The Challenge Part 1

One day, I'm going to die. So are you. I was reminded of this at Christmas, when I was given the latest edition of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. I love making lists of films to watch, tracking them down and crossing them off gives me the kind of pleasure most people only experience in bed, bungee jumping or finding out they have superpowers. But, as this book clearly points out in the title, I'm going to die. There is a finite amount of time I have left to watch these films, films that I must watch before I die, else my life be not deemed worthy of the cinematic Gods.


Now, this would mean nothing to most people. Yes, we're all going to die, but there's not a whole lot we can do about that. Look around you, if you can't see twenty things that could kill you, you're dead already. But, and this is where I ask you to bear with me for a moment, when I was younger, I had a dream. In this dream, I was told I would die when I was 28. I'm 23 now, meaning I have at most 5 1/2 years to live, and therefore 5 1/2 years to watch all of the films on the list that I have yet to see, not counting those in the editions as yet unpublished. I don't normally believe in the whole dreams and destinies thing, but dammit I want to watch the films, and this gives me some kind of a goal, something which, my girlfriend will agree, is missing from my life.


So, I'm setting up a plan to watch all those films left in the book I've yet to watch. Without counting, I'd guess I've seen about 200, leaving 800-ish, but I have other similar books too. On top of this pile I'm going to add the Total Film Top 100 Movies of All Time, Empire Magazine's 500 Greatest Movies of All Time and Empire's 5-Star 500 (2010). I have no idea how many this is going to make without counting, as I'm sure an awful lot will be duplicated. But as soon as I know, I'm gonna start watching.


The deadline is set, February 1st, 2016, every film mentioned in those books will have been watched, else my life, as deemed by those that know films better than I, will not have been worth living.

Second Chance: P.S. I Love You

For every good film, there must be an equally bad film (Newton's Third Law of Motion Pictures). Like most people, I tend to not watch a film if I hear that it's bad, even more so if this opinion comes from a review. But a review is merely one person's opinion, and I'm not going to agree with them all the time, surely? So in this column I'll be providing badly reviewed films with a second chance, seeing if they are as bad as everyone seems to think.


Total Film: 3/5
Empire: 2/5
IMDb rating: 6.8/10
Rotten Tomatoes: 23%


Before even watching P.S. I Love You, I got the feeling I'm not going to like it, as it's a modern rom-com featuring Gerard Butler, which trailer-wise are generally terrible (The Ugly Truth, The Bounty Hunter), but the whole point of this is to give film's the benefit of the doubt. So, even though my girlfriend likes it (generally a sign that I won't) I sat down and gave it a try.


It started off well enough, and my spirits were lifted by the depiction of a fairly realistic couple (Butler and Hilary Swank, dabbling in light material for a change), living in a cramped apartment, not knowing where they're going in life or what they want out of it. Even the realisation that relationships don't always work out is relatively original in cinema, with Butler's Gerry passing away from a brain tumour early in the film. After this though, the film follows standard romantic comedy guidelines: the holiday to the idyllic country, the various eligible bachelors in Swank's life, even the bossy sister and sassy friend (Lisa Kudrow having fun with this).


All in all, it wasn't a terrible film, better than expected, and there were times when I actually laughed, but there's not a lot new here, and  the only thing I took away from the film was that, comparatively to Butler's note-leaving, holiday-planning, life-improving Irishman, I am a terrible boyfriend.


4/10 Choose Life

Exam

Last night, I experienced the long-awaited and highly anticipated joy of watching Exam, the 2009 writing and directing debut of Stuart Hazeldine. Looking at his earlier work, dabbling in the scripts of such cinematic highlights as Knowing and the remake of the Day the Earth Stood Still, expectations should not have been high, yet due to word of mouth and some decent reviews, I had been looking forward to watching the film for quite some time.

The basic premise, and anything more would spoil the fun, is there are eight candidates from various backgrounds, all applying for a high-end job in a secretive company. They are given 80 minutes to answer a question, and asked to abide by a strict set of rules, with any failure to do so ensuring immediate disqualification. The only hitch is, there appears to be no question to answer.

Billed, not incorrectly, as a blend of the Apprentice, Saw and the Usual Suspects, and largely playing out in real time, Hazeldine keeps us guessing all the way through, carefully introducing new elements and revelations without the feel of being cheated. Praise too is deserving of the cast, all relative unknowns save for Jimi Mistry (2012, the Guru, err... Strictly Come Dancing), and most deserving is Luke Mably as White, somehow making a devious bully sympathetic.

With Exam, set in a future-time of 'soon', Hazeldine poses  the question of, in this tough economic climate, how far would you go to get a job? Would you lie? Betray? Cheat? Kill? And would it be worth it in the end? Whatever the answer, and indeed whatever the question, I look forward to Mr. Hazeldine's next effort. Any questions?

See this film if you liked:
Cube
The Usual Suspects
Fermat's Room

Best watched:
Alone, in a darkened room, possibly with a slightly-too-loud ticking clock in the background.

R.E.D.

Do you want to see Morgan Freeman beat up Richard Dreyfuss? John Malkovich take out a rocket with a single bullet? Helen Mirren threaten to bury someone in the woods before unleashing Hell with a sniper rifle? Of course you do, so you should go and see RED. This movie is all about playing against type, with almost all of the principle cast not being well known for action roles. Bruce Willis, obviously, is the most well known for out-and-out balls to the wall action, and Karl Urban, perfecting his unemoting suit with balls ready for his next role as Judge Dredd, has done his fair share, but personally I’ve never seen Brian Cox unload an uzi on someone.

It’s refreshing too to see Hollywood actors playing their age, knowingly accepting put downs (“I wanted you to have hair”), and for the love interest to be a real, flawed person, albeit ten years younger than Willis, stuck in a dead end job, single with no prospects, plausibly forging a telephone relationship with someone she hasn’t met. It would have been easy to cast a younger, thinner, blonder identikit actress like Katherine Heigl or Rachel McAdams, but instead to use Mary Louise-Parker, more known for her TV work in Weeds and the West Wing, crows’ feet as defined as her comic timing and ability to hold her own with her more, ahem, experienced co-stars, is a welcome touch.

Thanks the heavens for the casting of Ernest Borgnine, deserving of my in-the-air fist-pump every time he came on the screen. The guy’s a legend.

2012

Say what you will about Roland Emmerich, and many have and I'm sure many more will, but the man knows how to abuse a landscape. Given that within his back catalogue, the guy's unleashed a giant reptile around New York, had aliens destroy all the major cities of the world and frozen the entire northern hemisphere, you'd think he'd be looking for something new, to stretch his horizon a little beyond the tedium of landscape desecration. Well now it looks like he may be doing just that, but before he goes, he wants to make sure he's remembered for the disaster movie to end all disaster movies. So, in 2012, which historical landmarks are being reduced to so much dust in the wind? The Washington monument? The Sistine chapel? Christ the Redeemer? If you answered d) All of the above, congratulations, you're correct, as Emmerich has had enough of humanity, and is blowing all of civilisation sky high. He even has a pop at Mount Everest, and we didn't even build that.

 The plot, in so far as one is necessary, involves the Sun heating the Earth’s core and causing worldwide devastation. Knowing this, Danny Glover’s president and the other heads of the world all set about building giant ships to save anyone rich enough to buy a ticket. Lost in the middle of this mess is John Cusack’s limo driver/failed writer/flawed everyman, desperate to save his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and estranged children. The luck of this family is seemingly limitless, as they are forever running into the exact person they need to meet at that exact time, be it the crackpot nutjob with the map to the ships (Woody Harrelson), the President’s chief scientific aid (Chiwetal Ejiofor) or a billionaire Russian with a giant plane. If Armageddon were ever to occur, you're best bet is to hang around with this lot.

As with most disaster films, you really don’t need to worry about the fates of the kids or the dog, and anyone who does die, seems to do so in a heroic manner, either giving their lives to save others or to further to plot, perhaps to be used in a dramatic, passionate speech later in film. This, combined with the devastation and death of essentially everything and everyone not directly linked to the plot, left me feeling somewhat distanced from the film and its characters. With other disaster films, regardless of the event at hand, there are almost always a very large number of survivors, generally more than half of humanity. Yet with 2012, the numbers are dwindled to seemingly a few thousand, a very small percentage of life. When watching a disaster film we, the average slack-jawed yokels of the world, tend to secretly believe that we would be amongst the survivors; we too would be resourceful and smart, getting ahead of traffic to the higher grounds, and we’d be there to help repopulate the Earth with the other survivors. But with 2012, any hope of this is quashed by the sheer amount of luck, or money, required to make it even halfway through the film. This makes it hard to empathise with the characters, as they are either too lucky to exist, or too successful and rick to care about.

The effects within the film are largely impressive, although there are some sections that don’t quite look finished, but overall the end of the world convinces. The film does have an interesting point with regards to fate changing the cultural future, when one character points out that an average book has made it into the select few remaining in existence, purely because he is reading it. An insightful comment is also made regarding the first-class lifestyle that the wealthy ticketholders have come accustomed to, with the sheer size of their living quarters, each large enough to hold far more than one person.

All in all, if you’ve seen a disaster movie before and enjoyed it, you’re on safe ground here (unlike most of the characters, bah-dum-tsh) but you won’t find anything new, just the same explosions on a larger scale.

Scream 4

With the recent release of the trailer for Scream 4, I wish to express my excitement about this forthcoming film. I feel that, in the ten years since the release of Scream 3, the horror genre has progressed significantly, with the introduction of the torture-porn sub-genre in the likes of the thankfully now finishing Saw franchise and the nauseating Hostel films (I still can't watch the bit with the eye in the first one) as well as the near constant onslaught of remakes, prequels and 'reimaginings' of existing films, be they masterpieces or less so.

I greatly enjoy the existing Scream trilogy, and look forward to rewatching them in anticipation of the new release (I can't watch a new film without watching all those that prelude to it, making any new Bond films almost annoying). I appreciated the mix of genuine horror with the parodies and homages to more classis pictures, although the third film did seem to deteriorate away from horror a little, with the cameos from Kevin Smith, Jason Mewes and Carrie Fisher, although being well done, being irrelevant to the film.

I am glad to see from the trailer that Wes Craven (thankfully still helming the franchise) has managed to reteam the three leads of Courtney Cox, David Arquette and Neve Campbell, alongside, in true horror tradition, an admirable collection of actors more renowned for their appearances than their thespian abilities (Kristen Bell, Hayden Panettiere, Emma Roberts), who should all be credited for hopefully getting the joke of their casting.

All in all, I am looking forward to seeing the film, and hope it lives up to the dizzy heights of it's predecessors, roll on April 2011.

Point Break, clearly broken

Last night I watched Point Break again. This was only the second time I've watched it, the first being a few years ago, after the recommendation of Seargeant Danny Butterman. On first viewing, I found it very easy, and often more enjoyable, to stop paying attention to the film and do something else, and the same can most definitely be said of this second viewing. I'm going to place the blame for this mainly upon the shoulders of Keanu Reeves, as the improbably, but somewhat awesomely monikered Johnny Utah.