Minutemen: Because Everybody Else Will Do The Same

There is no need for me to post this image of the Minutemen from the Watchmen film (from AICN via Blog@Newsarama), because everyone will be doing the same and commenting on it. However, the very fact that this image exists is something for celebrating (for everyone apart from Alan Moore, perhaps).

This is a true-to-the-book photograph of the original superheroes in the graphic novel – quite extraordinary. My first impression? It looks like a recovered photo of a comic con costume parade from before comic cons existed. I guess that's the idea – they are supposed to look disturbingly geeky and silly – but the reality of the photograph is even more excrutiating than I expected. It's just so damned odd seeing this image as a reality – Hooded Justice looks even weirder than in the book – but I can't bring myself to mock it (even the ridiculous Mothman). It just makes me laugh to look at it, but in a good way. Bring on the film.

Barry Norman Pickled Onions

Coming into work this morning, I noticed a bizarre-looking poster at a bus stop: it was advertising Barry Norman Pickled Onions. I thought it was a joke of some sort, perhaps for a new show or game. But it isn’t. It’s a genuine product: you can find the official website for it here, and you can buy them (if you live in the UK) online here.

I’m still a little freaked out.

What the hell is going on in the world that Barry Norman is selling Pickled Onions? What is the grand man of British television reviewing doing plastering his not-attractive face on a jar of condiments? Are celebrity endorsed-products (Paul Newman’s salad dressings, Lloyd Grossman’s sauces, Frankie bloody Dettori’s pizzas) the only way to purchase food products anymore?

(By the way, if you are an American, it’s the equivalent of Roger Ebert Pickled Gherkins, if that helps.)

You see, Barry Norman (no relation) was the face of film reviewing to me (and probably the rest of the country) when I was growing up. He fronted the Film programme from 1973 to 1998 on BBC1, meaning he was the film critic for the nation. He was a former journalist, so he had served an apprenticeship on daily newspapers and treated the job with respect (unlike Jonathan Ross does as current front man for the show – the inclusion of action figures on his desk demonstrates vividly that it’s all a bit of a lark for Wossy, being paid to watch films and tell you his opinions).

Barry had an air of authority on the subject (his father was a film director) but without being poe-faced and aloof (e.g. Brian Sewell on the arts); you could tell he loved film and enjoyed talking about them and to the people who created them (although he found the directors/writers more interesting – he famously didn’t get on with Robert DeNiro, who was providing monosyllabic answers to questions while he begrudgingly went through the interview process).

I always felt that I could trust a Barry Norman review – not only was he spot-on his judgement, but he delivered his critique in a clear, concise and non-condescending manner. He even allowed his sense of humour to show through (although it took him some time to warm to his Spitting Image puppet, which gave Barry the urban myth catchphrase, ‘And why not?’, something he never uttered but eventually used for the title of his autobiography), demonstrating he loved his job, knew it wasn’t the most important job in the world, but treated it with respect and a sense of helping the viewers and hopefully the world of film.

I used to watch Barry Norman religiously; the same can’t be said of Ross’ version. I wanted to BE Barry Norman – who wouldn’t want to be paid to watch films – probably because he made it look so easy (it was only afterwards that I found out that he was reading from an autocue; he even made that look easy). I’ve even read his autobiography, for goodness sake. I missed him when he left for Sky (after the BBC annoyed him with inconsistent scheduling of the programme), but I’m glad that he is still working, still talking about film, still writing about film (he has a column in the Radio Times).

However, I don’t know if I want to eat his pickled onions. Apparently, they are his family’s recipe passed down generations – who persuaded him that the world would not only want to eat them but would want to pay for the privilege? At least Newman sells salad dressing for charity – Barry just wants the money (although he doesn’t make very much, according to this interview). I’m not completely convinced it’s a real product – I think it works better as a surrealist joke – but it goes to show you the strange things that happen to people you used to watch on the telly when you were a young lad.

Comic Book Movies: (EW) Simply The Best?

In anticipation of the release of Iron Man, Entertainment Weekly provided a selection of the best comic book movies here. The list, seemingly in no particular order, is as follows:

Batman Begins and Batman Returns
X2: X-Men United
Akira
From Hell
American Splendor
V for Vendetta
Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2
Superman II
Oldboy
Blade II
A History of Violence
Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance
Hellboy
Ghost World
Persepolis
Ghost in the Shell

For once, this is a list that is actually rather good; I only have a few complaints (naturally), which I am compelled to reveal.

Firstly, the positives: resounding yes to Spider-Man 2 (with special honorary status to the first film) and X2: X-Men United, hell yes on the non-superhero front to Oldboy and A History of Violence. Respect to Blade II (although there should be a special mention of the opening scene of Blade where he attacks the vampire rave club with the blood showers – the rest of the film isn’t as good), and I’ll accept Hellboy for everything about it being so right without it being a particularly great film.

Now, to my qualms. Although Batman Returns is a good film, I don’t think it deserves to be in the category of ‘best’ – I can’t help but think that it is remembered for Michelle Pfeifer in a catsuit more than anything else (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

From Hell should be in a separate category because, although technically a film adapted from a comic book, the film itself is a normal (if well-made and interesting) police procedural based around some of the ideas and characters in the book but without actually being like the book at all. I enjoy the film (apart from Heather Graham and her accent) but it’s like saying that South Park is an adaptation of the New Testament because it has Jesus in it …

In a similar vein, V for Vendetta is an enjoyable film but not in the upper echelons of comic book films, and it loses points by completely missing the point of the source material, which is really rather important.

Personally, I wouldn’t have any of the Superman films in the list – III and IV are awful, the first one had the ridiculous ending and the second one was just silly (yes, it was) – but I could be biased by the fact that I don’t like them.

I haven’t seen American Splendor, Lone Wolf and Cub or Persepolis, so I won’t comment (how very noble of me) so I will console myself with pointing out the glaring omission: Sin City – a more faithful adaptation it is impossible to have and it is also a damn good movie in its own right. Not only has it stopped Frank Miller going near an actual comic book, but its green screen approach has allowed the Watchmen movie (however awful it may actually be) to be made, and we even get to see a translation to the silver screen of Will Eisner's The Spirit. But then perhaps they left it off the list to spark debate – or because it committed the faux pas of having a stripper, in the form of Jessica Alba, not actually stripping because of her no-nudity clause …

Looks Like We Got Ourselves A Reader

Dave of YACB recently wrote of having too many comics to read and not enough time – he has three short boxes of floppies he hasn’t read yet, not to mention the trades and manga waiting to be perused. I can’t remember where he said it, but I’m sure that Augie (of Pipeline fame) has said something similar, having boxes of comics and trades to read.

Firstly, this makes me think they have too much money and an obsessive need to own everything (I’m joking). How can they afford to buy so many comic books that they can’t even get around to reading them? Unless they are still working late in order to pay for all of them – comics are expensive.

The second thought that hits me is ‘How do you stop yourselves?’ This is because I devour my comics when I buy them (no literally, that would be hideous) – I don’t get to the comic shop every week, so I have a pile waiting for me when I get there, and I can’t wait to start reading them. I LOVE new comics – all those new stories waiting for me to absorb, I have to slow down my reading in case the speed of it sets the pages alight.

This could be to do with me – I do read fairly quickly (not as quickly as Clandestine Chum Greg or writer/broadcaster/renaissance media man Andrew Collins, who seem to be able to blink at a book and be enough to read it) and always have; I once went to a speed-reading class in order to get through the many scientific articles required for the post-graduate student to stay on top of his field and write a thesis, and was told that I was already moving my eye across the page twice as fast as the average reader.

In fact, I never have enough to read, comics or otherwise. I’m lucky in the respect that my commute to work allows me about two hours of pleasure reading a day, where I read trades and novels; the only thing that can’t keep up is my wallet, so thank goodness for libraries. I would love to be able to buy more comics but realise that it is an expensive hobby (I get about 15–20 books a month, not including a trade here or there) and that I have limited funds and storage space: the loft already contains approximately 6000 comics and trades. So, for somebody to have piles of reading material that they have bought just sitting there, teasing them with the joy of their untold narratives, just boggles my mind …

The only thing that I can compare with this is the stack of video tapes (and now recordings on my PVR) of films off the television that I want to watch but haven’t yet done so – I have a huge taste and appetite for cinema, but I know that I can’t inflict all of that upon my long-suffering girlfriend. And at least I didn’t pay for them; although, saying that, I do have a large DVD collection as well …

Talking of books and films – the news is official: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be split into two films. I can see the logic in needing two films to fit everything from the book into cinematic form, but I don’t like the fact that it is just a money-making decision on the part of the studio. It was with other films (Kill Bill and the Death Proof/Planet Terror split in this country – interestingly both Miramax) and I can see no sufficiently good excuse for it in this case. There is a lot to get through in the final book of the series, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be judiciously pruned to make a 3-hour film, which would be more satisfying.

To add insult to injury, they’ve got David Heyman filming them as well – as I’ve said before, he did a good if unexciting job on The Order of the Phoenix, and I believe the final film needed somebody to make it really special (I would have loved Alfonso Cuarón, based on The Prisoner of Azkaban, but would have been equally happy with the suggestion of Guillermo Del Toro that had been rumoured).

Honestly, it’s enough to make a man wait for the DVD …

Oscar 2008 - Reactions

Transformers was robbed!

Ahem.

So, the 2008 Academy Awards have been revealed – and we have had a good yield for a good year. The Coens got the Oscars they deserved, even if they did it to spite my prediction of the Academy splitting the director/best film.

Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem were the predicted winners, whereas the female awards threw up the surprises. I haven’t seen the films to speculate, but I’m glad for Tilda Swinton (and not in a jingoistic patriotic way) – an interesting actress with an interesting career.

Ratatouille got the best animated film, of course, and the screenwriting awards went to deserving homes, even if all the nominees were worthy (a view for most of the categories, it has to be said). And The Bourne Ultimatum is now a triple Oscar winner in addition to being one of the best films of last year; admittedly, they are technical awards but who cares?

The only disappointment I felt was for Roger Deakins, who I think should finally get his Oscar, but he had the misfortune to split the vote by doing superb work on two worthy films, which must be confusing for voters.

However, I do stick by my fake fanboy opening statement – there is no way in a million years that somebody could say with a straight face and hand on heart that the CGI in The Golden Compass was better than Transformers. I am not a Transformers geek but, dude, robots into cars and back again, beating the shit out of each other and interacting with actors on screen – how the hell didn’t that win? Seriously. Is there some kind of Anti Michael Bay Campaign? ‘No film directed by him will ever win an Oscar, mark my words!’ Completely unbelievable and the only blemish on the night.

Talking of the night, it sounds like it went well (apart from the montages) and that Jon Stewart did a good job with some nice lines (best: ‘Even Norbit got a nomination, which I think is great. Too often the Academy ignores movies that aren’t good.’) and his lovely gesture of getting Marketa Irglova (winner for best original song for Once) to come back out to give her acceptance speech after she was played off the podium. Nice guy.

I know there must be some disappointed bloggers out there with nothing to complain about in the results (like I was back in 2005), but it’s good to feel happy about the Oscars.

Oscar nominations 2008

The Oscar nominations have been announced and, seeing as I haven’t seen any of the films in the major categories (except Sweeney Todd – review upcoming), I think I am overqualified as a blogger to weigh in with my uninformed opinions.

Best motion picture of the year
Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood

Big surprise is Michael Clayton – all the reviews were of the good but not great variety – even more than Juno, this year’s little film that could. Based on the Golden Globes, Atonement gets the nod (although not enough to get Joe Wright a nod for best director; this always seems strange to me, but it does happen fairly frequently). The two contenders should be No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood – the only deciding factor will be the subject matter: No Country for Old Men is too dark for the Academy, so I think they will plump for There Will Be Blood for best film and No Country for Old Men for best director(s).

Performance by an actor in a leading role
George Clooney in Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises

By all accounts, it seems to be Daniel Day-Lewis. Clooney, Jones and Depp are there as previous winners/nominees, and Mortensen is the surprise nod (what, for flopping his todger out?), but Day-Lewis has to get it.

Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton

Wilkinson continues the Michael Clayton surprise, Hoffman is in because of ‘previous winner’ status (and supposedly hilairious to boot), Bardem is a previous nominee and apparently terrific. Holbrook is the sentimental vote, and Affleck is the big nominee for the apparently ignored TAoJJbtCRF (as I shall abbreviate it to). Bardem seems to be the favourite in this, but I’m not sure if the 'ignored film' factor might work for Affleck.

Performance by an actress in a leading role
Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie in Away from Her
Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney in The Savages
Ellen Page in Juno

Blanchett should have won for the first Elizabeth; this film and performance are apparently not in the same category, and it would be a shame if she got it here. Linney is a proven proper actor in a proper film; she has the potential to finally get the vote in a very unusual and interesting mix this year. It’s nice to see Page and Cotillard, but I can’t see them winning in this big category. The sentimental vote for Christie could be the other contender, but I don’t know if it’s quite enough.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There
Ruby Dee in American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan in Atonement
Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton

Ah, the supporting actress category, always a mixed bag. Blanchett was apparently great but don’t know if it will help in the split vote and the fact that she won a supporting actress previously (they might want to wait for a big role to get best actress). Strange to see American Gangster get a shout. Swinton is a very interesting actress, keeping the Michael Clayton surprise going, but I don’t know if it’s enough. Ryan might be in with a shout for Gone Baby Gone (still unseen in the UK due to its storyline) and there is hope for the young person vote winning it for wonderfully Gaelic name Saoirse (pronounced Sear-sha) for the Big English Film, always a popular choice with voters.

Best animated feature film of the year
Persepolis, Ratatouille, Surf's Up

Persepolis is surely too serious and heavy to win this award? Everyone assumes that animated equals light an fluffy, don’t they? I think that Pixar will continue their winning streak, but it could be interesting.

Achievement in cinematography
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford: Roger Deakins
Atonement: Seamus McGarvey
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: Janusz Kaminski
No Country for Old Men: Roger Deakins
There Will Be Blood: Robert Elswit

Will the split vote for Deakins work against him? I hope not; he is very talented cinematographer who deserves the award after five nominations.

Achievement in directing
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly – Julian Schnabel
Juno – Jason Reitman
Michael Clayton – Tony Gilroy
No Country for Old Men –Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
There Will Be Blood – Paul Thomas Anderson

Amazed that Gilroy is in here for Michael Clayton – they do like their tyros on worthy flicks, don’t they? A nice surprise for Reitman, but he’s there to make up the numbers; even Schnabel can’t expect much. The two(three)-horse fight is between the Coens and Anderson; as I said in the best film category, I think the Academy will give directing to the Coens (previous form includes giving best film to Crash and directing to Ang Lee, or film to Chicago and directing to Roman Polanski, or film to Gladiator and directing to Traffic).

Achievement in film editing
The Bourne Ultimatum: Christopher Rouse
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: Juliette Welfling
Into the Wild: Jay Cassidy
No Country for Old Men: Roderick Jaynes
There Will Be Blood: Dylan Tichenor

I would love to see The Bourne Ultimatum win for the technical expertise (and because I've actually seen it), but it would be even better if ‘Roderick Jaynes’ won, if only for the Coens to reveal their editing nom-de-plume.

Achievement in visual effects
The Golden Compass, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Transformers

Surely nerd-tastic Transformers will win – the effects were stunning. (And I've actually seen all three films in this category, so that qualifies as an almost valid opinion.) Any other decision is just stupid.

Adapted screenplay
Atonement (Christopher Hampton), Away from Her (Sarah Polley), The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Ronald Harwood), No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen & Ethan Coen), There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)

Hmm, always a tricky category. You would think the big two films would be the main contenders, but it always seems to throw up an unusual winner. Will Atonement get a consolation prize for being ignored in the main acting categories? I can’t see Polley or Harwood win, but I have no objections.

Original screenplay
Juno (Diablo Cody), Lars and the Real Girl (Nancy Oliver), Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy), Ratatouille (Screenplay by Brad Bird; Story by Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Brad Bird), The Savages (Tamara Jenkin)

Hurrah for Ratatouille and Brad Bird for getting the nod – good to see that people realise that animated films just don’t appear as if by magic. I don’t know if it will win but I can’t pick a winner here; Gilroy might get a sympathy vote (Michael Clayton won’t win any of the big awards) but the ‘original’ definer of the award might work to the advantage of Cody, Oliver or Jenkin. Again, no clear leader.

And that completes the categories I want to talk about. I don't know if voting will be influenced by the sad death of Heath Ledger (good obituary from David Thomson here) but the general quality of the majority of nominees (and the overall quality of films last year) mean that it should be a good set of results, especially with the lack of a WTF?! contender.

The Observer's Funniest 50 Films ... Ever?

The Observer announced the results of the poll for their readers’ favourite comedy films. You can find the results here and here. Note that they say ‘hundreds’ voted – that's not very much, is it? If it wasn't for the fact they had been trailing it in their paper for a few weeks, they might have tried to forget it and not bothered. So, with that in mind, let’s take a look …

1. Life of Brian
Directed by Terry Jones, 1979
Very happy with this choice. Funny in of itself and as a film, it transcends their sketch nature and is a complete cinematic entity. Deserving of the number one slot on the list.

2. Airplane!
Dir. Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker, 1980
Based on the gag ratio, this earns its place.

3. This Is Spinal Tap
Dir. Rob Reiner, 1984
I’ve never been a big fan, but I can appreciate what it means to a lot of people.

4. Some Like It Hot
Dir. Billy Wilder, 1959
Happy to see this so high – some old films don’t hold up so well, or fall out of favour with the times, but this still has it after all these years. One of the great last lines ever.

5. Withnail and I
Dir. Bruce Robinson, 1986
The student classic – I am one of those who saw it just before attending university to claim it as our own – so my bias gets in the way. You won’t find this on a US list – I had to introduce it to my fellow Americans in a film appreciation society I was a member of, as a sort of cultural exchange.

6. Blazing Saddles
Dir. Mel Brooks, 1974
This gets in solely for the fireside farting scene – there is no single scene funnier in cinema history.

7. The Big Lebowski
Dir. Joel Coen, 1998
With the reverence around this film, a lot of people clamour for the earlier Raising Arizona (which is also on the list). Not me; this film is endlessly watchable, with a wonderful central performance by Bridges and ably supported by the sterling Coen troop.

8. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Dir. Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, 1975
This is the really funny one, but falls really flat at the end (strangely, the breaking of the fourth wall works much better in Spamalot).

9. Duck Soup
Dir. Leo Mccarey, 1933
It’s hard to pin down the favourite Marx Brothers films – the memory plays tricks that make you want to mush all your favourite moments into one, joyous film – especially with some of the unnecessary singing and romance bits forced on them by the studio. I think people went for this one because of the ‘There’s no sanity clause’ line.

10. Young Frankenstein
Dir. Mel Brooks, 1974
I prefer this to The Producers, which it beats in the list, with its affection for the original material and the silliness (‘Igor, help me with the bags.’ ‘Soitenly. You take the blonde, I'll take the one in the turban.’ ‘Abby. Abby Normal.’) but I haven’t watched it years, so does that say something?

11. The Producers
Dir. Mel Brooks, 1968
Apart from the genius idea of the Busby Berkely ‘Springtime For Hitler’, this doesn’t do much for me. This is one of those films that highlights the divisiveness of comedy – while films in general can be deemed good or bad on a comparison of factors, comedy either makes you laugh or it doesn’t. This doesn’t.

12. Shaun of the Dead
Dir. Edgar Wright, 2004
Whereas this does. I’m a huge fan of Spaced, so this was a dead cert; the only question was how much I would like it. Combine the quality pair of Pegg and Frost, the film references, the London theme, and the packing of jokes into a good story, and Bingo.

13. Groundhog Day
Dir. Harold Ramis, 1993
I’m always surprised to see this film so fondly remembered, as it always feels like something you discovered alone. It isn’t full of quotes but it has a magic too it – how else could you explain a film so watchable based on repeating the same day again and again and again …?

14. Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Dir. Stanley Kubrick, 1964
A classic film that you don’t think of as a ‘comedy’ because it is very black comedy. However, it’s good to see here among the more recent entries, giving hope to the rest of the list. ('Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.')

15. Planes, Trains and Automobiles
Dir. John Hughes, 1987
I suppose this is amusing but I’m not a fan of John Candy and Martin is not interesting when he plays it straight. I’m surprised it’s so high on the list.

16. The Man with Two Brains
Dir. Carl Reiner, 1983
As they mention in the article, this has one of the great lines: ‘I couldn’t fuck a gorilla …’ and Steve Martin on totally funny form. It’s completely silly, but in a good way, and deserves its status on the list.

17. There's Something About Mary
Dir. Peter and Bobby Farrelly, 1998
This is a symptom of short-term memory – it’s funny but not that funny; it’s more sweet than anything else, with some gross-out moments that everybody remembers. Personally, the moment I remember is wife coming up from fellating her husband while he watches the news on TV and sees Ben Stiller’s character, wiping her mouth before saying something, and then him pushing her down again, but that could just be me …

18. Annie Hall
Dir. Woody Allen, 1977
A comedy with an Oscar – huzzah. The best mix of funny Allen and character piece he has made, with lots of wonderful moments. You have to feel sorry for him having to match his earlier catalogue in the films he makes now.

19. Dumb and Dumber
Dir. Peter and Bobby Farrelly, 1994
I don’t have anything against the Farrelly bothers, but I don’t understand why this is on the list – It’s mind-boggling. I refuse to discuss it further.

20. Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy
Dir. Adam Mckay, 2004
Of the many comedies he has made, this is the one that captures Ferrell’s wonderful sense of the absurd while in character ('San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina'). It’s the most ‘blokey’ of his comedies, i.e. endlessly quotable, completely silly and not necessarily a great film, but the funny bits are really, really funny.

21. Mr Hulot's Holiday
Dir. Jacques Tati, 1953
Never seen it, don’t want to (mostly based on the fact that Rowan Atkinson uses it to justify the totally unfunny Mr Bean antics).

22. Shrek
Dir. Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson, 2001
Good to see what is supposedly a kids’ film so high up, especially as it mocks the children’s beloved Disney so much. This is indeed very funny stuff, so much so that it gave others the idea that film references in CGI films are all you need to make something funny which isn’t (e.g. Shark’s Tale)

23. Best in Show
Dir. Christopher Guest, 2000
'And to think that in some countries these dogs are eaten.' Is this funnier than A Mighty Wind or Waiting For Guffman? I’m not sure; perhaps it is the more Brit-friendly conceit of dogs, rather than folk music or amateur theatre respectively. Still, the quality shines through in a very funny mockumentary.

24. Kind Hearts and Coronets
Dir. Robert Hamer, 1949
Ah, some Ealing black comedy. I don’t remember it as huge belly laughs, though …

25. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
Dir. Larry Charles, 2006
Now, this is all about huge belly laughs; painful, wet yourself, I can’t believe they just did that laughs. I don’t know if this survives repeated viewing, but the first time is absolutely hilarious. Cohen suffers for his art.

26. The General
Dir. Buster Keaton, Clyde Bruckman, 1927
People usually bring up the trio of old comedy: Chaplain (the artist), Keaton (the perfectionist), Laurel & Hardy (the populists). Personally, I prefer Harold Lloyd. Therefore, I cannot comment.

27. A Fish Called Wanda
Dir. Charles Crichton, 1988
Despite having that old Ealing feel, this was charmingly funny and delightfully English. And Kevin Kline is the best thing in it, which is why he got the Oscar for best supporting actor.

28. Way Out West
Dir. James W Horne, 1937
See comments for The General. I like Stan and Ollie, but don’t love them. Still, good song.

29. The Odd Couple
Dir. Gene Saks, 1968
Lemmon and Matthau in perfect harmony, with a great script from Neil Simon – sometimes he just has a good line, here it all works well.

30. The Ladykillers
Dir. Alexander MacKendrick, 1955
More evidence for the fact that this was a British poll. How dark do we like our comedy? This is quite delicious; please don’t bother with the remake unless you are a Coen completist.

31. The Blues Brothers
Dir. John Landis, 1980
When I think of this, I think of the music rather than the comedy. (Also, where is the love for Animal House? A US vs UK thing, perhaps?) It’s a film I can watch anytime, but not necessarily for the laughs, despite the scene with the nun punishing them for swearing.

32. Arsenic and Old Lace
Dir. Frank Capra, 1944
I have not seen; my film buff status revoked.

33. Bringing Up Baby
Dir. Howard Hawks, 1938
I’m not a great fan of the screwball comedies – they irritate me. Watching them is like hearing a metal glove on a blackboard. But it’s all opinion, isn’t it?

34. A Night at the Opera
Dir. Sam Wood, 1935
All the Marx brothers films should be equal in their status.

35. Kingpin
Dir. Bobby and Peter Farrelly, 1996
I’m going to look like a Farrelly hater, but I don’t find this funny. Perhaps because I don’t like Woody Harrelson very much (don’t know why), but this is, at best, amusing. Sorry.

36. The Naked Gun
Dir. David Zucker, 1988
The humour in this gets pretty awful at times, but the gag rate compensates. However, it doesn’t rate Top 50 funniest film status.

37. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Dir. Stanley Kramer, 1963
A comedy of its time – seeing all those ‘mad’s in the title turns me off. You couldn’t have made me want to see it less if you’d called it ‘Wacky’ or ‘Zany’. Surely people’s affection for this is for the cameos?

38. Raising Arizona
Dir. Joel Coen, 1987
Funny as a whole rather than the individual parts, I always feel. The brash energy of young filmmakers getting the opportunity to unleash, but I would prefer O Brother, Where Art Thou instead, which I find much funnier.

39. Team America: World Police
Dir. Trey Parker, 2004
Personally, I think that South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut is funnier, but this is still pretty damn hilarious and is the sort of comedy one thinks of when you talk about ‘comedy films’.

40. Trading Places
Dir. John Landis, 1983
Should a film where a man is sodomised by a gorilla be allowed to be funny? (Is that something to do with Eddie Murphy? His Dr Doolittle has a man being buggered by a giant hamster.) I wouldn’t put it on the list, even for Jamie Lee Curtis’ breasts.

41. American Pie
Dir. Paul Weitz, 1999
No, no, no, no. A Porky’s for the millennium does not deserve to be on the list. It’s not very funny. A simpleton sticking his genitals in warm pastry products? Are you that obvious?

42. Hot Fuzz
Dir. Edgar Wright, 2007
Even though this is current, I think it has the chops to earn its place on the list. The big laughs come from Nick Frost, but the whole thing is a piss-take of epic proportions, so well done to the boys.

43. Love and Death
Dir. Woody Allen, 1975
It’s all the ‘early, funny ones’, isn’t it? It’s a shame that Allen feels guilty about having a God-given gift for writing funny lines that he needs to make amends by doing his Bergman imitation. It is all right to be funny, Woody …

44. Meet the Fockers
Dir. Jay Roach, 2004
Fuck. Off.

45. Sleeper
Dir. Woody Allen, 1973
See comments for Love and Death. Like the Marx brothers, the good Allen films should earn joint position to balance them out.

46. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
Dir. Trey Parker, 1999
When I saw this in the cinema, I was amazed that my then-girlfriend fell asleep next to me as I was laughing like an idiot. Uncle Fucker is genius, and the satire is funny too.

47. Stir Crazy
Dir. Sidney Poitier, 1980
Really? Really? Have you watched it again recently?

48. The Music Box
Dir. James Parrott, 1932
Laurel and Hardy moving a piano is classic stuff. I feel hard-pressed to include it but I can’t deny their comedy magic.

49. Tootsie
Dir. Sydney Pollack, 1982
Haven’t seen it, don’t want to.

50. Uncle Buck
Dir. John Hughes, 1989
Of the many films that could be on the list and this makes it? That’s bizarre. Occasionally amusing but Top 50? I don’t think so.

This could have been worse but it comes down to the fact that it is a list of votes from people who use the internet and in no way representative of a sufficiently large selection of people (but that’s a good thing, as they would probably have bloody Mr Bean in there). And it all comes down to particular taste in comedy, which is why it always has such a difficult time when it comes to the Oscars, because there is no easy rating system for it.

Personally, I would have Clerks in there, as well as When Harry Met Sally …, which gets relegated in these things because it is a romantic comedy, despite the fact that it’s really, really funny. There are some surprise omissions – no Ghostbusters? Zoolander? Austin Powers? – based on the rest of the list, and there are of course very few old films (comedy is very subject to the time it was made). However, it does provoke discussion and, of course, easy blog posts …

More reflections on Harry Potter films

(When I said tomorrow, I obviously meant the day after the day after tomorrow. You knew that.)

The third film is where things begin to click and is my personal favourite. It is utterly charming – Aunt Marge is still floating in the sky when we see Harry leave the Dursleys; Stan looking around the corner of the bus to where Harry can see the dog; the fun of the Whomping Willow used to show the passage of time throughout the film (the film may only be a few hours, but it relates to 8 months); the use of moving wizard images of Sirius Black on the newspaper and the posters – and the film is infused with humour and fun: Tom at the Leaky Cauldron; ‘Room Service!’, the boggart scene; ‘You tell those spiders, Ron.’

The introduction of two characters that are so endearing and so linked to Harry’s family, in the forms of Sirius and Remus Lupin, also make this film a particularly warm film. It allows the film to connect with us via the characters. The actors are all very enjoyable – Oldman, Thewlis, Snape, Smith – but not everyone is perfect. Gambon is okay, but I’ll always see Harris as Albus (even though Gambon seems to adhere to the more flaky character of the book version of Dumbledore). Julie Christie has a very silly accent as Rosemerta. And there is the bizarre appearance of a large black boy in Harry’s class that we’ve never seen before who gets all the ominous exposition lines in a scene. What’s worse, he delivers them really badly, and he has an abnormally low voice for someone his age. The need to add ‘colour’ to the school was one of the few wrong decisions in this movie.

The most wonderful aspect of this film is the visual delight and sense of magic that pervades the whole fabric of the film. Cuaron uses CGI wonderfully, to illuminate a world that is like our own but is decidedly not. There is always something to remind you in the background that this is not our world, and that is wonderful thing. The films should exude this fantasy element, not as the defining characteristic but as part of the scenery. One of the worries I have about Order of the Phoenix was a quote from the director David Yates, saying he was brought in to make it more real. That is completely missing the point of the magical world that JK Rowling has created. If I want a searing political drama, I’ll watch that. I want to watch a film about a young wizard and his battle against evil.

The fourth film is a cracking little thriller – which means that lots of things have to be dropped from the book, but that is inevitable and okay – that is a lot of fun, even if it lacks a lot of the magic of Cuaron’s visual stylism. Everyone gets better in the acting stakes, and there is the sense of darkness that we are promised. However, having a film where someone escapes from Azkaban and not explained AT ALL after the film where the whole point was about how impossible to escape from there seems that the thriller element overtook explaining all the nuances that are in the book. In fact, it would seem that if you compare the book and the film, the film will tell you which parts aren’t important for the final book because of their absence. If it’s not important enough to be in the film, then it doesn’t matter to the denouement.

Which brings us up to date, in preparation for the fifth film, ‘the darkest yet’. As an obvious fan, I’m looking forward to it, so will enjoy it anyway. I just hope that it will be a good film in its own right. I’ll share my thoughts when I’ve seen it.

Reflections on the Harry Potter films

As the fifth Harry Potter film gets ready to hit our cinemas, and the final novel gets ready to assault our book shops, it seemed an appropriate time to remember the earlier films.

I enjoy the books and the films, and have read and seen them a few times respectively. I’m not a Potter maniac, but I know my way around them. This, and a hypercritical eye, make for odd viewpoints on the first film.

For example, the opening scene of the film has Dumbledore and McGonagall meeting up and putting baby Harry on the Dursley’s doorstep. Except they refer to each other as ‘Professor Dumbledore’ and ‘Professor McGonagall’, as if they were at school in front of pupils, rather than old friends who call each other ‘Albus’ and ‘Minerva’ all the time. This is part of the problem of introducing characters in a new universe, but it grates on the nerves slightly.

Of course, this slightly unsure tone leads to more discomfort in the film. The worst, for me, has to be the most ridiculous line ever, spoken by Hagrid when he takes Harry to Daigon Alley for the first time: ‘There you can get all your bits’n’bobs for wizardry.’ What the hell is that? Who would say that, apart from someone who was dropped on their head? What does it mean? We have seen specific shops, like the wand shop and the broomstick shop, but apparently you need ‘bits and bobs’ to do wizardry, says a man who used to go to the wizarding school and currently works at it. And how is that helpful to Harry? Would he like a cauldron? A wand? Some scales? Parchment? Ingredients? No – he now thinks that all you need to ask for is ‘bits and bobs’ for him to be fully set up to perform magic. As you can see, it really riles me.

Having watched the film, I start wondering about logistics. Like, do all the people who go to Hogwarts use the Hogwarts Express? Not having researched it online, my guestimate for the number of pupils is close to 300. This is based on Harry’s first year: he joins Gryffindor, with four other boys, so let’s say that’s average, so five girls joined, so that makes 40 in a year, making 280 pupils, with a 10% error. How do they all get on that old fashioned train, with its separate carriages? It just doesn’t make sense.

And how does Harry end up with a carriage all to himself in the first film? Surely he’d have to share – wouldn’t he want to, to find out more about the wizarding world into which he is being introduced? No, he has to wait for Ron Weasley, who apparently is hated so much by his older brothers that he is left to fend for himself on his first time on the Hogwarts Express. And Harry, who is so happy that someone is talking to him, demonstrates his disturbed psyche (after the horrendous abuse he has suffered under the Dursleys) by having to buy Ron’s affection literally by purchasing the entire sweet trolley. Nothing says be my friend more than a train carriage full of confectionary.

Then there is the racism, by having Seamus, the only Irish kid in the school, shown trying to use a spell to make rum out of water. Bear in mind, HE’S ONLY ELEVEN AT THE TIME. Thanks Chris Columbus or Steve Kloves, whoever was responsible for the ‘comedy’ of showing all Irish people as lovable alcoholics.

By the way, Minerva McGonagall should be investigated – how can she afford a Firebolt for Harry on a teacher’s salary? And surely it is highly unethical for her to show such favouritism towards a pupil in her house? Albus should have a word … And talking of the gift, how do they know it’s for Harry? It could have been for almost anyone on that table. And then the three of them wonder what the gift could actually be? What sort of shape is that, I wonder? Stupid kids …

I haven’t mentioned the kids’ acting. It’s a little harsh to expect brilliance from children (not everyone can by Haley Joel Osment or Dakota Fanning) and they are being spoon-fed direction. However, there is one moment that makes me laugh. At the large-scale chess game, Ron has just been taken out; Harry and Hermione scream, ‘Ron!’ at his predicament. Hermione is going to run over to him, but Harry holds her back by explaining that they are still playing the game. However, he does it in the most expository voice you will ever hear. You’ve just seen him show fear and worry for his best friend, not knowing if he’s alive or dead, but then he talks as if he is reading it straight from the script. It always makes me laugh.

The second film doesn’t merit as much discussion – the workmanlike direction hasn’t improved, the kids are getting a little better, and Kenneth Brannagh provides a lot of fun (nearly as much as Alan Rickman as Snape does all the time) – except for the godawfulness of the end. It makes me quite ill every time I watch it, when everyone starts applauding for Hagrid’s return to the feast.

More tomorrow, when I talk about the next two films, in anticipation of seeing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on Saturday.

Somebody Read My Blog

Rather than reviewing stuff, as I usually do, I have to comment on a comment.

Recently, I posted an old review of mine for a film called Londinium. Today, I was notified of a comment left about that post. It said:

Hey man, thanks for taking the time to bash my work. Love your site as well. All's good.

Live clean

Mike Binder

mikebinder.net
Thefreebird.com

I’m still quite dumbfounded about it. Someone posted a comment to my blog … Seriously, it is rather bizarre. Now, I don’t know if this is genuine (the two sites exist: one is Mike Binder's official site, the other a promo for a DVD of a film Binder wrote/directed/starred in from 2001), but I can’t imagine that someone of his stature would Google himself and then reply to a (rather scathing, I have to admit) review on someone’s blog. It seems quite strange, to say the least.

The other alternative is that it is a rather elaborate, well-researched hoax. It’s quite easy to set up an anonymous Blogger profile for the purposes of commenting on people’s blogs, but why bother? It’s a very small joke with not much pay off.

If it is the real Mike Binder, I can’t quite see the point of it. However, it made me think about the power of words in a review. I stand by what I said, but I never thought that the creator of a theatrically released movie would ever see my review of his film. I try to write my reviews to be fairly even handed, putting my thoughts across in a reasoned and (hopefully) articulate manner so that I am not misunderstood, bearing in mind that nobody goes out of their way to produce something bad. They are still human beings, and deserve to be treated with respect.

So, Mr Binder, if it is you, thank you for taking the time to leave a comment, and best wishes for the future.

Still, it could have been worse. A post of mine about British television comedy, of which I am quite proud, received the terse and to the point comment from Anonymous:

You fucking dick

You’ve got to admire the economy of phrasing.

-----------------------------

In a different vein, but still in the world of film and leaving me a little gobsmacked, I learn via Empire that The Dark Is Rising film trailer is online. As I commented in Clandestine Chum Jim Roeg of Double Articulation’s post about the reading material of his youth, I loved The Dark Is Rising cycle of books. They were the first books I remember REALLY enjoying reading when I was given them as a teenager. They either filtered my preference for genre reading, or were perfectly in sync with what I wanted to read. Whichever, they had a deep impact on my reading psyche and I have a huge affection for them to this day.

To learn that the second book in the series, also called The Dark Is Rising, has been turned into a film was something of a shock. I either never knew or I had blanked that from my mind. It makes perfect sense based on the success of The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the upcoming His Dark Materials films: here is a series (i.e. a franchise) of books about mythology/folklore/fantasy, written by a British author, and specifically aimed at a teenage audience (read: key demographic for movie executives).

However, from viewing the trailer, I wonder if they know what they are doing with the source material.

Despite being adapted by John Hodge, of Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, 28 Days Later, The Beach fame, the film seems to be bizarrely updated to modern day America with more of an emphasis on the SFX action of the piece than the story. As Empire says, to take the narrative away from the country from which it takes its mythology seems a particularly odd choice, which I can’t see being justified other than a solely American-centric approach to the material. This seems quite sad, and doesn’t inspire hope for the film.

And, what is Christopher Ecclestone doing in this film? It really doesn’t seem like him – perhaps he was similarly affected by the source material when he was younger?

I will no doubt see this film (although unlikely in the cinema), just because it is The Dark Is Rising, but it will be hard to separate the dispassionate critic from the fan of the books. Just as long as I don’t turn into one of those Transformers fans who were screaming at Michael Bay before the film came out about all the changes he made …

Films that made me cry

I think I've gotten to know you well enough to share with you. Hope I'm not being too forward.

As a man, it is a biological imperative that I not cry as a result of watching a film. I do not know why this is so; perhaps it is because we are not supposed to show emotion, or it makes us appear weak, or crying is for girls, or because we are just heartless bastards.

As I have gotten older, I’ve noticed a subtle shift in my emotional response to movies, and I’m not afraid to discuss this openly. When I was young, the concept of tears due to visual storytelling was absurd. The whole point of films is to be entertained, to be excited, to laugh, to be thrilled, to be dazzled … and to be quiet for two hours to give your mum and dad some peace and quiet. There was no reason to cry at a film because you would be unable to understand the depths of emotion felt by the actors and the story line at a young age, where the greatest heartache you had survived was not getting the fully operational Millennium Falcon with the complement of Star Wars figures. Anyway, you didn’t watch those sort of films – emotional films were for girls.

It was when I moved away to university, and began to mature into the human being I am now (and will hopefully become when I completely grow up) that I began to notice that I could connect emotionally to a film. For me, the first film to do more than entertain was Dead Poets Society. When Ethan Hawke, an actor who now mostly manages to elicit the emotion of annoyance, on learning of the fate of his beloved teacher, stands on his desk and shouts, ‘O captain, my captain’, and is joined by other students (not on the same desk, obviously, as it would’ve been too small), I was extremely worried by the strange sensation in my throat, as if I couldn’t swallow properly. I gulped, in order to correct the unusual biological phenomenon, shook my head as if it would evacuate the bizarre sensations behind my eyes, sniffed as if clearing my nose, and tried not to give it a second thought. It was only a few years later, while watching the film on television in the privacy of my bedroom, that the tears came to my face fully formed, and I let myself over to the emotion that the film had so adroitly created. After that, there was no turning back.

There have been other films subsequently, where I could not control the ocular leakage that I could not have imagined as a teenager. Some have been ‘chick flicks’, romantic comedies where you know you are being emotionally manipulated but concede victory to an above average film-maker. Recently, it was Love Actually, not a great film by any means; however, it was funny when it was supposed to be, and romantic when it was supposed to be (even though it was a bit muddled in places, lost its way for a bit in the middle, and ignored some storylines at the end) and emotionally resonant in the hands of Emma Thompson, whose quiet and attempt-at-control of the reaction when discovering her husband is being unfaithful was moving beyond words, so I let tears do my talking.

However, while ‘girls films’ seem to have crying as a desired affect (something I always found a little bizarre, personally, as crying isn’t particularly pleasant, what with the puffy eyes, the snotty nose, and the drying out of the mouth) and girls seem to be in on the fact – I’ll never forget sitting behind two girls at a showing of Ghost (I was only there because of my girlfriend of the time, I assure you) who were passing a box of tissues they had brought with them specially for the film; talk about being prepared – films that affect me similarly don’t appear to be in the same vein.

Witness the end of two film epics of recent years – The Return of the King, and The Last Samurai. Big, male-dominated movies about war, sacrifice, honour, loyalty, and with lots of fighting with swords and stuff. Not exactly what you would call eye-moistening material. But, at the end of both, tears sprung freely down my cheeks: in Return of the King, the moment where the newly crowned Aragorn says to the Hobbits, ‘No, it is we who should bow to you, and then he and everyone else bows to them; and The Last Samurai, where Tom Cruise’s character confronts the Emperor with the sword of leader of the samurai rebels (and former teacher to the Emperor) and the Emperor realises the enormity of what has happened and the sacrifice involved. The ability to make men cry in movies about myth and legend is quite impressive, in my opinion, and I am quite pleased that I was able to be moved to such a degree.

The film where tears came mostly freely, however, was also at the most inopportune. I was at a preview screening for Good Will Hunting at a screen in London to review it for my student paper. When Robin Williams, as the psychologist counselling Matt Damon as the tortured genius, Will Hunting, keeps repeating to him, ‘It’s not your fault’, causing Will to breakdown and cry for the first time, I was blubbing like a little girl who had grazed her knee. Tears poured down my face, as I empathised and related to the scene on the screen (what with me being a tortured genius who can’t emotionally connect with people), not caring that I was supposed to be the calm and collected critic. Fortunately, I was able to clean myself up before anyone saw me, but I knew then that I made the transition from being a totally heartless man, to being still mostly heartless, but with the ability to be moved to tears by quality drama, which my girlfriend seems to like. And I don’t mind a bit.

Films about films about films

As someone who enjoys watching films perhaps more than the average, I enjoy films that love films. This can be a film that has nods/homages/steals from other films, little Easter eggs dotted throughout, to films that are about films and film-making. Some people think it far too incestuous, a cinematic navel-gazing that disappears up its own rear end, and therefore only of interest to other people in the business of making films. Who wants to watch a movie full of in-jokes and cameos and references to other films that can only be understood by people who watch too many films?

Well, I do. Among the many things that can contribute to a good film, one of them is writing what you know. When the screenwriter knows the story so intimately, it allows the film to breathe, and the film can be about its subtext, instead of the surface. Being about the film industry, in which presumably the screenwriter is involved (and the director who films it, as well as the actors who play the parts therein), there is a natural understanding that comes across, from the years of experience, as well as an attention to detail that helps to create a believable film.

The Bad and The Beautiful is a film about films that doesn’t use the in-joke/referencing mentioned but is very much about people making films. It uses a flashback structure to examine the affect of Kirk Douglas’ once-powerful producer on three former friends (a successful director, a successful screenwriter and a successful actress) who subsequently became stars, even though they ended up hating him for the way he treated them, but come to realise that it was because of this hardship they were able to succeed. It uses the film industry to examine relationships and the paths people take and their reasons. It is a very enjoyable film that gives you a sense of how things were done in the bygone age of Hollywood.

Another black and white film about the old days of Hollywood is Sunset Boulevard. One of the many great films made by Billy Wilder, it starts out with the corpse of a screenwriter (William Holden) in a swimming pool (which is one of the great beginnings of a film ever) and relates in flashback of how he comes to be involved with Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), a star of the silent era who never made the transition to talkies but doesn’t realise how detached from reality she has become. This film does involve cameos (Buster Keaton, Cecil B DeMille) and in-jokes (DeMille is actually filming a genuine film when Desmond comes to visit him and calls her by his nickname for Swanson; Erich von Stroheim, who plays the butler who had formerly been a famous director, had been a famous director [of a film that starred Swanson that is shown in the film] who now only got work as an actor) but it is also a great study in how fame affects people. And it has great dialogue, apart from the famous lines …

Living in Oblivion is about the trials and tribulations of making an independent movie in modern times. Tom DiCillo, the writer-director, uses his previous experiences to portray an up-and-coming writer/director trying to get his movie made, with an actress with buzz, and an actor who is a big star who is doing everyone a favour by being in the low-budget film (and who was most definitely not based on Brad Pitt, with whom DiCillo had just worked on Johnny Suede, definitely not). It is an inside look at the indie film world, but also a look at people and their relationships in an unusual setting, with plenty of humour and hysteria and dwarfs being used in dream sequences. And if you ever decide you want to make a film, you should watch this film and think again.

The Player, adapted from a novel, is perhaps the most notorious film about films, especially with its huge roster of big stars playing themselves in small cameos, filled with snipes at Hollywood (Altman had never been a particular fan of the system, and Hollywood felt likewise) as well as sly in-jokes, such as the 15 minute opening scene, which is all done in a single continuous take, in homage to Orson Welles’ A Touch of Evil, which it mentions specifically in the scene. The film is about what a man will do when in a dark and desperate situation, and the ramifications of the actions, more than Hollywood itself, but there are plenty of inside details and jokes that let you feel that what you are seeing is a documentary rather than fiction.

Other films use film-making as a background for drama. Shadow of the Vampire is a fictional account of the making of F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu, with the intriguing idea that the method actor playing the lead actually became a vampire for the film. However, it is a look at the obsession of an artist in getting his film made. Ed Wood examines the world of the most notorious worst director, but is about people with dreams, and how we shouldn’t dismiss the dreamers. Barton Fink is the film about a writer with writer’s block, a film the Coen brothers notoriously wrote while suffering writer’s block on Millers Crossing. Although it mocks the Hollywood of the late ‘40s, it a portrait of despair and alienation, and is both funny and scary at the same time.

Films about film-making are a source for comedy. Singin’ in the Rain is a wonderfully entertaining musical (and how many times can that be applied to films?) that homages and pastiches old Hollywood musicals and the beginning of talkies. Get Shorty parodies the world of Hollywood and the B-movie directors, by comparing them to the mob, with John Travolta’s Chilli Palmer making his way into the film world using his gangster methods. Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back is full of in-jokes and digs at the modern world of film, from digs at the studio that produces the film, to the hilarity of Ben Affleck and Matt Damon sending themselves up in a fake sequel to Good Will Hunting, called ‘Hunting Season’ (‘Lion Face Lemon Face’ still makes me laugh hysterically). All of this isn’t surprising considering it was made by Kevin Smith, a big film-geek with a love of movies, who constantly references other films in his own. Hollywood may be an easy target, but if the jokes are this good, it doesn’t really matter.

The films about film-making idea has now entered the television world, as Entourage continues to bring us cameos, film references and in-jokes to the masses, so one has to wonder how much more exploring of the notion can be done at the cinematic level. However, if it continues to produce enjoyable films around the conceit, I’m sure that that this small genre will not fade away.

Inventory, Good News, A Great Film

Incoming Inventory – 13 July

To make up for last week’s barren list, this week the publishers of the ninth art provide me with periodicals:

100 Bullets #74
I’ve been reading this for too long to switch to the trades now, so I look forward to my monthly hit of Bullets, as we head towards the last quarter.







Fables #51
I hope that this keeps up the hit of last issue, which was great. I worry that Willingham might be stretching himself, what with his work in the mainstream DCU and the spin-off, so I hope he keeps up the momentum.






Squadron Supreme #5
JMS has yet to convince me that this should have continued without the MAX umbrella, but at least he is one of the ‘tourist’ writers who has come in from outside comics who actually produces the work in a timely fashion. (See Paul O’Brien’s review of Wonder Woman #1 for a reasoned attack on the TV/film people who don’t understand the meaning of the word 'deadline' when it comes to something other than their ‘real’ jobs – the review is made all the more interesting by the fact that Allan Heinberg sent him an email to say that he never sends his scripts in late – doesn’t he have better things to do than scour the web for reviews of his comic books?) At least he didn’t take the clichéd route I was worried he would in the last issues, and he appears to be grounding it very much in a real-world setting, which should make for interesting story connections.

------------------------------

Diamond Geezer, one of the most consistent, and consistently entertaining, bloggers makes the jump from web to print, as he writes an article for Time Out (London). Naturally, it’s about London, and seems to be an extension of his journeying around London. This is lovely news, as he is a very enjoyable writer and it is good to see the adage coming true of if you enjoy what you are doing, then the people will come to you and reward you for your efforts. Congratulations, DG.

I’m really happy when bloggers I enjoy get into print (not that it is the only validation of their excellent work), as it is cool to see that other people can enjoy what you have been digging for a while, a bit like an indie band no-one’s heard of suddenly getting signed, or a cult film you’ve know about for ages suddenly getting respect. Obviously, I’m jealous of their success, because I am a shallow and pathetic human being like that, but I know that my writing isn’t print worthy, which is why I blog for myself, and so I can just live vicariously through their success and say I knew them when …

------------------------------

I saw Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang on DVD last night, and basically wanted to say how great it was. I don’t want to do a complete review (apart from the fact that it has taken ages for me to see it, due to the slightly bizarre calculation that LoveFilm does to select the DVD they are going to send you from your rental queue – I’ve had this film at the top of my list since it became available to rent, which was March for chrissake. If it wasn’t for the fact that they keep offering me 2-for-1 and 3-for-1 on monthly subscription, I would give up on LoveFilm) because, at this stage, it won’t help the film.

But it is an absolute cracker of a movie – Robert Downey Jr is on top form, Val Kilmer is great as Gay Perry, the mood is hard-boiled noir, but the humour of the dialogue and the narration is sublime. It is incredibly quotable ('Still gay? No, knee-deep in pussy. I just love the name so much I can't get rid of it.' 'When in doubt, cut up a pig - that was the town's motto.' '… and to all you good people in the Midwest, sorry we said fuck so much.'), it mocks itself, it plays with the notion that it is a film, it takes the piss out of LA – it’s just great entertainment.

Shane Black likes his private investigators (The Last Boy Scout, The Long Kiss Goodnight) and he writes the sort of film I would like to be able to write, if, you know, I had the talent for his cool dialogue, and any screenwriting ability at all. This film was the top of a short list where I want to see what happens to the characters in the future, even though the story provided a satisfying experience. That’s a sign of a damned good film.

End Of The Week Equals Links

Verily, doth my head acheth, so links must sooth mine furrowed brow.

A belated Happy Blogiversary to Mark; one year down, many more to go. Keep up the good work.

Kevin Smith seems to go out of his way to show that he is just like us (apart from being richer and more famous), as he blogs about the triviality of nose picking and his history of anal sex.

Tom’s latest objection of affection, in his sidebar update, is Lisa Edelstein, and he is so right about her being smoking hot (we just had the show where House had to inject her backside – oh, dear Lord, what a lucky man). Which leads him on to say that he is currently reading Hugh Laurie’s The Gun Seller, which I haven’t read in 10 years, which is when it was first published. A cracking read, and it’s a shame that his clinical depression meant he never got round to writing the screenplay.

Empire bases a news item using this Newsarama post as a source (which is bizarre, because I thought they only used official news outlets, like Variety and Hollywood Reporter, when I did my week of online work experience with them), informing us of the fact that David Goyer is set to write a treatment for Thor. Not sure about this – unless they capture the magic of Simonson’s run, I can’t see it working. Also in the comic book/film overlap, we have the news that the Silver Surfer will be a CGI creation in the second Fantastic Four film. I think this is a great idea, and is the only way to get across the otherworldiness of Norrin Radd (I didn’t want to see a naked man in silver skin paint).

Warren Ellis went to Heroes Con last week, from which he is only now recovering, but it seems that he was the person people wanted to see, based on the coverage he got – two articles on the Wizard site and one from Newsarama – that are just about him (even if it meant he had to confirm that Fell wasn’t being cancelled). This is solely because he gives good soundbytes: (about Nextwave) 'You’ve read the book,' said Ellis. 'Quite clearly I’m not thinking about anything. I’m just spouting utter f***ing gibberish onto the page.'

Finally, when in doubt, always post a pretty picture. Here is the teaser for the Brian Vaughan-written Dr Strange mini-series (found via Neilalien, obviously, and Blog@Newsarama), which looks exceedingly cool – I'm looking forward to this one:

Are You Going To Buy Comics To Review?

The weekend didn’t quite turn out the way I had anticipated; I couldn’t get my comics and haven’t read my New Avengers back issues yet, so I’m just going to groove on a wave of unrelated synaptic firings.


Because I have a disturbing weakness for watching really bad films about strong females in sexy outfits being violent in genre action flicks (cough, Ultraviolet, cough), and because I rather liked Equilibrium, I bizarrely want to see Ultraviolet, even though I know it will be bad (Empire says so, and Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t lie). However, I don’t want to pay good money to see it – that would be stupid. The only problem is that the film is only on in two cinemas in the centre of London; it would appear that everyone knows it is going to be a big pile of poo and decided not to book it in their theatres. This I find rather funny.


Thanks to John at Soreeyes pointing out that Battlestar Galactica was starting on Sky Three (first shown on Thursday but repeated on Saturday), I was able to finally catch the show that has been getting nothing but good reviews. This didn’t prepare me for the quality of the stuff in this double episode, which got me immediately hooked and jonesing to see more. The only question I had was, 'Why Sky Three?' Surely this has Sky One written all over it? Anyway, I don’t care – really good stuff, and the mini-series DVD is now on my rental queue.


I saw Broken Flowers on DVD; as my girlfriend put, I’m glad I didn’t see that in the cinema. Watching it drained any desire in me to write a review, which would probably have included phrases such as ‘slow’ and ‘why have famous actresses doing nothing more than cameos?' (Chloe Sevigny and Tilda Swinton barely get more than a few lines of dialogue). So, other than to say that it was well made and Bill Murray is always watchable, I hope I never see the film again.


Happy 2-year blogiversary to the incomparable Tom The Dog, writer of many quality posts and a man with impeccable taste.


I wanted to have a link somewhere to the FilmWise invisibles site, because I had forgotten about it and recently rediscovered it. A testament to the power of film and the power of Adobe Photoshop.


I had a moment of comedy expectations leading to disbelief over the weekend. There was an advert on television. It was three pretty lasses singing a cover version of Scarborough Fair while wandering around a forest. It then cut to the same girls in different flowing dresses and perhaps a different forest, but this time they were singing a cover Kiss From A Rose. There wasn’t a voiceover, and it looked really bizarre; so bizarre, in fact, I was convinced it was a piss-take, hopefully leading into the announcement of a new comedy show. Except, it didn’t. It announced that it was the new CD from Triniti, a trio of Dublin colleens, who actually exist – here is their official website, and here is the video of their latest song. I was stunned by it. I thought it had to be a joke, there was no way it could be real. You know what it reminded me of? That bit in Blackadder II, the Bells episode, where Blackadder is walking along to a K-Tel-like advert for love songs: 'My Love is a Prick (On a Tudor Rose), Hot Sex Madrigal in the Middle of my Tights and many, many more ...' BUT THIS WAS GENUINE!


Hopefully, I will actually get around to reading some comics and doing the whole reviewing thing I seem to enjoy so much. Feel free to join me.