2012: The Full List

2012, eh? What a year: the Jubilee, the Olympics (I still call it the Jubilympics); the Paralympics; the highest-grossing film in Britain ever; the most-watched video on YouTube ever; the world not ending… it was certainly a year to remember.

Not so much for 100 Films, unfortunately: as we know, I fell just a trilogy box set short of reaching my titular goal. Not the first time, and as we’ll see later it may even have been predictable (except not really). Nonetheless, there are lists to be reeled off and statistics to be over-analysed. And this year there are more statistics than ever! If you’re like me, you’ll be excited by that; regular folk may just skip to the end.

Before those, there’s The List itself. After two years (is that all?) of presenting it in numbered order, I’m switching back to alphabetical. Why? Well, as you’ll see just before said full list, there’s my monthly updates. They cover the year in order, as it happens, and now that I’m linking to them from this post there’s no real need for a numbered list here too. Indeed, for those who like to cut up facts and statistics and lists in multiple different ways (as I do), this means that a year of 100 Films is presented as both numbered and alphabetical lists for the first time — exciting!

And as this post is now longer than ever, here’s a quick contents list, so you can just skip straight to the stuff you prefer…

So without further ado…


As It Happened

Below is a graphical representation of my viewing, month by month. More importantly, each of the twelve images links to the relevant monthly update — as noted (three times now?), this is where you’ll find the numbered list of everything I watched this year.













The List

Alternate Cuts
Other Reviews
Shorts

The Statistics

For only the second time ever I fell short of my goal, watching just 97 new feature films in 2012. (All are included in the stats that follow, even if there’s no review yet.) What’s perhaps more interesting is the pattern that I’m forming: in the six years I’ve been doing this blog, I’ve repeated a run of 120-something (2007, 2010), 100-exactly (2008, 2011), and under-100 (2009, 2012). Weird.

I also watched one feature I’d seen before that was extended or altered in some way, as well as reviewing 10 others that I’d seen before (easily the most ever). All 108 films are included in the statistics that follow, unless otherwise indicated. (Despite not making it to 100 on the main list, that’s more films in the stats than either of the two years I made it to 100.)

I also watched five shorts (none of which shall be counted in any statistics). As noted last year, I own quite a few DVDs of shorts (my database informs me that it’s nearly 400 individual short films), so I really should make more of an effort in this area.

The total running time of new features was 146 hours and 17 minutes. That’s the lowest ever, in part thanks to a lot of Saint and Falcon films that only run around an hour each. The total running time of all films (including, for this stat only, shorts) was 169 hours and 35 minutes. That means that the shorts, alternate cuts and other reviews run nearly 24 hours — over double the next nearest (which was last year, at nearly 12 hours). You may like to compare the following graph to the number-of-features one above — does the total number watched tarry with their total length? (As it turns out, yes, yes it does.)

I saw two films at the cinema this year. That’s the same as last year, and so the joint lowest-ever. Cinemas are so pricey and time-consuming these days. Still, there were near misses for The Avengers and The Hobbit, which would have made it my best year at the box office since 2009. But alas, no.

The highest format is once again TV, this year totalling 53 films. After accounting for hardly any of my viewing in the first two years, TV surged to dominance in 2009 and has remained there ever since. Considering the size of my unwatched disc collection, that really shouldn’t be the case. Second place this year again went to Blu-ray (third year running). With 41 films it’s about the same as last year. DVD, however, sinks further into the doldrums: just six SD discs graced my player this year. Again, considering I have literally hundreds of the things I’ve not got round to, that’s a disgrace. There was also a single download (one of the Falcon films that I missed on TV and had to retrieve from iPlayer, as will be the case with all of them when I get on with the rest of the series).

Much to everyone’s surprise, streaming has undergone a resurgence and so makes a moderately significant appearance on the list this year. Whoever thought (even in the comparatively-recent early days of dedicated services like YouTube) that streaming would be a viable way to watch films in a reasonable quality? But that’s where we’re at now, thanks to increasingly fast broadband and a preponderance of rental services looking to make it easy to view films for those punters not all that concerned with image quality. All my streaming films this year were watched on a Wii, via either Netflix or LOVEFiLM. The former seemed to provide DVD-like quality; the latter looks more like an over-compressed downloaded pirate copy. In spite of that, I’m not going with Netflix — I have LOVEFiLM for DVDs/BDs by post, and my package comes with free unlimited streaming (it’s an old one that’s no longer available, haha!) If only they could step up the picture quality… Anyway, four films came down the pipes to me this year — it may not sound like much, but the previous average was 0.2. At this point I wouldn’t like to predict if that will be higher or lower next year.

This year the most popular decade was the 2010s, with 46 films (42.6%). That’s the first time it’s topped the list, just losing out to the ’00s last year. It’s a solid victory: though the first decade of the new millennium still comes in second, it’s with just 21 films (19.4%). It would be an even wider percentage gap were it not for the other reviews (adding a pair of Batmans to the ’00s) — indeed, looking at the main list alone, the three years of this decade account for over 47%. Clearly I err towards the modern.

That said, third place this year goes to the ’40s: buoyed by the Saint and Falcon films, it totals 14 (13%). Of the rest, the ’90s managed a respectable nine (up on last year’s low of five); both the ’80s and the ’60s reached five; the ’30s achieved four; the ’50s made it to three; and the ’70s had just one. That’s every decade since the 1930s covered, the same as last year — oops! I have a moderate collection of silent films that I really should get stuck into. (I’d do a graph for this section, but with all those decades to factor in it’d just be a mess.)

This is also the first full year to feature my new top information line (I say “new” — I was surprised to find this was the first whole year of it, so I guess I started in mid-2011). That means lots of opportunities for new statistics, and so that opportunity shall be seized! The main area this can be applied are the countries and languages info, which reveal I watched 106 films that were either wholly or significantly in English. 106, out of 108. Diverse. Some of those did share languages — Iron Sky, for instance, has a lot of German; and there were a couple of Hong Kong films that also rated English as a listed language. Cantonese and Mandarin chalked up three films apiece, one way or another. And that’s it.

Country-wise, the USA dominate with a massive 88 films (81.5%). No surprise really. Second goes to jolly old Blighty with 30 (27.8%), a mixture of co-productions and… not co-productions. Indeed, it’s the former that gives third place to Germany (13) and accounts for many others, which I’ll list in a minute. Some films could easily be narrowed down to a specific country of origin (several of those German films are definitely US productions with co-funding), but others are truly multi-national — how do you decide where to draw the line? I’ve taken to just listing every country IMDb offers. So some of the following ‘genuinely’ produced films I watched — Hong Kong, Canada (both 4) — while many others were just somehow in on it — France (4), China (2), India (2), and one each for Australia, Finland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and Spain.

A minuscule three films from the main list appear on IMDb’s Top 250 Films as of New Year’s Day 2013. To put that in perspective, the previous low was seven, and that was half of some years’ total, and a third of the first’s. It’s not as if I’ve seen most of the IMDb Top 250 either — I’m missing about 119. To rub it in, the three I did see are all from the past 18 months. Main lesson: try to watch more classics next year. Nonetheless, the positions of those present range from 38th (The Dark Knight Rises) to 220th (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2), via 130th (Avengers Assemble). I know, Skyfall isn’t on there! Positively shocking.

As ever, there are too many other similar lists to consider checking them all. And based on those results, I wouldn’t be able to tick much off any of them anyway.

I’ve yet to re-watch any of the films from this list, only the second time that’s happened — and the last was the other year I failed to make 100. Weird coincidence. Not a surprise when one doesn’t see much at the cinema, really — I’ve got more than enough to catch for the first time without re-watching things in under 12 months. That said, a good few of the remaining reviews (especially the lower numbers) will likely require a re-watch before I cover them. Films like Tinker Tailor deserve thought in their review, not a quick dashed-off-from-11-month-old-memories comment or two.

At the end of all five previous years’ summaries I’ve included a list of 50 notable films I’d missed from that year’s releases. With 2012 over, I’ve managed to see (deep breath) one more from 2007 (bringing the total for that 50 to 27), no more from 2008’s list (leaving it at 14), two more from 2009’s (bringing that to 15), and six more from 2010’s (bringing it to 22). Finally, in the year since listing 2011’s 50, I’ve managed to see 16 of them. As that beats all I’ve seen in four years of 2008’s list and three years of 2009’s, it’s not a bad start. Still a lot of viewing to do, mind, and I’ll be adding another 50 from 2012 in my next post.

A total of 85 solo directors and seven directing partnerships appear on the main list. A record low have multiple films on the main list, with just Jack Hively and Irving Reis scoring three (all Saint and Falcon films, respectively) and Scott Stewart claiming a risible pair (Priest and Legion). However, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher and Christopher Nolan each put in two appearances thanks to my retrospective on the Batman series — which actually makes three for Nolan, as I also saw The Dark Knight Rises. Matching that is Terence Young, director of three of the first four Bond films; and, like Nolan, Fritz Lang features in both the main list and the ‘other’ list, making two for him too. Numbers are rounded out by Guy Hamilton, director of Goldfinger, bringing the overall total of feature directors to 96. (I should also mention Leythum, director of the first two Marvel One-Shot shorts.)

This year’s star ratings kick off with 14 five-star films — the lowest ever (and five of those weren’t in the main list). Conversely, there were five one-star films — the highest ever. Oh dear. Plus, for the first time ever, the majority of films (41 of them) scored three stars. That’s well above average, and the most ever by nine. Consequently, four-star films were well below average, just 34 of them, the lowest ever by eight. Normally they account for around 50% of my scores, but this year it’s just 32%. The only bit of sanity came from the two-star films, back to their regular ballpark with 14 after last year’s record-low-by-half.

That gives an average score of 3.4 — easily the lowest ever. No surprise, considering the low 5s, high 1s, and uncommonly dominant 3s. The first four years’ average score alternated between 3.6 and 3.7, but they were all actually even closer, ranging just 3.63 to 3.66. Last year saw an extraordinary leap up to 3.83, while this year it sinks to 3.35 — a whole half mark lower. No wonder it’s been awkward compiling my top ten (but more on that next time).

Finally, a record-low 26 of the films (plus three of the shorts and all the other reviews) are currently in my DVD/Blu-ray collection.


Coming next…

Nearly done! Later this weekend I’ll look back over the 97 new films I saw to pick out my worst five and best ten, and remind you of 50 new releases from the past 12 months that I’ve yet to see.

December 2012

It’s the end of the world as we know it, said some people who paid a mite too much attention to an ancient calendar. But though the world did not end, 2012 most certainly has, so it’s time to reflect.

I say “it’s time to” — most websites, magazines and what have you have already done so. But for a blog that counts how many new films one has watched in a year in its entirety, everything — to the very last minute — counts. And what number has that count reached, you may ask. Well…


Drumroll please

And the final total is… 97.

That makes only the second time I’ve failed to reach 100, and it was even closer (last was 2009, when I reached 94). A helluvan end to the year for all the wrong reasons put paid to much film watching, including plans to see The Hobbit (which I’ll hopefully now see soon and not let slide into another Avengers situation), and I couldn’t quite drag it back in the closing days. It’s disappointing, of course, but not the end of the world. Unless this is what the Mayans meant.


December’s films
Predators
#92 The Keep (1983)
#93 Predators (2010)
#94 The Expendables (2010)
#94a Room on the Broom (2012)
#95 Iron Sky (2012)
#96 Stiff Upper Lips (1998)
#97 The Plank (1967)


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

And so the cycle begins again.

Will I reach 100 in 2013? Well, last time I failed, the next year wound up my second-best ever. Just sayin’

2012 in Review, Part 1

I normally post two year-end summary posts (for newer/first time readers, one has the full list of films I watched plus statistics about them; the other a bottom five and top ten, plus a long, long list of all the stuff released this year that I didn’t see), but as WordPress have kindly offered up some statistics about the site itself over the past year, how could I refuse? From now on, three it is.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 4,800 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 8 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

The 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012

I don’t normally do much (or anything) to mark Christmas here on 100 Films — there are only so many Christmas-related films, after all; besides which, I normally spend December trying to push through the final few films to get to my goal. But this year is slightly different (only slightly), because I’m giving you, dear readers, the gift of the 100 Films Advent Calendar!

In true advent calendar fashion, that means one brand-spanking-new review every day up ’til Christmas. I can’t promise they’ll be big, and I certainly can’t promise they’ll be clever, but there’ll be one every day. Since when were advent calendars meant to be good for you anyway?

Plus, I know it’s not traditional, but all modern examples seem to do it, so in their vein Christmas Day itself will come with an extra-big bumper review — the only film I’ve seen so far this year that has definitely earmarked itself a place on my annual top ten! So if you’re avoiding the day itself, or just need an escape from the family for a bit (who doesn’t?), there’ll be that slab of un-Christmassy merriment awaiting you here. You’re welcome.

And the other advantage of this is that it should put a good dent in my thoroughly ludicrous backlog. Hurrah! (And if you want an idea of what reviews might be coming up, take a look at that page and start guessing.)

If you so desire, you can check this post regularly over the next three-and-a-half weeks as it will be updated with new links. Or just see them on the front page. Or in your email inbox (if you already follow this blog with a WordPress account, you can change email notification settings here). Or follow me on Twitter.

Come back in the morning, then, when the first review will be revealed…


December 1st

December 2nd

December 3rd

December 4th

December 5th

December 6th

December 7th

December 8th

December 9th

December 10th

December 11th

December 12th

December 13th

December 14th

December 15th

December 16th

December 17th

December 18th

December 19th

December 20th

December 21st

December 22nd

December 23rd

December 24th

December 25th

Merry Christmas!

November 2012

Christ, is it December already?!

Never mind film watching (though, more on that in a minute), what the hell’s going on with my film reviewing?! I’ve got stuff backed up to January there, and it’s going to be January again at this rate. I don’t know how I’ve let it fall so ludicrously behind this year, but Something Must Be Done — a dedicated amount of writing and posting, I do suppose. I keep getting distracted bringing old reviews over when something’s on telly, but I should make a concerted effort to post new stuff more regularly. I wonder what might help with that


Back to November…

The past month has done very little to contribute to that backlog, mind — just four new films, half the amount required to keep me on track. Also, this year’s weakest month (previous was a tie between May and June, each with five).

It means I go in to December ever so slightly behind. But that’s OK — before now, I’ve started December with just 81 films under my belt and made it to 100, so 91 should be a cinch. Equally, the year after that I went in with 80 and only made it to 94… but that was the only year I didn’t make 100, so it’s hardly a precedent.


November’s filmsThe Call of Cthulhu

#87a Thunderball (1965)
#88 Tiny Furniture (2010)
#89 The Call of Cthulhu (2005)
#90 Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part I (2012)
#91 Moonfleet (1955)


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

For the next month, lots of reviews! And in one month, I’ll let you know if I made it to (or even past) 100.

And then there’s all the lists and stats and fun! Just what you need to pick you up after Christmas, I’m sure.

October 2012

As you stuff yourself full of last night’s spoils (not that I imagine anyone who reads this actually goes trick or treating — my spoils are all the leftovers from buying too many sweets just in case), why not learn how I got on last month? What better thing to peruse while rotting your teeth?


See Saw

Saw, The Final ChapterTalking of Halloween, you may have noticed that I’ve been re-posting all of my Saw reviews. Now seemed as good a time as any. To accompany that, I wrote some new words on my opinion of the franchise as a whole. If you missed it, you can read those here.

What surprised me is that I kinda miss the Saw films. They’re mostly quite poor (the first one is actually rather the good; the best of the rest tend to be “good, for a Saw film”), but they kind of sucker you in. Maybe one day I’ll re-watch them…

And talking of quality…


Quality check

2012 has felt like a bit of a slow year, quality-wise. Perhaps I’m just getting more discerning, or perhaps I’ve made some appalling viewing choices this year, but where my running list of “films I might include in my year-end best-of” usually stands at 60%+ of my viewing, this year it’s been closer to the 30% mark. I have made a conscious effort to be tighter on it — come December it’ll be whittled down to only 10 titles, so there’s no need to include any “well, if there’s nothing else…” level films — but, still, that’s quite a lot tighter than usual.

I mention it now because, after many slow months, it all seems to be kicking off recently — nearly every new film you see below is on the long list, for starters. Most of the old ones would be too, if that was allowed by my rules. (From Russia With Love? Goldfinger? Of course they merit top-ten consideration!) And this is definitely a good thing, because it’s nice to be watching some great filmmaking. There’s even three five-star (new) films this month, which is a third of my entire tally for the year so far — again, proof that I’m either being more stringent in my marking or poorer in my viewing decisions.


October’s films

War Horse#81a Dr. No (1962)
#82 RoboCop 2 (1990)
Skyfall#83 Prometheus (2012)
#83a From Russia With Love (1963)
#84 Bill Cunningham New York (2010)
#85 War Horse (2011)
#85a Goldfinger (1964)
#86 Skyfall (2012)
#87 Birth (2004)


The namesh Bond…

You’ll notice four Bond films in that lot. With the release of the big, faintly disappointing Blu-ray box set (I mean, it’s good really, but so many missed opportunities!) and the 50th anniversary of the series, I’ve once again embarked on my long-held goal of watching all the films in order. Naturally I intend to cover them here as I go, in decade-sized clumps. I’m aiming to watch one a week and kept it up mostly, but after the brilliance of Skyfall I’ve struggled to bring myself to watch Thunderball (always one of my least favourite), so we’ll see.


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

Yes, that’s right, we’ll see next time. As well as more new films, of course. I’m one behind where I was last year, when I only reached 100. Can I go higher than my own goal, for only the third time? That surely won’t be answered until December, but November will be instrumental in it even being possible. And the only times I’ve ever done it, I was already there in October. But there’s a first time for everything…

Desperately forced jeopardy! That’s what trailers are all about!

The Saw Series

Between October 2009 and October 2011, I reviewed every film in the Saw franchise. As it’s Halloween again, it seems a good time to re-post them all to this new blog — one per day in the last week, because I timed it cleverly. Think of this as a kind of personal last hurrah for the ’00s horror staple.

And staple it was, providing one film every year, at Halloween of course, between 2004 and 2010. Indeed, by the time of Saw IV they were using the tagline, “If it’s Halloween, it must be Saw”. The series was at the spearhead of the low-budget high-gore era of horror — the once-ubiquitous term “torture porn” was coined to describe 2005’s Hostel, but it was retroactively applied to Saw. The filmmakers refuted the label, and at the series’ best they’re right. The original film is a small-scale thriller with gory/scary moments — it’s actually a pretty good film, deserving to transcend the reputation its long-running follow-ups have attracted. At its worst, though, the series does plumb the depths of extreme gore for its own sake. Saw III is perhaps the worst example, but that doesn’t excuse some of the other films.

Another factor that marks the films out is their continuing story. Perhaps this will one day be viewed as A Thing of the ’00s — witness how many TV series (especially in the US) moved from obsessively standalone storytelling to serial nature, led by the likes of 24 and The Wire, and cemented by the huge success (in the US at least) of Lost. Though every Saw film presents a standalone story — what I call the “Game of the Film”, as each is a deadly set of tasks (a game) constructed by central villain/anti-hero Jigsaw (or one of his disciples) for some deserving guest character — they quickly become obsessed with their own mythology, doling out variably-sized doses of backstory each time. The early films pretty much stand alone, but by the third and fourth the series is beginning to disappear up its own rear end as it obsessively fills in all the blanks.

The Saw series, unlike so many long-running horror film franchises, really is a series — you can’t dive in and just watch any entry; not if you want it to make sense, anyway. The first two movies are the exception, but the third and fourth take place concurrently and then the franchise moves forward (mostly) through an on-going investigation. Fortunately they were allowed to wrap it up, with Saw 3D (the seventh and final film) bringing the drawn-out story threads to a conclusion. It’s not a wholly satisfying ending (as you can read in my full review), but at least it is one.

The once mega-hit series was killed off by low-budget-filmmaking’s latest fad, the found-footage movie: where once Saw was dominant at Halloween, the sixth film was out-grossed by newcomer Paranormal Activity. That cut short long-term plans for the series (as my review of the fourth film mentions, they once promised at least eight movies), and Paranormal Activity has trundled on as an annual Halloween staple for the 2010s (the fourth was released a fortnight ago). Personally they don’t interest me.

Neither did I think the Saw movies would, really. I’m no gore fiend, nor even a massive horror fan — there has to be something else going on than simply scares to really hold my attention. This is where the first Saw is a real success, because I’d argue it’s actually a thriller with horrific elements; kind of like a B-movie rendition of Se7en, perhaps. Even when it sinks to nasty depths at points that follow, the series retains this thriller element, the (almost-)never-ending story all but ensuring the viewer’s need to continue watching. Even when some of the middle entries dipped, there was always the promise of redemption — the sixth film is perhaps the series’ second-best, for instance. Sadly they couldn’t maintain that momentum for the final entry.

I’m glad the Saw movies came to an end, because with that on-going mythology they really needed an ending. But now they’re done, I kind of miss them a little. Not necessarily enough to sit through it all again… but maybe one day.

My full original reviews of each film, first published between 2009 and 2011, follow:







Skyfall: Initial Thoughts

The following article is resolutely spoiler free.

My spoiler-filled review/commentary is here.

SkyfallBond is back, and you’ve surely seen the torrent of 4- and 5-star reviews (and the insignificant handful of dissenting voices). I’m pleased to report that the consensus is correct: Skyfall is Bond at his best.

There’s also a lot of potentially interesting stuff to discuss from it, which is why I’m throwing this out now and will try to be more considered in a full review later. I read someone on the ‘net this week express surprise that anyone would be concerned about being spoilered for a Bond film, because “no one” watches them for the plot. Well, that person was clearly a first-degree idiot anyway, but of all the Bonds I think Skyfall offers something different. The climax, for instance, which is stunningly brilliant in all sorts of ways, is not one you could picture occurring in any other Bond film. Aside from that, there are themes and subplots that are, more than ever, best experienced in the film and discussed after.

So leaving that to a later, spoiler-y review, a few thoughts I might return to later. Firstly, this is in many respects Judi Dench’s film. Nothing against Daniel Craig — he’s great too — but she has surely the largest part ever afforded to M; even more so than her featured role in The World Is Not Enough and her increased importance through the previous two Craig outings. She’s given some relatively meaty stuff to play and, of course, Dench is more than up to the task. Plus Javier Bardem makes for a great villain. Some have compared him to Heath Ledger’s Joker, but that undersells it — he’s camp, but nowhere near that over the top.

This shot isn't in the filmTechnically speaking, the film looks gorgeous thanks to Roger Deakins’ cinematography. Best looking Bond ever? There’s little I can think of to dispute that. Obviously it could be said to lack some of that ’60s glamour, but from a purely photographic perspective, it shines. (Incidentally, this shot isn’t actually in the film.) I’m less sold on Thomas Newman’s score. While in no way bad, and with undoubted sparing but precise use of the Bond theme, it didn’t always click for me. The fact I at times felt like I was listening to cues from Lemony Snicket did it no favours. I love that film and I love its score, but it has no place here.

Daniel Kleinman is back on title sequence duties, and the work he’s delivered is second to none. Familiar yet also innovative, whatever you think of Adele’s Skyfoal theme, Kleinman has delivered an instant-classic sequence to go with it.

The action sequences are well done, which can be a worry when you hire a more dramatically-minded director, but there’s some stunning stuff. Nonetheless it’s to the writers’ and director’s credit that people are more likely to come away talking about events in the plot than “wasn’t it cool when X exploded, or when A did B to C?” But there are some cool bits, and even stuff you’ve seen in the trailers has a better or different impact in the film itself. One stunt, just part of the familiar montage seen in most of the trailers, even drew a laugh at my screening (in a good way).

This is the 50th anniversary and Skyfall has acknowledgements of that. This, for fans, would be even worse spoiler territory than the plot — Martin, Aston Martinhonestly, there perhaps aren’t as many twists as you might expect in that department, but the ways they’ve nodded to the franchise’s history are sublime. Die Another Day was ever so conscious it was the 20th film and was stuffed with blatant callbacks throughout. It’s kind of fun, but a bit on the nose. Skyfall is more subtle and therefore more effective. But, as noted, those would perhaps be the worst things to spoil, so I’ll tally my favourites later.

In closing, I’m not sure that Skyfall is, as some have claimed, the best Bond ever. It is, perhaps, too atypical for that. But then so are From Russia With Love and Casino Royale, to one degree or another, and I’d have no problem placing those at the top of such a list. No, what’s really required before such a decree is multiple viewings — Die Another Day was well-received on release but is now widely derided; On Her Majesty’s Secret Service suffered years of neglect before its relatively-recent re-assessment (Quantum of Solace, conversely, is still waiting for such a re-evaluation). In short, Skyfall may well be the best Bond film ever made, but only time will tell that. Until then, you can be certain that it’s bloody brilliant.

September 2012

We’re officially three-quarters of the way through 2012 now (scary, ain’t it?) and this month I pass the three-quarters mark. Indeed, I’ve reached 81, which is exactly where I was this time last year.

Other than that, it’s quite unremarkable. I watched eight films, which is the average needed per month to make 100. After last month’s features being entirely Saint and Falcon vehicles, this month not only had more variety but not a one is a ’40s RKO flick. Back on that train next month, perhaps.

Other than that, the only observable trend is perhaps films of note. And by “note” I mean “success”: a surprise-ish franchise hit from 2011, two of 2012’s biggest films (one of them amongst the very biggest of all time), and an enduring ’80s ‘classic’. Also, Fantastic Four.


September’s films
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
#74 Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
#75 The Hunger Games (2012)
#76 Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, aka The Other Woman (2009)
#77 Fantastic Four (2005)
The Hunger Games#78 Avengers Assemble, aka Marvel’s The Avengers (2012)
#79 Ip Man 2, aka Yip Man 2 (2010)
#80 RoboCop (1987)
#81 Unauthorized: The Harvey Weinstein Project (2011)


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

The beginning of the home straight, you could say. But watching 100 films in a year is always a marathon not a sprint, and with 19 still to go form tells me it’s going to be another month or two — or three — before the titular goal is reached.

Less optimistic than some of my previous end-of-month “how I might do next time” declarations, but more realistic.

James Bond @ 100 Films

With the Bond 50 Blu-ray box set out on Monday (and many people no doubt already receiving their copies — I’m still vainly hoping mine will turn up today), I thought now was as good a time as any to bring 100 Films’ previous Bond reviews over to the new blog. (The other “good time” would be in a couple of weeks when Skyfall reaches cinemas, but why wait? Besides, Bond 50 actually includes the films I’m reviewing below; I think it’s safe to say Skyfall doesn’t.)

I’m thinking about mounting a great big chronological Bond re-watch now that they’re all on BD. Though I’ve seen them all before and so none qualify for this blog, I may do some kind of retrospective anyway — I love Bond, and what’s a blog for if not sharing your passions?

Until then, here’s the five increasingly-lengthy Bond pieces I’ve written to date: