Films and Things

Senna

2011-06-14T13:32:00.000+01:00

In recent years I've stopped watching documentaries. On the whole, the task has become futile. In the past the purpose of a documentary was to investigate a subject and present the findings to the audience in an interesting, and preferably balanced fashion. Unfortunately, all that has changed in recent years and I predominantly blame one man for that.

Now don't misunderstand me, this is not about my political persuasion or anybody else's for that matter, but Michael Moore is responsible for making documentaries unwatchable for me. I may agree with a lot of the points he made in Bowling for Columbine, Sicko etc and I may disagree with others. However, at no point did he ever try to present all of the facts on a topic. His style is to ram his personal agenda down the throat of the audience and ignore or even ridicule any attempt to disagree. This does not encourage debate, it destroys it. It's also quite a good example of how American politics is becoming increasingly combative and antagonistic.

If it were just Michael Moore doing this then it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that, probably because Moore's films became commercially successful, everyone else has began to follow his lead. There was Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth that, while making some fascinating points, refused to engage with differing opinions and even included some 'key scientific errors' according to a high court judge. Then there was the guy that ate nothing but McDonalds for a few weeks and expected us to be shocked when he got ill. Hey buddy, try eating nothing but bananas for a month and see what happens to you.

It's not just films either. Regular documentary series in the UK like Panorama and Dispatches are copying the 'Moore Method' as I like to call it and are therefore pointless viewing in my opinion.

I realise I have spent a lot of time getting round to the subject matter of this post, but I want to make it absolutely clear how much I hate documentaries before I talk about out how much I loved Senna. It was the best thing I've seen in the cinema this year and probably the best documentary I've ever seen.

I'm sure that it helps that I am a motor racing fan and I remember watching Senna and Prost go to war with each other when I was young. I also vividly recall watching the San Marino Grand Prix in 1994 and seeing the crash that killed him. At the time Seena seemed like an old man to me. I was only 13 myself and he'd been at the top of Formula 1 almost my whole life. Watching the film this weekend reminded me of just how young he was, which made his success even more incredible.

Almost surprisingly the film doesn't show as much racing footage of Senna as you might expect. It certainly shows enough to remind you of the phenomenal skill he had and how reckless he could be, but there is much more behind the scenes footage and excellent storytelling that help to bring everything together without relying on replaying races.

His battles with Prost and the management of F1 at the time are obviously a big focus and I will confess that Senna is very much painted as the good guy, despite a few indiscretions. However, it is important to remember that despite the animosity between them, Prost was pall bearer at Senna's funeral, is a patron of the remarkable Senna foundation and was involved in the making of the documentary.

Do you need to be an F1 fan to love Senna? It helps, but I don't think it's essential. Racing may be the fulcrum around which the documentary is made, but this is a remarkably moving story about a very interesting human being. It's compelling viewing from start to finish and made me feel like there is hope yet for the genre.

Kermode on the Death of 3D

2011-06-13T10:58:00.001+01:00

Can it really be true? Are studios finally going to listen to people and stop this ridiculous 3D nonsense? Mr. Kermode thinks so.

X Men: First Class

2011-06-10T16:31:00.003+01:00

Oh Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman, how I love you! Every film that these two work on together has been spot on. Kick Ass was one of my favourite films of last year and X Men: First Class is definitely the best comic book movie of 2011 so far in my opinion.

After a very strong start to the franchise with the first X Men film 11 years ago (I know, where does the time go?), Bryan Singer followed up with the superb X2 in 2003, which raised the bar for comic films that few have come close to since.

Everything was looking good for the X Men series and I was a happy fan. That was until the curse of the 'difficult third movie' struck (see Spiderman 3). X Men 3 could have been epic. It was the Phoenix Saga for goodness sake, one of the greatest story arcs of all time. However, Bryan Singer wasn't at the helm this time as he chose to do Superman Returns instead, which I thought was great despite poor box office returns. This led to the worst choice in directors since Joel Schumacher took over the Batman franchise... Brett Ratner.

X-Men: The Last Stand was a disaster of a movie and one that I refuse to watch a second time after almost weeping with disappointment in the cinema. My favourite series of comic films had been ruined. Ratner made a bigger mess of the Phoenix than Raimi did of Venom.

You'd think that would be the end of things, but no. They then decided to make the Wolverine origins film. While I didn't hate it, I went in with very low expectations... I'd been hurt too many times before. However, my girlfriend is a huge X Men / Wolverine fan and is a far bigger comic book geek than I am and she can barely bring herself to talk about it. I can see her point.

After all of this you'd think I wouldn't be able to face another X Men film and I'm not sure I would have bothered with First Class if I hadn't seen those two names attached to the project. Not only did I decide to go and see it, I actually let myself get a little bit excited. The writer / director partnership aside, James McAvoy is usually worth seeing.

I certainly wasn't disappointed this time. X Men: First Class is a great comic movie and utilises major historical events of the 20th Century (the holocaust, the Cuban missile crisis) to provide not only the backdrop for the story but also the allegory for persecution and fear of what is different. It does a great job of building the friendship between Xavier and Magneto and demonstrating how their different backgrounds gave them opposing perspectives on the world. It also introduces old favourites like Dr. Hank McCoy / Beast, played by the excellent Nicholas Hoult who I hope goes on to bigger and better things in Hollywood now.

However, First Class isn't perfect and there are a few niggles that I can't let go. Firstly, to remind the audience that they are watching events that are supposed to have happened in the 60s, at times the film looks a little 'shagadelic'. Watch out for the decor of Shaw's submarine to see what I mean.

Also, there were some parts of the story that I just didn't buy. Unless I missed something, since when was Mistique Charles Xavier's oldest and closest friend? I know they're thinking of doing a Mistique film, but that wasn't the way to give her a bigger role in this film.

Still, that doesn't take too much away from what is a very enjoyable cinema experience, made even better by the fact that they didn't release it in 3D. Happy days!

The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

2011-06-08T10:18:00.002+01:00

Exactly what it says on the tin...

Don't you just hate it when...

2011-06-07T14:30:00.003+01:00

... people use their phone in the cinema? Well, if I ever find myself in Texas I'm going to the Alamo Drafthouse, where they know exactly how to appeal to film lovers:

I'd love to claim I found this all by myself, but I need to thank Ben Child at The Guardian.

The Great Action Movie Debate

2011-05-19T10:47:00.003+01:00

I'm fully aware that my life is not that interesting. That's why I blog about movies rather than talking about me. However, you'll have to indulge me for a moment when I talk a little bit about my girlfriend.

I'm a very lucky chap for many reasons, but the important one for the purposes of this post is that my girlfriend is a big geek. She loves comics, sci fi, fantasy and everything in between. As such we have a great deal in common and tend to have similar opinions on the films that we watch. That is with one big exception: action movies.

If she tells me that a film is really good and well worth watching I'll almost always do so. However, I've made it clear to her that if she recommends an action movie to me then I'll almost certainly avoid it like the plague. To give you some examples, in the last year she has lauded The Losers, GI Joe and RED. After seeing the first two in that list I point blank refused to watch the third despite her ongoing attempts to change my mind.

Now as much as I like the idea of just using this post to shame my girlfriend, I'm actually getting on to a bigger point. I have started to ask myself what actually makes a good action film. Well, what makes an action film that I like anyway.

Explosions and heavy weaponry is probably a good place to start. A good bit of slow motion and, if you're a John Woo fan such as myself, someone flying through the air firing two pistols at once while a couple of doves flap around nearby. However, most action movies provide this sort of thing, making them more prerequisites than signs of quality (except the doves of course...).

If I think back to the big action movies that I grew up with in the 80s, I'd say my favourites by quite a distance are Die Hard and Leathal Weapon.

With Die Hard you have the brilliance of Alan Rickman as one of the best movie villains of all time, which is almost enough to give Die Hard the title alone. However, what gives it the extra edge is the superb wise-cracking Bruce Willis. John McClane is a fallible, unlikely action hero and, unlike Swarchenegger or Stallone at the time, he could get hurt. He felt like a regular guy in an extraordinary situation that really brought the audience in.

Then you have the true genius of McClane. His sense of humour. His glib remarks didn't cause eyes to roll like Arnie did, they made you laugh out loud. That, of course, is also why Lethal Weapon is also at the top of my list. Gibson and Glover play off each other perfectly every step of the way, creating my favourite buddy cop duo of all time. In fact if I'm comparing the two, Lethal Weapon just scrapes it for me because the first sequel was actually really good. Certainly superior to Die Harder at least.

So it's fair to say that the right amount of comedy is something I look for in an action movie, whether it's in the form of quick wit or just a sense that no one is taking things too seriously.

However, that doesn't explain my John Woo love as his movies don't really do comedy. Of course they are usually extremely well made, quite well written and superbly directed, which goes a long way.

I suppose that leads me to conclude that the prerequisites just aren't enough for me. If an action film is going to get my approval it needs to bring something more than a reliance on special effects, explosions and a ropey script.

Sorry my dear, you can tell me GI Joe is fun as much as you like but I'm off to watch Riggs and Murtagh take down the bad guys.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

2011-04-29T12:58:00.002+01:00

We must be getting close to summer blockbuster season as all the big trailers are starting to hit our screens.

I may loathe Michael Bay and the other Transformers movies may have been a bit pants, but I still can't help but get excited at seeing Optimus Prime go a bit postal...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

2011-04-28T09:24:00.004+01:00

Here's the trailer for the last Potter movie. It looks unsurprisingly epic and I will confess to being very excited about it.

Though it seems that there will be some fairly big differences to the book towards the end. I certainly don't recall Harry and Voldemort jumping off a bridge together.

Damn you 3D!

2011-04-26T14:03:00.001+01:00

Yesterday afternoon I went to see Thor at my local cinema. I’ve never been a big fan of Thor as a comic book character simply because he’s too powerful, but I think they did a pretty good job introducing him and further setting up the Avengers movie, which some of us have been salivating about for quite a while now.

In spite of this I was still left with a bad taste in my mouth after my trip to the movies and this was only partially because of the stale popcorn and flat coke that I had to mortgage my house to buy. The main reason for my displeasure was the ‘3D experience’ that was once again forced upon me.

The amazing immersive world of 3D first bites at the box office. To watch Thor in 3D I had to pay for the price of a normal ticket plus an extra £1.50 for the privilege. Then it would have been an extra £2 for the glasses if I hadn’t brought the ones I paid for last time.

I will concede that Thor is being shown in both 3D and 2D, giving at least the impression that people have a choice as to how they watch the film. I’m thoroughly in favour of this as I think most people will decide to not spend two and a half hours wearing dark glasses and film makers will eventually get the picture and stop trying to resurrect a technology that first failed to impress 50 years ago. Unfortunately my cinema had just one showing in 2D and about 8 in 3D so there wasn’t really that much of a choice.

Grumbling to myself like Mutley at Dick Dastardly I took my seat, placed the glasses onto my head and started watching the movie. Like I said before, I enjoyed it, but that was most definitely despite the 3D rather than because of it. It was ropey at best and downright ugly and distracting at worst. Some of the scenes in Asgard were almost unwatchable thanks to blurring, while scenes at night were often difficult to make out because they hadn’t compensated enough for the amount of light lost while wearing the glasses.

I accept that this isn’t always the case with 3D. I understand that problems occur when a movie isn’t filmed in 3D but has an extra dimension thrust upon it at a later stage. Also, some 3D movies were truly beautiful, such as Avatar (even if the story wasn’t great). However, I don’t think I would have lost anything by seeing Avatar in 2D as the effects were amazing even without the extra depth.

My biggest complaint with 3D is that it feels like the Emperor’s New Clothes. We’re being told that it’s the greatest, newest technology in the world and the future of cinema while my grandfather sits there laughing and telling me that they were telling him that in the 1950s.

It feels more like Hollywood’s latest attempt to prevent piracy than a genuine effort to give customers what they want. I don’t know many people who would rather see a film in 3D and even fewer who are happier to pay extra to do so.

While people have to wear glasses in order to watch films or TV programmes in 3D I can’t see any way for it to catch on in a serious way. Hollywood is going to have to bring me something better than that before I jump on board.

And We're Back

2011-04-26T10:25:00.002+01:00

It's been just over 18 months since I last posted, which I'm led to believe is rather poor form for a blogger. So, erm, yeah, sorry about that!

However, I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that I am about to resume normal service on Films and Things so you can look forward to more dry and witty prose from yours truly. You lucky things!

So why have I decided to blow the dust off the keyboard and get back to talking about movies again? Is it because I've seen so many great films in the last year and a half that I'm bursting to talk about them? Is it because I'm so excited about the upcoming summer of blockbusters? Or is it because I wanted to have a bit of a rant about 3D and this seemed like a good place to do it?

If you don’t know the answer then you must be new. Welcome!

Critic Fail

2009-09-08T14:39:00.003+01:00

I don’t really class myself as a film reviewer. Certainly not a professional one anyway. I’m just a fan boy who discovered that if I wrote down my rants rather than spouting them to all my friends in the pub then I might find some like-minded souls who not only agree with me, but compliment me on my observational skills, impressive prose and stunning wit. Plus it might mean people will want to come to the pub with me again.

When I go to see a film I very rarely do it with an open mind. If I’m walking into a romantic comedy I’m just looking for an excuse to hate it. If it’s a film adaptation of a Marvel or DC comic, chances are I’m going to find a reason to love it.

Of course this can sometimes leave me conflicted. I deeply dislike Bayhem, but he made two films with Optimus Prime in – what’s a geek to do?

Despite evidence to the contrary, I am actually going somewhere with this. My point is, I accept my bias, possibly even revel in it at times, yet even the best critics can’t seem to admit to theirs. It is often so predictable which critics will like which films, and why, it’s hardly worth reading the review.

I think the crux of my rant here is the tendency by some critics to dismiss any film with the label ‘blockbuster’ attached while lapping up anything ‘gritty’, ‘independent’ or ‘worthy’ (yes, you’ve all heard my ‘worthy’ film rants before, but I’m not stopping now). Granted I have been disappointed this summer, but just because a film is big doesn’t make it less worthy than one about an alcoholic, mentally challenged boy hiding from Nazi’s in war torn Poland (Thanks American Dad).

I mean, come on people, Ricky Gervais joked about Kate Winslet doing a holocaust film in order to win an Oscar. Then what happens when she did a holocaust film two years later? Yup, you guessed it. He even laughed about it when he hosted an award at the Golden Globes this year.

However, one of my favourite examples of ‘Critic Fail’TM is Kevin Smith. As people are probably aware by now I’m a big fan of his work. I love juvenile ‘dick and fart’ jokes and I like how he writes dialogue (must be a fan boy thing).

The reason he is such a great example of ‘Critic Fail’TM is because of his first film Clerks, which was made on a tiny budget and filmed mostly at night in the shop that Kevin Smith worked in at the time. It was shot in Black and White and as independent as they come. It was also a damn funny movie.

The critics certainly agreed – they lapped it up. Kevin was given plaudits and awards and rightly so. Unfortunately Mr. Smith then made a fatal error. He made his next film with a bigger budget, set it in a shopping mall and then, god forbid, shot it in colour.

Mallrats had the same humour, geek references, witty sidekicks (who can deliver a line better than Jason Lee?) and flawed couplings that we saw in Clerks, but was almost universally panned.

Of course I’m aware of the flaws in my argument here. Firstly I’m sure there are plenty of critics who have liked all of Kevin’s movies, or at least been fair with him all the way through. Secondly, Kevin’s third film Chasing Amy was generally well received by critics even though it wasn’t in black and white. However, my answer to this was that it was a film about lesbians, which means it fell into the ‘worthy’ column, so it was ok for critics to like it – nice one Kev!

So here’s a little mantra for all you critics out there: if it’s a big budget Holywood summer movie it’s not necessarily bad and if it’s a low budge independent film then it’s not necessarily good...unless it’s got Ryan Gosling in, because he’s always awesome.

Wow, it’s amazing the sort of rant I can come up with just by watching Zak and Miri make a Porno on DVD again. Even funnier the second time round and with a great soundtrack!

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

2009-08-22T13:20:00.001+01:00

It’s no secret that I’m a Harry Potter geek. Unlike most fans I came to the party late and saw the first four films before I picked up one of the books. I had dismissed them as kid’s books, but it’s amazing what you’ll watch with a bad hangover and the TV remote control out of arms reach. Thanks to one of those hangovers I became hooked on the films, which of course led to me reading the J.K. Rowling novels and thoroughly enjoying myself.

Something that always impressed me was how the films were made to represent the books so closely. Of course as the books became longer, this became more difficult. A number of omissions and slight changes were made from the fourth and fifth films, but nothing was lost, and the excellent story remained intact.

This is why I was so surprised when I sat down and watched The Half Blood Prince for the first time. What I watched was not a bad film by any means, in fact it was highly enjoyable. It also fitted in quite nicely with the rest of the films in the series. What it did not do, however, was represent the sixth book in the series.

The Half Blood Prince was always going to be one of the most difficult of the series to film. It represents the build-up to the finale and, as such, possibly struggles with a lack of unique story arc that was always present in the previous books and films.

However, to my mind the most important part of the story was always the history of Voldermort – how did he become the evil dark lord and how can Harry stop him? Obviously the film makers disagreed because this feels like a sub-plot, while the love lives of the students seem to take precedence.

Some critics have commented that the Half Blood Prince is the darkest of the films, which is something I could not disagree with more. With the exception of the dénouement it is one of the most light-hearted of the series. It feels like the comic relief before the drama of the Deathly Hallows, which is still to come.

The film is so light in fact that it was necessary to add in a dramatic scene that never existed in the book. The Christmas attack on the home of the Weasley’s was certainly not in the version of the book that I read. It is possible that I hold Harry Potter to a higher standard, because this would not surprise or bother me with other film adaptations, but to add in such an important scene that never existed before suggests to me that they were perhaps struggling with this one.

All of my fan-boy geek rants aside, The Half Blood Prince is a funny, well acted (take a bow Mr Broadbent), beautifully shot film that is well worth the price of admission. You may have some issues with it if you are a lover of the books, but if I can get over it then so can you.

A Disappointing Summer

2009-08-16T13:52:00.003+01:00

My my, how time flies. Three months between posts – sorry folks. It’s not the first time I’ve neglected my blog and it almost certainly won’t be the last. In the past it’s usually been because I get distracted by something shiny or, from time to time, real life.

However, this time is different. I haven’t really had much to say. Granted I should have kept things going by posting trailers and the odd bit of news, but I felt I needed to talk about some of the films that I was so looking forward to just a few months ago. It’s just that, almost everything has been so dull that I couldn’t really be bothered.

OK, Star Trek was excellent but I’ve already talked about that. So far none of the others on my list has lived up to my expectations.

Transformers will always have a soft spot in my heart because I am a child of the 80s. I’ve loved Optimus Prime since I was four years old. However, once you remove that feeling of nostalgia, all you are left with is two hours of Bayhem at its explosive worst.

Wolverine was fun but nothing special. Again nostalgia came into play and it was interesting enough to qualify as two hours of summer popcorn fodder, but there was nothing else to it. If I want to see a great film with Wolverine in it I’ll go back and watch X2.

Of course my reaction to these two films was entirely predictable. I wasn’t expecting to be blown away by innovative direction or pithy dialogue. Unfortunately I had higher hopes for Public Enemies, which is why it is probably the most disappointing film of the summer so far in my opinion.

Public Enemies is a film ruined by the director. I’ve discussed my issues with Michael Mann here before but I never would have predicted that he could take some excellent writing (some of it his own) and even better acting and make them into a poor film.

Perhaps poor is too strong, but his direction is so distracting that it’s difficult to enjoy Depp’s excellent turn as Dillinger as well as some impressive supporting performances, particularly by Stephen Graham who I think is an exceptionally talented actor. Mann’s attempt to shoot the film in an almost documentary, shaky hand-cam, style fails miserably as does his insistence on making every scene 20 seconds longer than it needs to be (a growing problem amongst directors at the moment).

This leaves me with two films from my list. I am yet to see Inglorious Basterds and, despite having already seen it twice, I have plenty to say about Harry Potter (both good and bad), so I will give it a full review in my next post.

Outside of my list I have heard good things about Moon, written and directed by Duncan Jones (David Bowie’s son) and plan on seeing it at some point – are there any other hidden gems I’ve missed out on this summer?

Star Trek

2009-05-11T17:17:00.001+01:00

It would be foolish for me to try to deny my status as a bit of a geek to anyone who knows me or anyone who has read this blog. I guess that’s why so many people have difficulty believing that I’ve never really been into Star Trek. As far as the TV shows go I liked the Next Generation due to the extremely talented cast and interesting one-off episodes, but I don’t think I ever watched a full episode of the original series, Deep Space Nine, Voyager or Enterprise.

It’s the same with the films, I’m fairly sure I’ve seen some of the early Trek movies, but I probably wouldn’t be able to tell you which was which with the exception of Wrath of Khan because who could forget Spock dying or Shatner screaming ‘Khan!’ at the top of his lungs? Even so, I think the only film from the franchise that I’ve seen more than once is First Contact, which I think is a great movie in its own right.

I’ve always had a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude towards Roddenberry’s sci-fi bunch, but I did get caught up in the hype for JJ Abrams’ reinvention of the franchise and was very much looking forward to it by the time I sat down in a very busy cinema on Saturday night. So busy in fact that I was unable to find a seat anywhere but in the front row, and this was before the previews had even started.

Sitting close to a large screen during the first ten minutes of Star Trek is quite an experience. I managed to avoid the onset of epilepsy and, once my eyes had become accustomed to the strange burning sensation in the retinas, settled down to watch one of the most enjoyable summer blockbusters that I’ve seen in many a year.

Great casting, story, special effects, direction (yes, even with the unnecessary solar flares every ten seconds) come together to create two hours of great fun movie. Zachary Quinto steals the show as Spock, but that shouldn’t take anything away from the rest of the Enterprise crew who are all very believable as the younger versions of their original series counterparts. Special mention should also go to Simon Pegg as a very amusing Scotty (although I realise I’m a bit biased here).

If I did have one complaint it would be that, at times, it felt a bit like they fast forwarded through character development in order to get to the next big exciting scene, but I didn’t go into the film expecting a massively cerebral experience so I wasn’t too bothered by this.

Kudos for Abrams for creating one of the best prequels I think I’ve ever see (yes Mr Lucas, I’m looking at you), and for doing enough to keep the Trekkies happy. Well, at the very least he has used the wonders of Science Fiction to explain away a lot of questions they might have had about continuity.

So if you’re looking for some great, enjoyable, popcorn fodder, go see Star Trek as soon as possible.

4 Minutes of Terminator Salvation

2009-05-08T11:34:00.001+01:00

Exactly what the title says:

More Kermode on Piracy

2009-05-05T10:31:00.002+01:00

Here's a follow up from last week's post by Mark Kermode about film piracy. Some really good points made here and I really think it's about time someone in the industry started paying attention.

Movie Piracy

2009-04-28T17:18:00.002+01:00

I don't always agree with Mark Kermode, but his point is usually pretty well made, which is why I'm a big fan of his.

However, in this case I agree with him 100% and it is so refreshing to hear someone finally say it.

I still don't think the movie industry is going to wake up for a while yet though.

Summer Season

2009-04-27T14:14:00.001+01:00

As you can tell by my previous post, I went to see I Love You Man this weekend. For me this feels like the start of the summer movie season with a load of blockbusters about to hit our screens in the next few months.

So for anyone who’s interested, here’s a list of the films I’m looking forward to the most in the next few months (in chronological order) -

Wolverine
Star Trek
Terminator Salvation
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Public Enemies
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Inglorious Basterds

OK, I get that there aren’t any small independent movies in that list but as it’s the summer season I think I’m allowed to drool over big budget blockbusters without the guilt. Plus the small movies tend to pop up rather than have months of marketing build up.

However, if you’re aware of any hidden gems that are coming up I’d love to hear about them. Or if you just think there’s a blockbuster or two that I’ve overlooked.

The Apatow Bunch

2009-04-27T14:06:00.002+01:00

I’m a big fan of the ‘Apatow Bunch’*. I’m referring, of course to the bunch of very funny guys - Seth Rogan, Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd, Bill Hader, Jonah Hill et al – who over the last few years have shown up in a bunch of great comedies that, more often than not, include some form of involvement from Judd Apatow.

Not only is this a really talented group of comedians, but they have managed to find a formula for making comedies that can appeal to everyone. For example, Knocked Up should, by all accounts, be described as a romantic comedy and therefore despised by all men. However, there’s enough guy humour running through it to keep me entertained. It is the perfect date movie.

However, not content with making the men and women laugh, they always through in some great lines for the geeks as well. There’s nothing a geek likes to see more than an in-joke. It makes us feel superior because we get a joke that some people in the audience won’t have understood because they don’t get the reference. You can see a great example of this if you watch I Love You Man staring Rudd and Segal, which came out in the UK last week. Just watch out for the Princess Bride reference – you’ll love it.

Even if you’re not a Princess Bride fan (ie soulless), you should go see it anyway because it’s just plain hilarious.

Amusingly enough I don’t think Judd Apatow had anything to do with I Love You Man, but it’s in the same style and stars two of his boys, so it counts as a ‘Bunch Movie’ as far as I’m concerned.

The only recent film by ‘The Bunch’ that I avoided in recent times was Pineapple Express. Stoner humour just doesn’t do it for me (that’s right, you heard me correctly Big Lebowski), and from what I understand I haven’t missed anything. Still, one dog out of around 15 movies isn’t so bad.

*The terms ‘Apatow Bunch’, ‘Bunch Movie’ and ‘The Bunch’ are registered trademarks of the Films and Things corporation (as if anyone cares!)

In Bruges

2009-04-24T10:32:00.003+01:00

Whoever made the trailer for In Bruges should be shot. To take an excellent, original, piece of work and make it look like an average, everyday, comedy must have taken some effort. I can only assume that it was done on purpose in order to bring in larger crowds.

I never really considered going to see the film in the cinema after watching the trailer. Even after it came out on DVD and my housemate bought it I let it sit on the side for about a month before finally watching it over the Easter Weekend.

The film begins with a simple enough premise – two Irish hitmen (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) flee London after a job and hideout in Bruges on their bosses orders. The first twenty minutes or so go as expected with some great witty banter between the two. However, there is an uncomfortable atmosphere that hangs over the comedy, created by bleak backdrops and a melancholy soundtrack.

Eventually the reason for the depressing feel is revealed and the film becomes one of the best black comedies that I can remember seeing. Farrell and Gleeson are superb and do a great job with some excellently written, witty dialogue. While the soundtrack and direction are impressive, it is the two of them that control the mood of the film throughout, making you laugh out loud one minute and then stopping you in your tracks without ever making it feel forced.

It’s difficult to talk about the film too much without stepping into ‘spoiler’ territory, and this is definitely a film that should be watched with as little prior knowledge as possible. So if you haven’t seen it yet then I would definitely recommend it – especially if you’ve avoided it because of the hideous job they did promoting it in the first place.

Hey Sports Fans

2009-03-24T17:28:00.003Z

There aren’t many sports I don’t enjoy watching. It doesn’t matter if it’s snooker, darts, golf or Rugby; chances are I will have, at some point in my life, shouted at the TV while watching it. So it’s a bit of a shame for me that, while there are lots of good sports movies, there really aren’t that many sports that make good films.

For example, there are fewer things that make me happier than sitting and watching a good Test Match. Five days of cricket that, in all likelihood, will end in a draw is a beautiful thing to watch. However, I really can’t see anyone making a good cricket movie. I think Bollywood has tried on a few occasions, but they always fill any gaps in excitement with a good song and dance, so I don’t think that really counts.

Football (Soccer for any Americans out there) has potential, but has never really fulfilled it. There are many British males who will point to Escape to Victory as an example of a great football film. However, people only think that because it’s got so many great players in it. Unfortunately the great dramatic ending is spoilt by Hollywood insisting that Sylvester Stallone is the hero at the end of the match. It would be fine if he wasn't the bloody goalkeeper!

Unsurprisingly American sports tend to translate to celluloid pretty well. I suppose this is because it’s much easier to build the tension with a high scoring game that can so often be decided in the last five seconds. American Football, Basketball and Baseball all provide perfect popcorn fodder, even if you’re telling a true story.

Of course this sort of blog post usually results in me giving my top ten sports movies of all time, but when I started to pull one together I realised I had some trouble.

The first dilemma – documentaries. I love When We Were Kings and I would probably include Hoop Dreams as well, but for some reason it doesn’t seem right. To me these are documentaries first and sports films second, so they’re out.

Then there are the films that pretend to be sports movies, but actually aren’t. Caddyshack isn’t really a golf movie is it? Surely it’s a comedy. But if that’s the case then I would have to reconsider White Men Can’t Jump. The Hustler pretends to be a film about pool, but it isn’t really.

Eventually I came to realise that this is one of the hardest genres to qualify for some reason. I think I can easily throw in some of my favourites like Rocky, Any Given Sunday, Remember the Titans, Varsity Blues (at this point you may notice a bias towards American Football movies). At the same time I can exclude ones I hate like A League of Their Own and Raging Bull (I feel my dislike of DeNiro is well enough established now that I don’t have to explain this one). However, this doesn’t make the top ten much easier to fill.

In the end I realised that being a sports fan and a movie fan maybe doesn’t automatically qualify me as the best person to pick good sports movies. This moment of clarity came to me as I was trying to justify why I would rather have Rookie of the Year in my top 10 than Field of Dreams.

Public Enemies

2009-03-07T10:04:00.004Z

I wouldn't say that I dislike Michael Mann, or even that he's overrated, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a fan. I loved the Last of the Mohicans but Heat really didn't do it for me and the less said about Miami Vice the better.

However, he is very good at directing action. Whereas 'Bayhem' takes the wall of sound approach of throwing everything at the audience without letting them take a breath, Mann's approach is far more measured and focused, which I prefer.

That's one of the reasons why I'm really looking forward to seeing Public Enemies, the new film about the FBI's attempts to take down notorious gangsters John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd.

The fact that Johnny Depp is playing Dillinger certainly helped to raise my interest, but I think Mann's style will be very well suited to prohibition era America - there's just something very cool about the Tommy Gun.

Michael Marshall Smith

2009-03-02T10:28:00.002Z

In the past I made comments about no one reading my blog, only to be surprised to discover that some people actually were! It now appears that this number is growing (can't wait to hit double figures). I even have one person officially 'following' Films and Things - thanks James!

Once you get over the ego boost of such an event, which can take a while, you realise there are some real advantages to getting involved in this whole blogosphere thing (sorry, I know it's a crap word).

For example: as soon as you read the blog of someone who's reading your blog, you start to look at other people's blogs who read their blog but who have probably not seen your blog yet. Still with me? Good.

Killing time (that would be more effectively spent doing some actual work) by reading random people's blogs means that you sometimes come across great little finds like this interview with Michael Marshall Smith, one of my favourite authors.

The interview is well worth a read, whether you're familiar with Smith's work or not. Plus it includes a really amusing rant about Richard Dawkins, which is worth the admission fee alone.

P.S. A quick message to Phil over at the Live for Films blog (in case you're reading) - Any chance you can get Michael to send me a signed copy of The Servants?...

Go on, I'll be your best mate!

Surely we all knew Sean Penn was going to win?

2009-02-26T14:11:00.001Z

It was painfully obvious. It doesn’t matter that Mickey Rourke’s performance in the Wrestler was better. It never does. Sean Penn was playing a gay civil rights activist / politician, who dies at the end of the film. Poor Mickey never stood a chance!

The Oscars is so rarely about the best films of the year that it’s not even worth watching. They pick the five ‘worthiest’ films that came out in the last three months of the previous year and give them most of the nominations. Other films and actors are relegated to supporting and technical categories that most people don’t pay attention to.

Heath Ledger deserved the best supporting actor award without a shadow of a doubt. His performance in the Dark Knight was nothing short of phenomenal. He made Jack Nicholson’s Joker look ridiculous in comparison. But would he have even been nominated if he hadn’t died? I seriously doubt it.

The academy doesn’t recognise comic book movies as being worthy of Oscars. It doesn’t matter if the Dark Knight was one of the best films of the last year (which it was) or not. It’s the same deal for comedies. They all laughed at Will Ferrell, John C Reilly and Jack Black sang ‘A comedian at the Oscars’ a couple of years ago, but they clearly weren’t listening.

And what about animated films? Well, at least they have their own category at last, but that just means that they will never get a shot of the real prize. I see no reason why Wall E hadn’t earned a best picture nomination at least.

I’m not saying that the academy doesn’t sometimes get it right. Often the worthy films are the best films. Sometimes they do give blockbusters, like Lord of the Rings, the nod they deserve (even if I think Two Towers was better than Return of the King). But this seems to happen almost by accident, and far too rarely.

So is there any way to get it right? Is there any way to have a film award ceremony that picks the best films without letting the general public vote? I’m not against public votes per say, but if we did that then we’d be giving awards out to Mama Mia and Fast and Furious, while subtitled films wouldn’t stand a chance…

…but at least Mickey Rourke would win best actor for the Wrestler because it’s got fighting in it.

Transformers: Revenge of the fallen

2009-02-03T09:26:00.004Z

I say, how jolly exciting! It's the new Transformers trailer:

Guilty Pleasures

2009-01-29T16:45:00.001Z

Following on from my previous post about the Spirit, I thought I’d talk a little bit about those guilty pleasure films that you love, even though the film geek inside you says you probably shouldn’t.

For example, one of my favourite movies of all time is Varsity Blues. That’s right, the one with James Van Der Beek as the high school quarterback. And no, it’s not just because of the whipped-cream bikini, although that definitely helps.

My best friend and I must have watched it together at least 20 times. It’s likely that I’ve watched it more than any other film, with the exception of the original Star Wars trilogy. That doesn’t mean I like it more than the Godfather, it just means that it has incredible re-watch value.

I know this takes me slightly away from my original point, but there are some movies that you can just watch over an over again. The kind of film you’ll put on when you have no idea what you want to watch, especially if you’ve got a rotten hang-over and have an exhausting day of laying on the sofa planned.

Anyway, I digress, back to my guilty pleasure… I know that Varsity Blues isn’t the best written film ever made. It doesn’t have the greatest performances (although John Voight is pretty darn good) or the best direction, but it is an incredibly funny, well put together, piece of popcorn fodder.

I’m sure there will be film fans out there gasping in shock and horror at my admission that I love American teen comedies like this. Well, I guess there’s nothing I can do about that. I love good teen comedies and I love good American Football movies. This is the best of both worlds.

In fact, I’m now almost annoyed that I’ve felt the need to excuse my behaviour by pointing out that I know the film is not as worthy as other great pieces of cinema. It feels a bit like I’ve fallen into the Academy Awards trap – let’s find five worthy dramas that were released in November or December and nominate them in every category. We’ll give Heath Ledger a nod for Dark Knight because he died recently, but god forbid we recognise a comic-book movie as one of the best films of the year.

Hmmm… I seem to have gone slightly off topic again so I can have a rant at the Academy, sorry about that. So, if you’re still reading, what’s your guilty pleasure*?

*(films only please, no filth)

The Spirit

2009-01-19T16:47:00.004Z

I have that feeling about The Spirit – you know the one where you really love a film that maybe you shouldn’t. I’m not talking about the movies that everyone knows are rubbish but love anyway because they are reminded of their childhood or for some other kitsch reason. I’m talking about the ones that you pretend fall into that first category, but that you actually really like.

OK, maybe that isn’t completely clear, so I’ll give you an example of each…

Goonies is a film that I watched when I was young. It was about kids going on an adventure, finding treasure and beating the bad guys. When it’s shown on TV these days I’ll watch it and laugh because I remember laughing when I was 6. However, deep down, I don’t really love watching the film any more.

By way of contrast I present the Karate Kid - a film that I will watch today and enjoy as much, if not more than when I was still in single digits. I still get emotional at the right moments and honestly believe that it’s an excellent film. There are those that would point out that it’s predictable and little more than 80’s cheese, but I still like it.

Got it now? Am I making sense? Good…

With that in mind I found The Spirit to be incredibly entertaining, very funny and just downright sexy! Was it anywhere near as cool as Sin City? Nope. Will any critics put it in the same league as The Dark Knight? I seriously doubt it. But none of that matters.

I’d never even heard of The Spirit before I saw the trailers a few months ago. Perhaps that is why I didn’t have any expectations and was able to watch the movie for what it was – a comic. It’s a ridiculous movie but the cast, particularly Samuel L Jackson as the spectacularly unhinged Octopus, keep you entertained throughout.

Well, they kept me entertained. During the screening that I saw I think a total of 15 people left the cinema (three groups as a opposed to one by one) complaining loudly about how stupid it was. However, to put that into context, I was sitting in a cinema at 11pm on a Saturday night in East London. It is more than likely that the people who left had come to see the latest Fast and Furious film but had gone in the wrong door!

So, to bring this rambling review to a close, if you like Frank Miller, enjoyed Sin City, but are like me and have a stupid sense of humour, then go see The Spirit. If not, then don’t waste your time or money. That is unless you’re a big fan of these ladies…

Lesbian Vampire Killers

2009-01-08T09:39:00.003Z

Not only is this possibly the greatest film title that has ever existed, but it stars Matthew Horne and James Cordon who I recently discovered after watching the first two series of Gavin and Stacey on DVD.

Unfortunately it wasn't written by Cordon who co-created Gavin and Stacey, but I'll probably still give it a watch...

A Film for all ages?

2008-12-17T12:50:00.003Z

Unsurprisingly a lot of film blogs are focusing on Christmas movies at the moment, with folk discussing the best, the worst, the funniest and the most random.

While I love Christmas films as much as anyone, these conversations do often frustrate me because there is an assumption that you can watch whatever film you want at this time of year. For many people, including myself, it's simply not true.

For example - My Christmas is celebrated at my mother's house by 4 generations of our family. There are no children (yet!) but our ages range from 27 (me) to 94 (my great-grandmother).

As wonderful as it is to have the whole family in attendance at this time of year, have you ever tried finding a movie to suit everyone's tastes? It's a nightmare!

For a start you can forget Die Hard or Leathal Weapon because the oldies don't like them. They also don't like comedies like Uncle Buck or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (my personal favourite) because they're too silly. You can get them to watch White Christmas, which is fine with me, but then some of the other younger folk get bored. I'm OK with a lot of the Christmas classics but there are a lot of musicals that I just can't stand.

Where does that leave us? Well you can forget regular TV becuase, here in the UK, it's all repeats and dreadful Christmas specials. In fact the only watchable programmes or films that they put on the TV always have a surprise sex scene thrown in just to embarrass you in front of your Grandmother when you least expect it!

So I need help people. What films can I put on at Christmas that will entertain me as much as the rest of my family? It doesn't have to have a Christmas theme, just anything that really appeals to all ages.

Please help, my sanity depends on it.

2008-12-16T13:20:00.009Z

I've never read a Sherlock Holmes novel, so I can't claim to be a real fan of the great detective. However, the purist that lurks within me is more than a little shocked by the first screen shots of the new film directed by Guy Ritchie.

This first one is OK...

But I'm a little concerned by this one...

Sherlock Holmes fighting with his shirt off? It doesn't seem quite right to me. Surely he could beat his opponent into submission using only his remarkable intelligence and cunning wit without needing to resort to physical violence.

I have never been overly confident that Ritchie is a good enough film maker to do Sherlock Holmes justice. However, I am more than confident in Robert Downey Jr's talent as an actor, so perhaps this might just work.

Wolverine Trailer

2008-12-15T17:11:00.004Z

From what I understand this went live just a couple of hours ago, so is the closest thing to a scoop we've ever had here at Films and Things and I think it looks like a lot of fun.

I'm very excited to see Gambit finally show up - he was a glaring omission to the X-Men films. Maybe he would have been entertaining enough to prevent X3 from being one of the most disappointing films of the last 10 years, but I doubt it.

But I digress, check out the trailer for 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' for yourself...

The Straw Men

2008-12-04T12:54:00.001Z

It says here that Benderspink, the production-management company run by Chris Bender and JC Spink have picked up the rights to Michael Marshall’s book The Straw Men.

Michael Marshall is one of my favourite authors and while I prefer his earlier, more sci-fi books, the Straw Men series is probably the only story that will transfer to the big screen.

The first and third books in the series are good but, from what I remember, the second one was a bit poor so I’m hoping they’ll do something good with it when transferring the story to film.

If you are ever looking for some really crazy and quite disturbing books, I can highly recommend some of Marshall’s work. Only Forwards, Spares (both as Michael Marshall Smith) and The Intruders are my personal favourites. But be warned, they will mess with your head.

Then, if after reading those you have the stomach for it, check out What You Make It, one of his collections of short stories.

Gone Baby Gone

2008-12-04T09:45:00.001Z

This weekend my truly delightful girlfriend brought me another DVD to watch. While it wasn’t a horror, it was probably far more harrowing due to the subject matter.

The release of Gone Baby Gone was delayed for a long time in the UK because of the Madeline McCann case. At first I thought the decision to pull the movie just before its release was an over-reaction, but quickly realised why it was done. The resemblance between ‘Maddy’ and the girl that goes missing in the film is striking. An unfortunate coincidence to say the least.

However, Gone Baby Gone was eventually released over here and I am very happy to say that, thanks to the gorgeous woman in my life (in case you’re wondering I’m still paying for my earlier Horror Movie post), I was finally able to see what all the fuss was about.

Now I’ve always rated Ben Affleck as an actor more than most people. What he has been guilty of, in my opinion, is accepting roles in too many bad movies. Matt Damon has made far better choices since Good Will Hunting, but that doesn’t mean that Affleck is a poor actor. Plus I don’t care what anyone else says, Daredevil was awesome.

Regardless of this, when I’ve heard people talking about Gone Baby Gone the consensus seems to be that Casey is the better actor of the Affleck brothers and that Ben should stay behind the camera. While I thought this might possibly be a back-handed compliment, having seen the film I now know what they mean, and it is in no way insulting.

This is the first time I’ve seen Casey in a lead role (I still haven’t watched The Assassination of Jesse James - careless I know) and he is excellent. I always liked him in the few movies I’d seen him in previously, and always thought he was the most under-rated character in Good Will Hunting, but this was the first time I really got to appreciate what a great talent he is. His performance is subtle but extremely believable and it is him that makes the film so uncomfortably real.

While it’s not something that people seem to appreciate these days, but Ben Affleck is a pretty good writer – he won an Oscar for it and everything. Not only did he help write another excellent film with Gone Baby Gone, but he also did an excellent job of directing it too. The bleak, depressing story is made all the more real for the world that Ben creates and you could be forgiven for thinking that the film was lead by a far more experienced director.

I realise that there is nothing new or insightful about what I’m saying here. Most people have written the same thing about this film and the Affleck brothers 18 months ago. However, I feel I can get away with it as I don’t think many people in the UK have really discovered this one yet and, if they get the chance, they should watch it as soon as possible.

All I can say is...

2008-11-25T17:21:00.001Z

Oh for Fu*k's sake!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7748284.stm

Horror, I just don’t get it.

2008-11-24T13:49:00.002Z

To an extent I’ve just said all I need to say in the headline to this post but, luckily for you, I’ll soldier on and exhaust the point anyway.

I’d like to think that I’m someone who enjoys a little bit of everything when it comes to films. I can find something to like in almost any genre, even the really pretentious ones…

However, horror just never appealed to me. If I’m honest I suppose it’s because I think that most horror films are badly written, badly made, badly acted and, on the whole, just plain bad.

I never understood why George A Romero got so much praise for those nonsense Day/Dawn/Diary of the Dead movies, I never liked Freddie Kruger and you’ll never catch me anywhere near a Saw film.

The reason behind this post is that the lady in my life is a big fan of horror movies and in recent months I have been subjected to more than at any other time in my life, which might just be the reason behind my disliking – I never watched it when I was young.

Horror movies were never part of my childhood or adolescence. When I started loving films I was watching action, comedy, drama etc. I was probably already well over 20 years old when I watched my first real horror film.

So if one of my friends had somehow gotten a hold of Hellraiser when we were teenagers, would I be queuing up to watch Jigsaw and his nasty traps along with so many others? Maybe, but probably not.

Of course it is now necessary for me to point out my own hypocrisy by saying that it is possible that I have enjoyed some horror movies.

I really enjoyed the first two Scream films. However, I’m not sure they even count as they are more of a lampooning of the horror genre (at least I think so).

I’m also quite a big fan of vampire movies. Although I’m fairly sure that they also don't necessarily count as I’m not sure that films like Interview with a Vampire, Blade, Lost Boys or Buffy can even be classified as horror.

Then again, maybe they can. Perhaps I just class horror movies as gory films that I don’t like.

Either way, if that woman ever forces me to watch another Rob Zombie film then I might be driven to acts of mindless violence!

The Biggest Films of 2009

2008-11-10T12:13:00.004Z

Last week, my fellow movie blogger Head Hero wrote this post about movietickets.com’s top ten most anticipated films of 2009. Like him I was very surprised that the list seemed to miss out some pretty big titles while including the latest Ice Age film. I know family films do well these days but I’m pretty sure something has gone wrong with that list.

Fortunately Michael Moran at The Times has also had a look at what is coming up next year and come up with 'The 50 Biggest Films of 2009'. This list makes much more sense, with Harry Potter at number 1 followed by Public Enemies, Star Trek, Watchmen and X Men Origins: Wolverine.

Now I can only hope and pray that Harry Potter will do well enough to beat Mamma Mia's current box office record so, by this time next year, I won't feel quite so ashamed.

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-03T11:59:00.001Z

You may have seen this post I made back in September, lamenting the lack of good movies coming out this autumn. The situation has been so dire that, until yesterday, I hadn’t been to the cinema in almost two months, my longest drought in about 3 years – a shocking state of affairs!

Not only was I unable to find any good independent films to keep me going, but I also had to sit back and watch as Mamma Mia became the UK’s biggest ever film at the British box office. It was almost enough to throw me into a deep depression.

Fortunately, just as things were at their worst, I was saved by the man from MI6. It’s no secret that I’ve always been a bond fan. I’ve been hooked since watching Goldfinger when I couldn’t have been much older than 6 or 7 years old. I loved Sean Connery and hated Roger Moore, was indifferent to George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton, and just felt sorry for Pierce Brosnan who was given nothing to work with after his fantastic debut in Goldeneye.

When it was released Casino Royale very quickly made it into my top three bond films. I’m almost certain that it will become my number one and remain there for a number of years, but I need to make sure that it holds up to the test of time first. Having watched it about 10 times now, most recently a couple of weeks ago, the signs are pretty good.

All of this meant that Quantum of Solace had some pretty big shoes to fill. How do you follow up such an excellent debut? Like many fans I was expecting a lot and, on the whole, I was not disappointed.

The people in charge of Bond certainly aren’t afraid to break the mould and they’ve taken another big risk this time around. Instead of making another stand-alone film they have decided to continue the story that began in Casino Royale with a direct sequel.

The film starts just moments after 007 has made his introduction to the mysterious Mr White with a car chase through the Italian mountains. This is high adrenaline stuff and it sets the pace for the rest of the movie. There is a lot of action and we are quickly reminded of Daniel Craig’s cold, brutal Bond as he investigates the mysterious organisation responsible for the death of his beloved Vespa.

However, this is not a simple revenge film and we are shown a complicated investigation which throw up a number of political obstacles that concerns everyone except our James, who proves a rather focused and tenacious chap to say the least.

The best thing about Quantum of Solace is the same as the best thing in Casino Royale – Daniel Craig. Not only does he have an incredible amount of style, but he is also a very good actor. I’m not sure any of his predecessors could have pulled off the dark, haunted 007 that he portrays in Quantum of Solace.

The supporting cast is also very good, particularly Judi Dench as M and Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis, even if the latter’s screen time was rather brief. Mathieu Amalric was fine as Dominic Greene, but was perhaps a little too sinister for my liking. I know Bond villains are supposed to be particularly ‘evil’ but, in my opinion, the archetypal, cat stroking baddie doesn’t really belong in this new, grittier style.

Despite coming out of the cinema with a smile on my face, I do have some criticisms. I had heard beforehand that the director had gone for more of a Bourne style when it came to the action sequences and it’s certainly true. There are lots of quick cuts used to give an impression of frantic chases and fights. I didn’t really like this, it felt like a gimmick. Marc Forster seems to be of the opinion that you shouldn’t film a sequence from one angle when you can shoot it from 17.

While this is a relatively large complaint I was still very happy with Quantum of Solace. It’s a worthy follow up to Casino Royale thanks to an excellent cast and a great script, which provided some nice moments of humour despite the serious story. There’s also a nice little Goldfinger homage thrown in there with a modern twist, which made me smile.

So if you’ve also been waiting for a film worth returning to the cinema for after the long autumn drought, this is it. Enjoy!

Calling all Iron Man fans

2008-10-29T15:35:00.002Z

It has been announced today that Robert Downy Jr. has extended his deal with Marvel, so we’ll be seeing a lot more of him as Tony Stark in the future. This means that there will now be at least two sequels to last Summer’s fantastic Iron Man. Good News.

However, what is even more exciting is that we will also see ‘Bob’ in The Avengers, which is scheduled for release in 2011. Don Cheadle, who will replace Terrence Howard as Stark's right-hand man, James Rhodes, will also appear.

This is the first major casting announcement for the Avengers and, in my humble opinion, it’s a great one. Choosing Robert Downy Jr. was one of the best decisions in comic book movie history and I think it will only get better as he explores Stark’s character floors in the coming films.

News on who will play the Hulk, Thor and Captain America are expected in the coming weeks. It looks like the budget for this one is going to get BIG!

My name is Bruce

2008-10-29T09:02:00.004Z

It's a film staring Bruce Campbell as himself, what more could anyone want?

New Harry Potter trailer

2008-10-28T09:14:00.003Z

The film has been made. It's been in the can for months, but we don't get to see it until next summer because Warner Brothers are worried that they don't have enough good films for next year.

There are so many things wrong with that I don't know where to begin.

Oh well, at least we can expect loads of trailers and sneak previews until then which, if nothing else, will give me something to write about.

Bayhem under fire

2008-10-15T15:49:00.003+01:00

I know that Mark Kermode can come across as a little pretentious, but I usually find him to be one of the best judges of whether or not a film is good or bad.

I also know that he's a man who loves a really good action movie, which probably explains why he launches a tirade against all things 'Michael Bay' in his latest video blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2008/10/review_eagle_eye.html

Now I'm as guilty as the next person of enjoying Bad Boys and Transformers, so perhaps it makes me a bit hypocritical to agree with Mark on this one, but I think he has a good point to make here.

While I love the excitement and explosions, the problem here is that they are now being used at the expense of plot, rather than in addition to it. If we're not careful we're in danger of returning to the 80's style of action film which, with a few exceptions, was not a good experience.

But I may well be in the minority. Last I heard, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift made over $150million...

Satchmo

2008-10-08T17:48:00.002+01:00

According to Variety, Forest Whitaker is set to direct and star in What A Wonderful World, a biopic of Louis Armstrong.

This sounds like good news to me. His performance as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland showed that Whitaker is right up there with the likes of Philip Seymour Hoffman as one of this generation’s great character actors – even if the film itself was a big disappointment.

Other than ‘that’ song, ‘that’ voice and the trumpet, I don’t know a great deal about Louis Armstrong, so I’m looking forward to finding out a bit more (with a Hollywood slant of course).

Although I’m always going to have slight reservations about seeing a Whitaker film because I still remember ‘Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai’... shudder!

Quantum Of Solace Trailer

2008-10-06T08:53:00.002+01:00

A far better trailer than the 'teaser' released back in the summer... but I suppose that's the point.

I am very optimistic about this one. If it's half as good as Casino Royale then it will still be a great film. Of course I'm expecting a little more than that...

Paul Newman 1925-2008

2008-09-27T18:04:00.003+01:00

I don’t think myself a particularly cold individual, but it’s very rare that I find myself truly sad when I hear about the death of a celebrity. Unfortunately for me, this is one of those occasions.

It would be a considerable understatement to say that Paul Newman never gave a bad performance. He was excellent in every film I every saw him in, from ‘The Hustler’ to ‘The Road to Predition’. He was even outstanding as the voice of Doc Hudson in ‘Cars’.

Considering his remarkable career it is almost unbelievable that he did not win an Academy Award until 1987. However, it is fitting that he won it for reprising one of his greatest characters, Fast Eddie Felson, in the ‘Colour of Money’. Of course, if it had been up to me, he’d have won at least five best actor gongs.

While there are so many greats to choose from, my favourite Paul Newman films are the two he starred in with Robert Redford, one of the very few people that are comparable to him in terms of talent. I know this isn’t exactly a controversial choice but ‘The Sting’ and ‘Butch and Sundance’ are, in my opinion, amongst the greatest movies ever made and are just two of the reasons why my heart is a little heavy this evening.

The Greatest Movies of All Time

2008-09-26T14:23:00.001+01:00

Empire Magazine has compiled a list of the 'Top 500 Greatest Movies of All Time'. It’s a mixture of the public vote and the opinions of top industry folk, which has turned out what looks like a pretty good, if mostly predictable, list.

Most people that know me won’t be surprised that I’m happy that the Godfather is on top, and really happy that Empire Strikes back is in the top three. I’m a big fan of Raiders of the Lost Ark but I think number two is maybe a little high. The same goes for Jaws at number five.

I’ve come to expect that one of my least favourite films, Raging Bull (11th), will always be high on list like this. I maintain that both the film and DeNiro are overrated but I’m clearly in the minority. However, I was very surprised to see Fight Club squeeze into the top ten. Really? That high? I mean, I enjoyed the film, am a big fan of both Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, but it doesn’t get anywhere near my top ten. A great twist does not make a great film.

Of course the problem with writing a post like this is that I now feel obliged to give my top ten. My problem with doing this is that the list I make right now will not be the same as the list I make tomorrow morning. I often get round this problem during pub conversations by giving a list in no particular order and then cheating by grouping the original Star Wars Trilogy as one entry.

I realise that this is a cop out, so here, just for you, is my top ten films of all time as of 2pm on a sunny Friday afternoon in September:

1. The Godfather
2. The Empire Strikes Back
3. The Shawshank Redemption
4. The Departed
5. LA Confidential
6. Rope
7. The Sting
8. Back to the Future
9. Anchorman
10. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Another problem I have with compiling a list like this is that I’m sure there are loads of great films that I’ve forgotten to consider. If you would like to point out a glaringly obvious oversight on my part, or just fancy sharing your own top ten, let me know.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

2008-09-24T09:07:00.003+01:00

That's right folks, Kevin Smith is back! Here's the trailer for his latest flick, Zack and Miri Make a Porno:

I've been a huge fan of Kevin Smith ever since some friends introduced me to his New Jersey Chronicles about ten years ago. I know there's people who don't appreciate Mr Smith's 'dick and fart' brand of humour, but those people are obviously dead inside.

Obviously I can't wait see this flick, especially with Seth Rogen leading the cast, bit there is one small problem. I've had a look on IMDB and had a quick scan of the View Askew website (http://www.viewaskew.com/) and I can only find the US release date of 31 October. If anyone knows when Zack and Miri is coming out in the UK, please let me know.

A few changes and a Harry Potter trailer

2008-09-23T12:16:00.016+01:00

Seeing as this is the new and improved 'Films and Things', I've made a few upgrades. If you look to the left of the page you will see, amongst other things, a very cool toy that I have recently added called 'LATEST TRAILERS'. If all goes according to plan it should regularly update with new trailers from YouTube.

In addition, instead of just giving you links to clips and trailers, I will now be embedding them into my posts, like this:

Yeah, I know, this is nothing new or special to most people, but I'm feeling pretty smug about my new toys right now, so there!

10 screens and there's nothing on!

2008-09-16T11:35:00.002+01:00

I’m starting to think I’ve made a bit of a mistake. I’m wondering if I should have bothered re-launching this blog now. No, not because no one reads it (I’ve reconciled myself with that), but because there is very little to look forward to in the cinema for the rest of the year.

The only film that I am dying to see is Quantum of Solace. I’ve been a fan of James Bond since my grandmother sat me down in front of Goldfinger when I was about 7. Unfortunately for me, most of the Bond films released in my lifetime have been pretty poor. Anything with Roger Moore was dreadful and both Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, while good Bonds, suffered from dreadful scripts – with the exception of Goldeneye, which remains one of my all-time favourites.

Thanks to Casino Royale I was able to leave the cinema truly satisfied with a Bond film for only the second time. Actually that’s a bit of an understatement; I was far more than just satisfied. If Quantum of Solace is half as good then I will probably still be satisfied.

I would like to look forward to the next Harry Potter film this winter but, unfortunately, Warner Brothers have moved it to next July because they haven’t got enough good films in the pipeline for the summer season. Doesn’t bode well does it?

So for the next six months, until Watchmen comes out in March, there’s nothing that I’m really excited about. Of course there’s every chance that the legal wrangling over the rights to Watchmen will mean that it doesn’t come out until next summer either!

However, this lack of big exciting movies isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It usually means that there will be a few decent small budget or independent films that will get some time in the cinemas. This is not the first time I’ve experienced such a cinematic lull and it has led to some excellent discoveries in recent years. Brick, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl and Goodnight and Good Luck could have easily passed me by if there had been a big blockbuster on in the next screen.

So, if anyone knows of any small gems out now or in the near future, especially if they have Ryan Gosling in, please let me know.

Layer Cake

2008-09-11T16:42:00.001+01:00

In my flat, between three of us, we have somewhere in the region of about 400 DVDs. With such a large selection, you’d think that we’d be able to find something to watch with relative ease.
Unfortunately, when it comes time to make a decision, this is how conversations often go:

“Film?”

“Go for it”

“What do you fancy?”

“Don’t mind, anything”

“How about X?”

“Nah”

“OK, how about Y?”

“Nah, saw that too recently”

“What about Z?”

“Not sure I’m in the mood for that.”

This conversation can go on for some time and often results in nothing being chosen.

Fortunately this wasn’t the case on Saturday morning and the number of titles shouted out by my brother was mercifully short once we both spotted Layer Cake, a film I haven’t seen for a couple of years.

Layer Cake is an impossibly cool film. It actually made me want to become a cocaine dealer. Well, not really, but they do a great job of glamorising the underworld. In fact I find it quite remarkable that people complained that Trainspotting might make young people think drug taking was cool (because overdosing in a Glaswegian slum flat is my idea of awesome!), yet, to my knowledge, no one made a peep about this film.

As far as I can tell, the message is that if you deal in enormous amounts of drugs, you become stinkingly rich, intelligent, charming, stylish, get to enjoy all sorts of crazy hijinks and then shag Sienna Miller. OK, so your white suit might get ruined when you get shot at your local golf course, but I think it’s a small price to pay when you consider the upside.

Either way, I love this flick. While I usually bemoan the fact that we only seem to make three types of film in this country (Northern working class misery, Richard Curtis/Hugh Grant idyllic posh England and the gangster movie), this is a really enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. It’s well written, well directed, well cast and well acted. Not much more you can say about a film than that.

So I won’t.

Hellboy 2

2008-09-02T15:21:00.002+01:00

I should start this post off with a confession. I haven’t seen Pan’s Labyrinth yet. It’s on my ‘to watch’ list but I just haven’t got round to it. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it based on the fact that everyone else who has seen it has told me I will.

However, I’m equally sure that it’s not going to be as easy to watch as, say, Die Hard 4, which my brother and I watched on this Saturday while recovering from our Friday induced hangovers. A film like Pan’s Labyrinth is obviously going to require a little concentration and effort to watch and not just because of the subtitles.

Fortunately for me, Guillermo del Toro doesn’t just make films that require me to really concentrate. A lot of his films can just be enjoyed as popcorn fodder such as the very enjoyable Hellboy, the sequel to which I went to see this weekend.

Del Torro has become the man of the moment when it comes to creating fantasy worlds on film. I’m anxious to see what he has in store for us with the Hobbit over the next few years. However, while all of his films are visually stunning, they aren’t necessarily all good, with Blade 2 immediately springing to mind.

Unfortunately I was reminded of this disappointing sequel within ten minutes of the start of Hellboy 2. It was with no small sense of déjà vu that I observed Luke Goss playing the role of an immortal prince with daddy issues trying to wage war on humanity. Luke may play this role very well but I was a little surprised to see him doing it twice.

Fortunately this is where the similarities between the two films end and I was able to enjoy a good, and very pretty, comic book movie. Ron Pearlman is once again enjoyable as Hellboy who is well supported by the likes of Selma Blair and the very funny Jeffrey Tambor.

Unfortunately I did leave the cinema feeling a little underwhelmed as the film didn’t quite meet my expectations. However, I’m not going to blame Del Torro for this. In fact it was all my fault. The film had been given a great deal of hype in recent months and I think I became caught up in that. I was expecting the brilliance I have been promised from Pan’s Labyrinth in a film about a cigar smoking, wise-cracking, hell demon who is trying to save the world.

If you like comic book movies you’ll probably like this. Just don’t go expecting anything more than that or you might be disappointed.

A new beginning

2008-08-28T11:59:00.004+01:00

Howdy folks.

Welcome to the re-launch of the new and improved Films and Things blog!

OK, so it's not so much new and improved as it is exactly the same as before. I just decided to start again due to my previous shocking lack of commitment to posting anything.

But fear not, dedicated reader, for I have turned over a new leaf and shall, from now on, provide you with regular postings on all things related to both films and things.

And for those of you asking: 'Why should we believe you this time, you lazy git?' I shall employ a little misdirection and ask you to turn your attention to this very pretty trailer for the Watchmen while I slip out the back door:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/