Skip to main content

Don't call me a mindless philosopher, you overweight glob of grease.

Movies on My Mind
Week Ending 3 September 2016

Lists

I do like a good list. But a good list. While it’s fun enough to see Edgar Wright’s 1000 favourite movies in string formation, I’d rather have a paragraph or two about why some of them are on there what stands out about a particular choice.  It’s why lists in the likes of Empire (or, grief, Total Film) tend to offer countdowns as the least satisfying kind of filler, with no one on the staff attempting to say anything fresh or different about the movie in question; it’s production line puff. There have been a couple of interesting super lists appearing in the past few weeks, Empire’s 7 Favourite Movies, open to anyone, and the BBC’s critics’ choice of the 21st Century’s Top 100. They tend to skew to readily identifiable persuasions, the populist and pseud-ish respectively, but ‘twas ever thus.

While I do like a good chin-rub, I’ve always leant more towards the anti-pretentious in terms of the perceived quality of movies. Aspirant ideas and noble objectives, pregnant on subtext and sometimes avowedly anti-commercial, are fine and good, but I genuinely don’t find art house or international (read: foreign language) fare more likely to be superior to that produced by the mainstream. Both are equally subject to destructive whims, it’s simply that on the one hand they derive unvarnished from the “auteur” and on the other they may be foisted on a filmmaker from without.

Which is leading up to: the BBC list is actually quite balanced between the two, even if the closest it gets to all-out commercial is Pixar and the (good, but still) vastly overrated The Dark Knight. I’ve seen about 70 of the BBC 100, and maybe 25 of them would be instantly vying for attention on my list of favourites. Relatively few are ones I’d actually express dislike for (Melancholia, Spring Breakers, Moulin Rouge!), or even indifference towards; most are of definite merit, just not such merit that they vie for classic status. In terms of my own choices, I don’t really hold much truck with the “Best” versus “Favourite” argument, albeit I understand why people would go that route. My picks are all favourites, and I wouldn’t really be comfortable throwing a garland at picture I merely classified as highly “worthy” in some attempt at flawed objectivity.

It’s heartening to see too that some “respected” critics are content to throw in the likes of Madagascar 3, This is the End and Revenge of the Sith, which is at least a sign that favourite wins out over best in some books. Although, I’m hard-pressed to accept A Pigeon Sat on A Branch Reflecting on its Navel as the best film of the past 16 years in anyone’s book (or Shutter Island nudging a Top 10, for that matter, and certainly not Death Proof).

Of the Top 25, the only one I’d contend isn’t really all that is Boyhood (although I don’t think Lost in Translation and The Master are quite up there, I certainly rated them). Which brings me to another point. It’s not such an instantaneous thing even thinking of 10 favourites since 2000; maybe I’ve just become harder to please.

Ones that could easily have been on what follows but aren’t (for this week): Apocalypto, Inside Llewyn Davis, Mulholland Drive (I like how the cited review of this one can basically only say it’s really good, wrapped up in nonsense-babble), Wall-E, Zodiac, The Fellowship of the Ring, Inception, The Royal Tennenbaums, Children of Men, Pan’s Labyrinth, and Amelie.

10. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

9. In Bruges

8. Ratatouille

7. The Tree of Life

6. No Country for Old Men

5. The Grand Budapest Hotel

4. Mad Max: Fury Road

3. The Prestige

2. Cloud Atlas

1. Dean Spanley


As for Empire, it’s funny seeing some of the choices, but the actual Top 15 are just what you’d expect (and none of them bad, although some require dissection – Gump – and others (Rockys and Potters) are variable.

7. The Good the Bad and the Ugly

The best western of all time? Surely. Sergio Leone’s best film. It’s that or A Fistful of Dynamite/Duck You Sucker! (which isn’t in this Top 7, but might be in next week’s).

6. 2001: A Space Odyssey

And it is a trip. This is where Kubrick peaked for me. Having pushed the envelope as far as he could on the potential, the possible and the infinite, anything else had to be a retreat, no matter how inviting/alarming/blackly comic/mesmerising his encounters with Droogs, Napoleonic wars, hostile hotels, docklands warzones and masonic rituals would subsequently be.

5. The Big Lebowski

One of those pictures that has gone far beyond cult status, and has thus reached a kind of Withnail & I level of exhaustion with its over-exposure. Nevertheless, it’s a work of genius.

4. Kind Hearts and Coronets

Still as fresh, razor-sharp and hilarious as it was nearly 70 years ago. Dennis Price and Alex Guinness were never better, and Joan Greenwood is beyond beguiling.

3. The 'Burbs

If The Big Lebowski burst the cult barriers, Joe Dante looks set to remain entirely safe in his offbeat bubble, the aberration that was Gremlins aside. This is the picture that has grown most in devotion since his heyday, however, and rightly so. Tom Hanks best performance (controversial?) but it’s Bruce Dern who rocks the most.

2. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

Brazil will forever be Gilliam’s triumph in the eyes of those anointing general acclaim, but this is the picture that most reflects his unquenchable spirit, vaunting ambition and over-extending imagination. And for a film with mortality constantly on its mind, it might just be his most positive work.

1. The President’s Analyst

James Coburn ranks as one of cinema’s great underrated stars. With his silver locks and tooth-bound grin, he appeared in a string of classic roles (Duck You Sucker!, Cross of Iron, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, Hudson Hawk) that ought to overshadow his better known parts (Our Man Flint, The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape). Best of all is this very much of its era but simultaneously timeless satire of culture, counter-culture, Cold War politics and pressurised presidents. 

The Mandela Effect

So did C-3P0 always have a silver leg? Did Dolly from Moonraker once have braces? Did Forrest’s mother always say life was like a box of chocolates? In the case of the latter, and without really wanting to trawl back through the movie to check, I’d be minded to suggest the confusion arises from Gump’s momma telling him it is like a box of chocolates at one point and his recounting it at another.

But the silver leg thing… I don’t remember that. And it does make much more sense for Dolly to have braces because… well, Jaws has braces. I mean, she’s adorable either way, but it was an instant signal they were simpatico.

And if they're genuine anomalies, symptoms of the Mandela Effect, does this mean the Hadron Collider is messing with out reality(ies)? With trifling trivialities such as these, ones that inevitably leave some of us askance and others putting it all down to age, faulty memories, or not paying enough damn attention in the first place? Anthony Daniels has said C3P-O definitely had a silver leg from the get-go, but as someone at the heart of any reality warping, he’d presumably have to be able to directly affirm it. Can we ask Oliver Stone if JFK’s car had four seats or six? I know he wasn’t there (well, I don't know, maybe he was, now), but if anyone has an opinion on it, he should. I don’t pay enough attention to cars to have a strong opinion on that one; I was just going back and to the left as instructed. And Does the lion lie down with the lamb in Isaiah 11:6 or does a wolf do the job instead?

Answer: Like Darth’s “Luke, I am your father”, it appears to have forever been a popular misquote. Much as I love a conspiracy, and doubt very much the Hadron Collider is doing anything commendable (at very least, a bunch of “whacky” science nerds are play-human sacrificing in carparks, a double-double bluff if ever there was one), the biblical quote suggests one of those repeated memes that has become the established form, rather than a CERN-complicit charge satanic conspiracy to change sacred scripture. Alternatively, if you want to keep a conspiratorial theme running, it could be latest distracting psyop.

Which doesn’t mean CERN isn’t heaving with Satan-worshipping scientists enacting their latest version of a  Babalon Working, just that these glitches in the matrix do seem to tend to elicit the skeptical/not really that crucial response. The problem is, which isn’t to doubt others wholly invested in this, that you read enough cumulative references to reported pop culture anomalies in songs, movies and TV (and deaths) and it leads the initially intriguing to become less than transfixing.

But the Hadron Collider. Still a bad thing. Quit with the human sacrifices, guys. Even the fake ones.

Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies (2008)
(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.

I didn't kill her. I just relocated her.

The Discovery (2017)
(SPOILERS) The Discovery assembles not wholly dissimilar science-goes-metaphysical themes and ideas to Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated 1983 Brainstorm, revolving around research into consciousness and the revelation of its continuance after death. Perhaps the biggest discovery, though, is that it’s directed and co-written by the spawn of Malcom McDowell and Mary Steenburgen (the latter cameos) – Charlie McDowell – of hitherto negligible credits but now wading into deep philosophical waters and even, with collaborator Justin Lader, offering a twist of sorts.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

How many galoshes died to make that little number?

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
(SPOILERS) Looney Tunes: Back in Action proved a far from joyful experience for director Joe Dante, who referred to the production as the longest year-and-a-half of his life. He had to deal with a studio that – insanely – didn’t know their most beloved characters and didn’t know what they wanted, except that they didn’t like what they saw. Nevertheless, despite Dante’s personal dissatisfaction with the finished picture, there’s much to enjoy in his “anti-Space Jam”. Undoubtedly, at times his criticism that it’s “the kind of movie that I don’t like” is valid, moving as it does so hyperactively that its already gone on to the next thing by the time you’ve realised you don’t like what you’re seeing at any given moment. But the flipside of this downside is, there’s more than enough of the movie Dante was trying to make, where you do like what you’re seeing.

Dante commented of Larry Doyle’s screenplay (as interviewed in Joe Dante, edited by Nil Baskar and G…