Senna

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.

X Men: First Class

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!

Damn you 3D!

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.

Critic Fail

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

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

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?

Hey Sports Fans

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.

Surely we all knew Sean Penn was going to win?

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.

Guilty Pleasures

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)

A Film for all ages?

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.

All I can say is...

Oh for Fu*k's sake!

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

Horror, I just don’t get it.

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

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.

Bayhem under fire

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...

The Greatest Movies of All Time

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.

10 screens and there's nothing on!

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.