughout. There’s a three-way tie for second, though, the result of low voter numbers. Mike Newell’s pivotal and well-liked Goblet of Fire is an unsurprising feature so high, but the incessant climax-readying info-dump of David Yates’ Half-Blood Prince is more uncommon; as is the series’ opener, Philosopher’s Stone, as the Chris Columbus films are often held in the lowest regard.
That said, there’s also a three-way tie for last place, and the other Columbus film — sophomore entry Chamber of Secrets — finds itself among them. It’s not that bad, but it’s never been widely loved. More surprising are its two companions: both halves of Deathly Hallows. Considering the unrelenting acclaim that the latter half in particular received on its theatrical release, I was a little surprised to see these pick up 0 votes. That said, Part 2 is almost all climax, so perhaps they would fare better if taken as a single four-and-a-half-hour film?
That just leaves Yates’ debut film, Order of the Phoenix, sitting almost slap-bang in the middle, on its lonesome in fifth place. Each to their own.
So that’s that. As you can see from the links scattered above, I’ve already reviewed all eight films, but (as promised) I’ll have something to say about Yates’ four films when considered as a job lot, to be posted in the next week or two.
5 Greatest Car Chases
Inspired by watching Tokyo Drift, and the most recent Fast & Furious storming cinemas. And by “car chase” I really mean “action sequence involving a road vehicle”.
You can’t have a list of great car chases without including at least one Bond. Indeed, I could easily fill this top five with that series alone. TND wins because of two stand-out sequences: Bond driving a BMW saloon around a car park in Germany, which sounds dull as dishwater… except he does it via remote control and the car is stacked with gadgets; and a motorbike vs helicopter chase on the streets — and rooftops — of Saigon.
To bring extra swish and excitement, the Fast & Furious films often use CGI in their car chases. Ronin, however, does it all for real — often with the actual actors in the cars. There are several chases in Ronin, but the extended climax through the tunnels of Paris is of course the best. The film used 300 stunt drivers and they wrecked 80 cars, but the exhilaration provided is entirely worth it.
Many times, a great sequence is born out of an idea to innovate or do something different (to go back to Tomorrow Never Dies, the bike chase was a deliberate counterpoint to GoldenEye’s tank chase), and the first Jason Bourne film is no exception: he’s in a Mini! Americans always find small cars striking (see also: Da Vinci Code’s Smart car), but at least it’s put to good use — he drives it down some stairs!
For sheer throw-everything-at-the-screen bombast, you can’t beat the car sequence in the first Matrix sequel — it was so big, they had to build their own stretch of freeway! Of course, it’s as much about the fighting going on in and around the cars as it is the chase, and there are bikes and lorries and stuff involved too — including a spectacular head-on collision — but it’s all road-based, so it counts.
I wanted to avoid having two Bond films, and I tried, but I couldn’t think of anything significantly better than the opening minutes of 2008’s widely maligned Bond adventure. Cut like lightning, almost intuitive and impressionistic rather than classically clear, and viscerally destructive throughout, it demands your attention — and indicates the kind of pace the rest of the film will move at. Then the reveal at the end makes it all the sweeter.And two I’ve never seen…
Read most lists of the greatest car chases and one of these will be at the top, usually with the other in second place. They’re iconic for different reasons: there’s The French Connection’s frantic illicitly-filmed chase between Gene Hackman and Brooklyn’s elevated railway; and there’s Bullitt’s eleven-minute pursuit around the streets of San Francisco, with Steve McQueen and co gaining plenty of in-car air-time on those famous stepped hills. So iconic, I know this much without having seen either.Those are a few of my favourites, but what have I missed? And are there are any so bad I should’ve made room to decry them?
Next month on 100 Films in a Year…
It’s June! It’s halfway! But I’ve already passed 50!
Will June’s total, doubled, indicate my final tally? Well, it hasn’t yet, so probably not. But a man can dream…
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:
#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)
#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)
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.
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).
You 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.
These 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.
I 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.)
I 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.
A 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…
There 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.
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 
(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. 
What’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.
June’s films
100Films.co.uk 