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…
- Powell & Pressburger
Also known as The Archers, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger loom large in the history of British cinema; and internationally, too, in part thanks to Martin Scorsese’s unabashed fondness for their work. Significant films I’ve missed include A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus, and The Red Shoes. - Federico Fellini
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. - Luis Buñuel
Just five names attract a perfect 10 score on TSDPT’s rating system, and this Spanish-born surrealist is the only one absent from my checklist. Significant misses include Un Chien Andalou, Viridiana, Belle de Jour, and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. - François Truffaut
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. - Werner Herzog
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…
- Baz Luhrmann
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…
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 
June’s films
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 
The first 
“But there was a 
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 
#44 The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
#48a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
The clear victor is the Alfonso Cuarón-helmed franchise-revitalising third film, 
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.
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.
#38a 
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.
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.
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.
#17 Final Destination 5 (2011)
This honour was widely seen as recognising the whole trilogy, and really my inclusion is for the same reason — I love all the Lord of the Rings films, but if I had to pick a favourite it would be Fellowship. That The Hobbit didn’t get anywhere near the Best Picture nods this season gives it a faint ring of The Godfather Part III: belated and misguided. Though even Coppola’s threequel got a nomination.
Speak of the devil… I really need to re-watch the Godfather trilogy, so I can’t offer much insightful comment, but I’m one of those people who sides with Part I being better than Part II. I found Michael’s descent into the family more engaging than… what, his consolidation of power? Is that what happened? (I really do need to re-watch them.) Plus, you can’t beat a bit of Brando.
I love an epic — indeed, the average length of my three choices so far is 2 hours 34 minutes — and in many respects Gone with the Wind is the ultimate epic, a tale that sprawls through time and across locations, but with the relationship between two individuals at its heart. And it beat The Wizard of Oz to the prize, which is a bonus.
As with The Godfather, I need to re-watch this. It was one of the first Westerns I saw and I think it would benefit from the improved understanding of the genre I now have. Equally, it was instrumental in transforming a type of film I’d previously ignored (not through any conscious effort) in to one I enjoy. (There’s a whole article to write on modern mass perception of Westerns, but that’s for another day.)
For all the talk of the Academy always getting it wrong, there are numerous times they’ve got it right. Or, at least, near as dammit. Which made choosing just five hard, but I’ve chosen this to try and balance things out — I don’t only like epics that mostly feature some kind of war (this was very nearly Schindler’s List). Woody Allen on form is great fun, and this is that. I liked Manhattan more though.
There’s a lot of love for this movie in some circles — it’s ranked 
#1 Underworld: Awakening (2012)
#6 Dredd (2012)
Fans have waited decades for a decent cinematic translation of the iconic 2000 AD lawman, and they finally got it last year. The filmmakers mooted a trilogy; the pathetic US box office take seemed to put the brakes on that; but now it’s doing great business on DVD and Blu-ray. Who knows if we’ll get a sequel, then, but the exciting future world depicted in the first film deserves further exploration.
Another mooted trilogy that seems to be in limbo — when you look into the first film, no obvious quotes crop up denying a sequel, but the first was released in 2010 and there’s no sign of a follow-up being in the works. I don’t know how well it went down in its native France, but I thought it was a daft, exciting, funny entertainment and I’d love to see more.
A sequel has been on and off ever since 
I don’t really mean a sequel to 
M. Night Shyamalan’s leftfield take on the superhero genre is, for my money, the best of his films. Ever since it first came out he’s talked about how the entire movie was originally just act one of a longer piece, and that he might produce the rest as the next two films in a trilogy. Instead, he’s made numerous unrelated but 
As Christopher Nolan 
100Films.co.uk 