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:
A year after the end of Captain America, love interest Peggy Carter is working a desk job in New York, lacking any respect or acknowledgement from her superiors. But one night, when she’s left alone in the office, a mission comes her way…
Let’s cut to the chase: Agent Carter is easily the best Marvel One-Shot yet. The others have all been fun in their own, but they’re really quite slight and throwaway — if you miss them, never mind. This one, however, takes one of Captain America’s better characters and builds on her further — yes, character development in a 15-minute short. Not only do you get the sense that if Peggy returns in a Marvel feature the events of this short will have had an influence on how we see her, you also feel that anyone who hasn’t seen it will feel the need to go back and seek it out. In fact, this short just proves Agent Carter needs her own feature film. Considering these 15 minutes alone are better than the entirety of Captain America, I fully expect she could sustain it.
As the titular character, Hayley Atwell displays just the right mix of acting ability and action skill to carry such a part. In fact, see also last Christmas’ miniseries Restless, in which she played a similar role. You could even take that as a feature-length Carter adventure, if you wanted. Well, not quite, but close.
Action-packed, funny, character developing, and with some hilarious cameos at the end… You couldn’t ask for much more from a 15 minute superhero-universe short.
Agent Carter is included on the Iron Man 3 Blu-ray, out now in the UK and from September 24th in the US.
Included on the Blu-ray releases of both The Avengers and (unlike Joss Whedon’s commentary or the tip of Loki’s spear) Avengers Assemble, Item 47 is the only of Marvel’s One-Shot shorts to date that’s actually connected to the film it’s released with.* It was greeted with great interest from fans due to its length — after the insanely short first two films, this was of such a length that it mattered; it felt like it was practically its own feature. Perhaps the memory cheats, though, because in reality it’s all of a whopping 11 minutes.
The other, more pertinent, reaction was to its quality: some fans seemed to hate it; nay, despise it. Only in geek/comic book communities could a short bonus feature inspire such vitriol. Personally, I thought it was quite good. I don’t really know what some fans expect from these short films — they’re not very long, so you can’t dig into a complex story, and they don’t have an enormous budget for big-screen spectacle (recently, director/producer Louis D’Esposito answered a question about if they could do a short starring Loki or someone by saying they could do one set in Asgard or with a super-powered character, but it would be about 30 seconds long before the budget was used up).
With that considered, the story is quite solid: after the Battle of New York, an alien gun falls into the hands of young couple Benny (Jesse Bradford, TV’s Guys with Kids) and Claire (Lizzy Caplan, TV’s Masters of Sex). When they use it for nefarious purposes, it attracts the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D., who send in Agent Sitwell (Maximiliano Hernández, TV’s The Americans… and also Thor, Marvel One-Shot: The Consultant, Avengers Assemble, and next year’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier). 
This is exactly the kind of tale I presume the imminent TV series Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be telling. Considering fans seem ultra-hyped for that, I’m not sure why they dislike Item 47 so much; or, alternatively, what they think MAoS will contain that this doesn’t. Well, character development and Agent Coulson, of course — but then your average episode of MAoS will run about five times longer than this short, so (again) what do you expect?!
Item 47 is precisely what I think you should expect from these short films: a fun little bonus tale set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s an entertaining few minutes that aren’t going to change anyone’s world, but are worth a fan’s time.
* Previously: The Consultant, released on Thor, connects Iron Man to The Incredible Hulk; the lengthily-titled second short, released on Captain America, connects Iron Man 2 to Thor; and the new one, Agent Carter, released on Iron Man 3, is connected to Captain America. Got that? ^
The director of Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and other films which don’t imply a specific timeframe in their title, helms a film about Shakespeare? Oh yeah, that sounds like a good idea…
And it is indeed dreadful.
In fact, it’s one of those films that’s hard to criticise because I just thought it was so consistently weak. There’s a lot of middling to couched-positive reviews of it floating about, but I practically despised it. For a start, there’s the faintly ludicrous premise that Shakespeare didn’t write the works of Shakespeare. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s been around for decades, at least, and some people do believe it… but not anyone who’s serious about Shakespeare. I think the film takes it seriously, though, and that sets me against it from the off. I know there are plenty of films that tell silly stories in a silly way, but no one’s trying to convince you Avengers Assemble or 2012 actually happened.
Then there’s the confusing storytelling, which occasionally jumps around in time; the attempts at a court intrigue storyline (because the “it’s not by Shakespeare!” thing doesn’t sustain a whole plot), the kind of thing which has been done better even in something as simplistic as The Tudors; the too-dark cinematography (with occasional eye-catching images); the attempts at spicing up a period thriller with action scenes and other histrionics, 
which is what you should expect from the director of all those films I listed above but quite blatantly doesn’t sit right. And it’s over two hours long too, so it keeps going… and going…
Unlike Emmerich’s other films, which are hardly the height of art but are largely entertaining on some base level, Anonymous is just bad. With a quality cast and the occasional scene-redeeming moment, it’s not an unmitigated disaster. Still, this film by any other name would smell just as shit.
(If you think that one-liner was bad, try watching the film.)
(But, seriously, don’t.)
Anonymous featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.
Some have described Iron Man 3 (or, as the onscreen title would have it, Iron Man Three) as “the best Iron Man yet”, even better than the exalted first movie. Others have described it as “at least better than Iron Man 2”, the derided first sequel. I thought the first one was a tad overrated and the second notably underrated, so where does this trilogy-forming instalment fall on my personal scale? Well, that depends what you want from an Iron Man film…
Following on from the events of Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, Tony Stark is a man with little purpose. The American government have a rebranded War Machine to do their bidding; Pepper is now running Stark Industries; who knows where S.H.I.E.L.D. are (dealing with the plot of Captain America 2, probably). Tony, meanwhile, is creating endless iterations of the Iron Man armour and suffering panic attacks from memories of when the suit failed him during the Battle of New York. For all his usual wisecracking, he’s a man who’s had his confidence undermined — and if there’s one thing Stark’s known for, it’s his self-confidence.
It’s not long before some events happen that push Stark, and his Iron Man alter ego (or is it an alter ego? But I’m getting ahead of myself), back into action. But those panic attacks remain, as does his overwhelming desire to protect his first stable relationship with Pepper. Here, then, is perhaps the film’s strongest element: the development of Tony Stark as a character. It’s not as if the first two films don’t have some degree of character development, but it wasn’t so fundamental. Tony starts Film 1 as a wisecracking show-off partying womanising arms manufacturer, 
and ends it as… a wisecracking show-off partying womanising superhero. Film 2 and even The Avengers don’t take him a great deal further, arguably, but here he’s pushed. He still behaves recklessly, because that’s what he’s used to doing, but then the consequences of that recklessness — when he has something he cares about — are brought home. Literally.
Despite outward appearances, the Iron Man movies have always been as much — or more — about the characters and the humour as they have been about action sequences. When you’ve got Robert Downey Jr being hilarious, you want to see more of that than a robot-like superhero punching things. With Shane Black on co-writing and directing duties here (a great choice that pays off), you want to see that as much as ever, and the film keeps it up. So while Stark struggles with the responsibilities of a relationship and with how he’s going to overcome his anxiety problems, he continues to be as snarky and fun to be around as ever. And the film continues to not feature that much in-suit action.
Indeed, for much of the film the suit is out of commission: after the all-out assault on the house you surely saw in the trailer and that I alluded to above, Tony is in hiding, relying more on his own wits and detective skills to piece together just what’s going on. I imagine some people found this to be slow and dull, wanting the punchy-punchy boomy-explodey stuff of every other action movie. But after the sheer scale of The Avengers, Marvel and co are right to find a different tack. You can’t out-do what The Avengers did, and if you try to it would become implausible
as to why S.H.I.E.L.D. and the super-friends aren’t sticking their noses in, so instead we have a problem on a grand scale, yes, but one for Stark/Iron Man to tackle on his lonesome.
That said, for the sake of the trailer and the adrenaline junkies, it just means the film is rear-loaded with action scenes — three climax-worthy sequences back to back, in fact. It’s a bit of a shame they’re so closely placed, because while each is well-executed individually, they’re also almost immediately overshadowed by what follows. You don’t have time to digest the Air Force One skydiving rescue before it’s off to the oil-rig for the Big Battle. The film takes a break from action by establishing where some characters are and shuffling pieces, sure, but it’s so much set up for the next sequence there’s no time to catch your breath. For me it’s a minor issue, one that will surely be less apparent on future viewings.
And future viewings are merited, because despite all the things that could be ever so depressing, the film has even more to commend it as entertainment. There’s Tony’s relationship with the small-town kid who helps him, for instance, which is suitably irreverent (“dads leave, no need to be a pussy about it”); there’s grace notes like the reluctant henchman (I’m not quoting his one line, it shouldn’t be spoiled); there’s the ’70s action series-style end credits (they brought a huge smile to my face, anyway); and there’s the film’s treatment of the Mandarin…
Ah, the Mandarin. He’s Iron Man’s big bad; the guy fans have been asking about since before the first film. I don’t know much about him, but I believe in the comics he’s some kind of magician — doesn’t sit well with the film series’ more sci-fi leanings, even after we’ve seen Iron Man meet the likes of Thor. Here, the Mandarin is reconfigured as a terrorist; a very powerful one, spreading his message by taking over US airwaves… and blowing things up as well, naturally. But there’s a twist to him, which I won’t discuss here; beyond to say that, even though I saw it coming (helped, I admit, by everyone saying “there’s a twist to the Mandarin!”), I thought it was quite brilliantly done. Ben Kingsley is magnificent.
It’ll also surprise no one when Stark’s business rival, Aldrich Killian, turns out to be a villain too. Bit of a rehash of the second film there, maybe, but — even though I liked that film — Iron Man 3 handles it better. Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer was perhaps a more memorable character, but Guy Pearce’s Killian fits the plot and themes nicely, and is more of a force to be reckoned with overall. My only disappointment came near the end (slight spoilers for the rest of the paragraph), when it’s revealed in a small aside of a scene that he can breathe fire. Come the big all-action climax and… he doesn’t do it again. Is it a little silly he can breathe fire? Maybe. But it does kinda work with the rest of the things we’ve learnt, and I presume it was a conscious reference to another Iron Man enemy, the giant dragon Fin Fang Foom, who Killian has tattooed on his chest. Even without that tattoo, they’ve established he has a special power, so why doesn’t he use it in the final battle? Surely that’s what it’s made for? Personally, I’d’ve deleted the earlier reference if I wasn’t going to use it at the climax.
In the grand scheme of things, I still think that’s a minor complaint. Indeed, any issues I have with the film are minor complaints, including the slightly elongated first act and the Iron Man-less second one. I think it works for the style the film is aiming at — more of a military-ish spy-ish thriller than a bombastic beat-em-up superhero flick — and that works for me. And, not a complaint, but a minor point: the Actor’s Agent of the Week award goes to whoever represents Stephanie Szostak. I’ve never heard of her and her character’s only really in one sequence, but she’s billed right below the big-name lead cast and above henchman and 24 season three star James Badge Dale, amongst other recognisable names and faces. A Christmas bonus for that representative.
So, is Iron Man 3 the finest Iron Man film? Well, as ever, that’s a matter of perspective. I do think it completes the character’s personal arc, which has flown through not only the first two films but also The Avengers. I’m not the first to note the finalising tone of the film’s final minutes, and I believe the Bondian “Tony Stark will return” at the end is to reassure us he’ll be back in the Avengers sequel rather than imply we should look for an Iron Man 4. Despite marking out release dates through Summer 2017, Marvel have said they won’t be confirming any films of their 2016 or 2017 releases for at least another year. When the time comes, I don’t think an Iron Man sequel will be among them, keeping that particular big gun — and that particular big-name actor — for special occasions. I’m alright with that, because I think we’ve had three highly entertaining movies out of him, and even without an adaptation of the (in)famous Demon in a Bottle arc, 
I don’t think there’s much left to do with the character right now. Plus, ending the film with the latest twist on the first movie’s renowned closing declaration is a nice way to round off a series… at least until the inevitable recasting one day.
So back to my question: is it the best Iron Man film? Well, that’s a matter of… oh, wait. Anyway, I refuse to commit. But it might be. It might well be.
Iron Man 3 is out on DVD & Blu-ray in the UK today, and in the US on September 24th. Ha-ha.
Film and theatre director Julie Taymor (infamous now for Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark) here brings us a radical-seeming interpretation of Shakespeare’s final play. The main character’s changed gender! There’s CGI being tossed about everywhere! It’s got Russell Brand in it! If that sounds superficial, it is. Taymor’s film is still set in the Elizabethan period, in Elizabethan dress (broadly speaking), with a cast of mostly classical actors, enacted on an island that is admittedly a stunning setting but is nonetheless where the original play is set. If it’s a “modern retelling of William Shakespeare” (per the blurb), it perhaps missed what Baz Luhrmann brought to the table 14 years earlier.
Or perhaps not. Just because a temporal re-staging worked for one adaptation doesn’t mean they all have to do it, and Taymor’s adaptation is still packed with modernist flourishes. But that’s the thing: they’re flourishes. Luhrmann reconstructed Shakespeare in a way that worked for modern audiences, leaving the text untouched but adorning it with visual and stylistic touches that made it fresh and relatable for a new audience. Taymor may throw in some cool stuff, like a three-storey high Ariel setting a ship afire in a storm, or Russell Brand speaking how Russell Brand speaks, but there’s nothing in the surrounding work to appeal to the kind of audience who might think a ship on fire in a storm or Russell Brand being Russell Brand would fit nicely into the next Pirates of the Caribbean film that they’re really excited for.
I studied The Tempest at university and rather enjoyed it. It’s not too long, it has some striking ideas, and, as I remember it, it’s not too deep or complex, really. On screen, that doesn’t come across. 
It goes on in the middle, a mess of scenes of characters traipsing about the island for no apparent reason. (This reminded me of A Field in England a little, actually: a group of people who don’t know what’s going on wandering through a weird supernatural landscape having tangential conversations.) When describing the plot the Shakespearean dialogue is clear enough to follow, but the story seems to be set in motion at the start and then put aside to be resolved at the end, with meandering asides in between. Either that’s Shakespeare’s fault or Taymor bungled it in her execution. Or I missed something.
It may be easy to jump on criticisms of the film — as many have, judged by its low scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb — but there is quality here. The cast is filled with recognisable names and faces, which naturally pays off in many instances. In the lead, Helen Mirren turns Prospero into Prospera, a transition so faultless you’d well believe it’s how it was written. She’s obviously a strong actress and delivers a powerful nuanced performance, justifying a gender change that would otherwise be labelled needless. Supporting roles are bolstered by names like Ben Whishaw (Olivier-nominated at just 24 for his Hamlet, lest we forget), Tom Conti, David Straitharn, Chris Cooper, Alan Cumming, Alfred Molina, and the latest constant-up-and-comer, Felicity Jones. If anything some of them are underused. By “some” I really mean Straitharn, who doesn’t have a great deal to tackle as King Alonso. Conti, Cooper and Cumming fare best, with Whishaw hampered by all the effects he’s buried in.
Another key role sees Djimon Hounsou as the slave Caliban, immediately suggesting a colonialist reading that isn’t exactly a huge reach anyway. And Russell Brand makes Shakespeare sound like Russell Brand talking, which at some points I’m not convinced he isn’t (I’ve no idea if Taymor allowed him to stray from the text or not). Love interest is provided by Reeve Carney. I’ve never heard of him, but he’s young and quite pretty and has a music video on the Blu-ray, so I guess he’s from that kind of arena. He speaks with an English accent, but so does everyone else (bar Caliban and the boatswain), so he may still be sourced from the other side of the pond’s teenybopper scene.
Talking of music, Elliot Goldenthal’s score also aligns itself with the film’s modern CGI-bolstered take on the material: it squeals with electric guitars and thunders with drums, evoking so many other computer-accented history-set films of recent years. It took me a while to recall what in particular it most reminded me of, but eventually realised it was 300. I checked that they didn’t share a composer, though that did lead me to notice that Goldenthal is listed on IMDb as providing uncredited stock music for 300. So there you go.
The most striking thing about the film is the visuals. Stuart Dryburgh’s cinematography sometimes offers up breathtaking imagery, aided by beautiful shooting locations in Hawaii, largely sparse and barren places with dramatic coastal settings. And then there’s the lashings of CGI, which render 
Ariel as a truly spiritual spirit, half invisible and jetting off into the sky on a regular basis. I found his realisation a mixed bag: it’s nice to take advantage of the medium to render the spirit in a way that’s impossible on stage, but sometimes it goes a bit far and looks a bit cheap. They’ve also tried to make him androgynous, but done it a bit weirdly: he’s always naked, occasionally making it clear he has no penis, sometimes has small breasts, but always has a moderately deep, clearly manly voice. Show it to a class of teenagers studying the play and you may illicit some confused feelings… That aside, the make-up effects are brilliant. Caliban’s patchwork skin is the best piece of work, but Ariel’s rendering as a giant crow is a fearsome sight as well. For all I know the latter may count as costume design, which is what earnt the film an Oscar nomination. But, hey, the clothes are nice too.
Taymor’s rendering of The Tempest is the kind of film you might dub a fascinating failure. It’s a bizarre mash-up of classical interpretation and modern filmmaking, and I don’t think it’s unfair to call the latter superficial flourishes rather than fundamental revelations. The story wanders, the humour isn’t funny, the visuals swing between a bit cheap and memorably staggering, there are strong performances but others that, while not out of their depth, do sit awkwardly. Some people will despise it, but I don’t know if anyone will love it. I’d have liked to, and early on I thought I might, but then it lost its way.
It would be nice to say the magic and fantasy could convert new fans to Shakespeare, much as Leo DiCaprio and swishy editing did for teens nearly two decades ago, but there’s nothing beyond that trailer-friendly neat-looking stuff to convince them it was worth their time. Meanwhile, Shakespeare traditionalists may find it all a bit much. If that leaves it stranded on an ill-located isle of terrible beauty, then at least it’s an apt fate.
The UK TV premiere of The Tempest is on BBC Two and BBC Two HD tonight at 11:05pm. Note it’s not available on Blu-ray in the UK, so if you want to see it in HD, now’s your chance.
Co-written by geek god Joss Whedon and former Buffy/Angel writer Drew Goddard, cabin-in-the-woods horror movie The Cabin in the Woods is as much a deconstruction, or even spoof, of the genre as an entry in it — just as you might expect from a pair with such a track record.
This means it’s one for the genre literate, proven by the reams of missed-the-point reviews on sites such as LOVEFiLM. Taken as intended, however, it’s actually very good. If you’re a fan of the horror genre, try to avoid spoilers (there are twists throughout) and just enjoy something made for you.
In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.
Depending on your point of view, The Cabin in the Woods hails from either 2009 (the year it was shot), 2011 (the year of its copyright), or 2012 (the year it was released). Various sites side with different options; when I first started writing this IMDb listed it as 2011, but have since changed to 2012. Wasn’t it just easier when films were released and everyone agreed that’s when it was from? In the end I turned to Google, where “Cabin in the Woods 2011” produces about 8.9 million results, and “Cabin in the Woods 2012” about 11.6 million. (Incidentally, when I first ran those searches, the numbers were closer to 6m and 16m respectively.)
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.
The first film I watched as part of my new-this-year What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? initiative is also the oldest, a silent movie (with a synchronised music & effects soundtrack) starring, written and directed by Charlie Chaplin.
Billed at the start of the titles as “A Comedy Romance in Pantomime”, the film concerns the tramp (Chaplin, obv.) falling in love with a blind girl (Virginia Cherrill) who stands to be evicted from her home, and also befriending a rich gentlemen (Harry Myers) prone to drink and forgetting the tramp when he’s sober. These relatively slight storylines are really used to string together a series of skits, which I suppose is Chaplin’s forte. These are intermittently very funny, even if some stuff has now dated, probably through copying and repetition by others. However, towards the end there’s a boxing sequence which is flat-out excellent; so good that the old UK DVD used it on the cover, even though it’s a complete aside in the context of the film. Elsewhere, Chaplin puts the synchronised soundtrack to good use, using sound effects for added humour.
Though the film is mostly comedic and the romantic plot is a little thin, Chaplin also manages to construct moments that are affectingly emotional. The most notable is the ending, which remains a striking example of subtle acting yielding huge rewards. It is, you are oft told if you read up on the film, a famous screen moment, though I guess fadingly so because (I must confess) it only rang a vague bell even after I’d seen it. 
Much of the film’s emotional impact comes courtesy of Cherrill, who gives a suitably pretty and sweet performance. Chaplin wasn’t impressed with her as an actress and attempted re-casting (the film has a remarkably fraught production history), but I think it’s beneficial that never worked out. It’s always possible another actress could have been just as good, of course, but I can’t imagine any playing this role better.
Over 80 years since it was released, I think City Lights’ high place on some Great Movies lists is probably due more to it being Significant than plain enjoyable when viewed today — the kind of film that was great at the time and certainly has a place in history, but has perhaps been surpassed in some respects. Or maybe that’s just me being a young whippersnapper. Either way, greatness is never entirely superseded, and Chaplin’s most acclaimed film still has joys to impart.
* The original aspect ratio is 1.20:1, but the old UK DVD (at least) is definitely fullscreen. ^
Some films benefit from knowing as little as possible going in; some are at their best when you know nothing at all. But that’s pretty much impossible — unless you go purely on someone’s “you’ll like this, trust me” recommendation about a film you’ve never even heard of, you’ll be aware of something. Normally this comes from a review or blurb, and you just have to trust that the reviewer or copywriter was kind enough to keep it spoiler-free.
BAFTA-winning drama-documentary The Imposter is a definite case of the less you know the better, and yet it’s been quite widely praised and pushed so that if you’ve heard of it you probably know what it’s about. Documentaries need that more than fiction films, because they have to fight to ‘cross over’. It’s arguable that Catfish suffered from the same problem of having to reveal too much in order to attract attention. But Catfish had the advantage that its Big Twist was at the end, meaning it went largely unspoiled — The Imposter’s is right at the start. I suppose this is because it’s a fairly well-documented news event (at appropriate junctures, the film is littered with clips from American media coverage), but also because it’s such an implausible story you have to be honest about it upfront.
So here’s what the film lets you in on in the opening moments: in 1993, 13-year-old Nicholas Barclay went missing in Texas. In 1997, a boy claiming to be him surfaced… in Spain. He had Nicholas’ tattoos, but he had a French accent and the wrong colour eyes. And yet the first relative to see him, Nicholas’ older sister, gave a positive ID, and upon returning to America he was accepted into the family. Why did they take in such an obvious fraud?
The blurb on the DVD/Blu-ray cover will also tell you that much. And the thing is, the film is basically that story in more detail. There’s more at the end of it, of course — when the FBI get involved; when deeper questions get asked about what really happened to Nicholas — but for a good long while it’s putting flesh on the bones of a story you’ve already had sketched. While that has its plus points (just how a set of events so ridiculous you wouldn’t buy them in a fiction came to pass is naturally a fascinating tale), there’s the odd bit of thumb-twiddling while you wait for it to get to the inevitable.
For me, this was hindered rather than helped by Bart Layton’s flashy direction. This doesn’t look like your standard documentary (even the talking heads have a different visual feel), to the point where the line between archive footage/audio and dramatic recreation is blurred. It’s quite a straightforward retelling — Layton doesn’t indulge in the game of dramatising a lie only to reveal it was indeed a lie — 
but, nonetheless, it makes the documentary itself feel untrustworthy, just like its participants. Is that an intended effect? Arguably the film’s main theme is lies — the lies we tell ourselves, the truths we want to believe; confirmation bias, perhaps, though that term is never mentioned — but the documentary itself never lies to us… I don’t think. It just feels like it might be.
The story comes alive in the last half hour or so. Early on it is fascinating how fake-Nicholas sets the ball rolling, but then you just wait for everyone to cotton on. As things begin to unravel, however, the story moves in a slightly different direction — in my opinion, a more engrossing one, because it’s an area of the tale that isn’t covered in the blurb! Unfortunately, it has no definite ending. This is real life, that happens, and the objectivity of not forcing a conclusion or pushing an agenda is to the documentary’s favour; but it’s nonetheless a smidgen unsatisfying.
There’s no doubting The Imposter tells a bizarre and fascinating tale, but at times I felt it was one that might be better served through a solid Sunday supplement article than a feature-length documentary film. Layton’s over-eager style also grated occasionally, particularly when it drew attention to itself over the story it was trying to tell. Perhaps he better belongs in fiction filmmaking? Perhaps that’s where he wants to go in future: 
as the poster prominently tells us, this is “from the producer of Man on Wire”, a film whose director went on to helm Red Riding 1980 and IRA thriller Shadow Dancer, so there’s a pathway there.
Still, for its faults, The Imposter is a tale worth hearing — a tale so unbelievable, it can only be true.
The UK TV premiere of The Imposter is on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm.
100Films.co.uk 