Just saying. Someone might have seen Citizen Kane.
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Michael Kane? No. That joke's too easy.
So, just looked at the back of the box of Halloween 4: Return of Michael Myers. A certain shot stood out to me, a certain shot that I couldn't find in the movie, but I took a really bad quality photo of with my laptop. Somewhat familiar in fact...
Just saying. Someone might have seen Citizen Kane.
Just saying. Someone might have seen Citizen Kane.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
WSIFITS: Seven Samurai 20XX
Yeh, I’m not going to do a review of it. It’s not very good, it looks like Final Fantasy, but plays like a cross between God of War and Street Fighter, except with only about one attack button I can find. And it’s just really weird, you’re a samurai but then you have to go and fight some alien mutant thing. I played about 20 minutes and it was all dull and repetitive with a slow boring story. I just thought that people needed to know about this really weird game, that no-one asked for, and no-one really appreciated.
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Anonymous Review
http://www.thenationalstudent.com/Film/2011-11-17/anonymous_review.html
I did a review and it's now on this student website. It's not my finest work, as I feel it's a bit short, but still check it out.
I did a review and it's now on this student website. It's not my finest work, as I feel it's a bit short, but still check it out.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
WSIFITS: Evil Dead 4 and wrong dvds.
Earlier this year I bought a set of four DVDs for a pound, which I assumed would all be awful except one of them was The Shawshank Redemption aka the highest voted film on imdb, read more here. However, at the time I didn’t realise what else was in the set. But I’ve just found out something about one of the other films.
Witchcraft is a horror movie starring a grown up little girl from The Exorcist and a sex crazed David Hasselhoff. Now that might already sound weird enough, but the original title of the film was La Casa 4. That’s because it was originally released in Italy. Now, when released in UK and the US it was called Witchcraft and wasn’t credited as any kind of sequel, it doesn’t have any connection with the previous La Casa films. And do you know how I know that? It’s not that I went out looking for an obscure Italian horror series, oh no. It’s that the first two La Casas were actually just retitled Evil Dead movies. Not changed in any way, well dubbed into Italian, but the exact same movies as we had. And due to the popularity of those films, the Italians just decided to name any old movie La Casa 3, 4 and 5 to make more money because people thought it was a sequel to Evil Dead. So basically I have an unofficial sequel to Evil Dead starring David Hasselhoff. What the actual fuck.
Witchcraft is a horror movie starring a grown up little girl from The Exorcist and a sex crazed David Hasselhoff. Now that might already sound weird enough, but the original title of the film was La Casa 4. That’s because it was originally released in Italy. Now, when released in UK and the US it was called Witchcraft and wasn’t credited as any kind of sequel, it doesn’t have any connection with the previous La Casa films. And do you know how I know that? It’s not that I went out looking for an obscure Italian horror series, oh no. It’s that the first two La Casas were actually just retitled Evil Dead movies. Not changed in any way, well dubbed into Italian, but the exact same movies as we had. And due to the popularity of those films, the Italians just decided to name any old movie La Casa 3, 4 and 5 to make more money because people thought it was a sequel to Evil Dead. So basically I have an unofficial sequel to Evil Dead starring David Hasselhoff. What the actual fuck.
Ok. Last thing. I promise, and I’ll try to keep it brief. Well, basically the DVDs on the cover aren’t the DVDs in the case. It does have Shawshank and Evil Dead 4. However the other disc doesn’t have Shivers and Final Scream. No, instead of two horror movies we instead have a romance drama with a you Russell Crowe and a romantic comedy. I’m not going to watch these. It doesn’t hugely upset me, because watching the two it said wasn’t going to be my greatest moment, but it is a bit weird. Was it the publisher, the guy who handed the DVDs to Cash Generator or the guy in Cash Generator got confused and gave me the wrong discs? I don’t know, or very much care. All I know is I don’t watch romance, so this DVD set is over. I’m annoyed, I spend £1 on this. I deserve 50p back for false advertising.
 |
| I discussed this on the podcast, but this was already written, so here's it again. |
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
DOCTOR WHO MOVIE
I read today that there’s plans to make a movie of my favourite TV show Doctor Who. Now you’d think I’d be loving this news but I’m not. In fact, I think it’s a terrible idea. I would’ve just posted why on Facebook or something similar, but no, I have more to say on it, than I could fit in one status. But before I explain why I think this particular film shouldn’t be made, let’s have a quick look back at the other Doctor Who movies there’s been and see how well they worked.
There have been three of them to this date; the first two were made in 1965/1966. These starred Peter Cushing as ‘Dr Who’ a human inventor who builds a time machine out of a police box and then he and his family and friends travel in time and encounter the Daleks. The two films take their plots note for note from the first two Dalek stories of the television series. They are basically just big screen versions of the stories. They’re bigger budget; they have huge sets, famous faces and are bright and colourful. There are a few differences, due to time constraints some parts of the stories are left out, and because they were made two years after Doctor Who debuted on television, the characters are simplified so audiences who hadn’t heard of the show to understand, the Doctor changing from a mysterious grumpy old man who seems a bit alien, to a kindly human grandfather for instance. These films couldn’t be made now, as the concepts of the show are too well know and have proper rules, but at the time they were made, the show hadn’t even explicitly stated that the Doctor wasn’t from Earth, so for all audiences knew, the origins shown in the films could’ve been the real ones. This doesn’t completely excuse the films; they are pretty ridiculous, haven’t really aged very well and are definitely directed towards kids who at the time were in the middle of Dalekmania (yes that was a real thing. Look it up.) and just wanted to see more of their favourite villains in colour and on the big screen. They’re all spectacle, not substance, but they’re fun and have Peter Cushing, who’s brilliant. It was the 60s; lots of weird things happen then, just accept the films as part of the era they were from and move on.
A proper big screen return has never really happened. There were plans for one during the Tom Baker era and after the cancellation of the series in 1989, but these never really arrived. The closest we have is a television movie made in 1996. Made by a partnership of Fox and BBC, this is a very odd film. Unlike the previous films it is in continuity with the TV series and although it introduces a new Doctor, Paul McGann, for most of the action, the start does contain the regeneration of the last televised Doctor, Sylvester McCoy into our new hero. Now I won’t say too much, because I might do a review of this film one day, but it didn’t really work. The influence of Fox is obvious, as it’s too americanized, it’s set in San Francisco, as the characters except the Doctor are American and it just misses the British charm of the original series. To counter-act how obvious it is that the makers of film didn’t get what made the show great, it’s also filled with continuity references to make them look like they do, but it doesn’t work, and just makes it confusing for new viewers. It also has many other flaws, like the claim the Doctor is half-human, the casting of Eric Roberts as the Master, the plot doesn’t make any sense, etc. However, there are a couple of good moments and Paul McGann is amazing as the Eighth Doctor, so it’s not a complete failure. It probably shouldn’t have been made, and if it had been made at a time the series had been running regularly it would have been despised, because it is pretty awful in comparison, but there hadn’t been any new Doctor Who in 7 years and there wouldn’t be again for another 9 years, so at least they did something, even if it didn’t work.
Now how can I defend an awful TV movie and then complain about one coming out now? The reason is timing. The TV movie was made when people were asking for more Doctor Who. Some had to be made, and even though it didn’t work, the 1996 movie did fill a gap. The thing is though now, is that we have a series on TV. And it’s good. So, we can just watch that, was anyone really saying, no I can’t handle just a TV show that’s been running for 48 years, I really need a film as well. So that’s the first reason it’s a bad idea, there isn’t a demand for it. But hey, that alone doesn’t mean it won’t work, so let’s look at the other things. The man who’s planning this is David Yates, director the last few Harry Potter films and he’s expressed interest in making it into a franchise. A franchise? Well that brings up a problem. The films will obviously have a bigger budget, so they can do things the TV show can’t. Great you say? Well… no. If this was just one film, then yeh maybe, but if it was a franchise this would overshadow anything the show tried to do. If they did an episode with 100 Daleks then, people would say, who cares we’ve seen a film with a million of them. Although I might not agree with the need to have a big world ending finale every series, it would mean that if they did try and do one, it wouldn’t be a big deal, because we would have seen better in the films. It means that although the films might be good and spectacular, it would cheapen the TV series, which is what Doctor Who is all about.
Also if it was a franchise then you would have the sequel problem. I doubt they would have a big storyline planned out over a series of films, in case the films didn’t do well. So each sequel would a separate story. However, as we all know, sequels don’t really work. Maybe the first film would be good. Maybe even the second. But it would just be a matter of time for the films to deteriorate. They’d get shit. And that’s not something that happens with the show now, but if people had just come out of the cinema after seeing an awful Doctor Who movie, would they really want to watch the TV show? In fact, even if it was good, some people would stop caring about the show if it was overshadowed by a movie franchise. And maybe it’s just me but, is David Yates just looking for a new franchise to do now he’s run out of Harry Potters. That’s just speculation, and I hope it’s not true, because if it was his heart wouldn’t be in it, and if it wasn’t we would end up with a very lacklustre set of films.
And finally the biggest problem. The films if made wouldn’t be in the continuity of the series. They wouldn’t have the TV Doctor and they wouldn’t have any connection to the BBC show except for the concept. It would be like a reboot. Now you might say, why does it bother you then? Three things.
1. If I was a fan, why would I want to see a film with no connection to the show I love. It’s not like a comic book, when although it’s not linked to the comics, it’s a big deal to see, say your favourite superhero, in live action. We’ve seen the Doctor in live action, ever week. Just seeing it on a bigger screen with better effects doesn’t make up for it having no connection to the show. So why would I want to see it?
2. There might be too much Who. Let me explain. If there was a movie franchise and a TV show, general audiences might go for the movies as they would be bigger budget, require less time and less explanation. Now, you might say what if it brings new fans to the show? Well they’ll be confused as to who this other man playing the Doctor is and what’s going on with all this background continuity and might well give up and only care about the films. It wouldn’t be like they would understand regeneration or anything, because that wouldn’t happen in the films, or if it did, it would really cheapen the whole thing. Say a different man was the Doctor after two films, why would we care about regeneration? It wouldn’t be a big deal. But it should be. The films may just ruin the mythology of the show by dumbing it down, or overusing it.
3. It would a big budget movie. Why’s that a problem? Well, maybe they’ll market it to Americans and have say, Justin Timberlake as the Doctor. Or maybe they’ll not be idiots and actually have a Brit as the main character, but it would probably make him more of an action hero. But really can you see Gerard Butler as the Timelord? Or maybe they’d do the casting right, and even have a good companion. But I would put money down on the companion being a love interest, which is just not how the show should work. There are just so many things that if it was made into a film, would be changed and it would just not be Doctor Who any more.
So hopefully you now see my problems with the idea and I really hope they don’t make the film, because I just can’t see any way this would work. Maybe you disagree and maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but right now, just no. Unless, maybe David Mitchell as the Doctor and Michael Caine as Davros, but that’s just in my head, and will never be made. Unfortunately.
Story this article is based on can be found: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118046098
There have been three of them to this date; the first two were made in 1965/1966. These starred Peter Cushing as ‘Dr Who’ a human inventor who builds a time machine out of a police box and then he and his family and friends travel in time and encounter the Daleks. The two films take their plots note for note from the first two Dalek stories of the television series. They are basically just big screen versions of the stories. They’re bigger budget; they have huge sets, famous faces and are bright and colourful. There are a few differences, due to time constraints some parts of the stories are left out, and because they were made two years after Doctor Who debuted on television, the characters are simplified so audiences who hadn’t heard of the show to understand, the Doctor changing from a mysterious grumpy old man who seems a bit alien, to a kindly human grandfather for instance. These films couldn’t be made now, as the concepts of the show are too well know and have proper rules, but at the time they were made, the show hadn’t even explicitly stated that the Doctor wasn’t from Earth, so for all audiences knew, the origins shown in the films could’ve been the real ones. This doesn’t completely excuse the films; they are pretty ridiculous, haven’t really aged very well and are definitely directed towards kids who at the time were in the middle of Dalekmania (yes that was a real thing. Look it up.) and just wanted to see more of their favourite villains in colour and on the big screen. They’re all spectacle, not substance, but they’re fun and have Peter Cushing, who’s brilliant. It was the 60s; lots of weird things happen then, just accept the films as part of the era they were from and move on.
A proper big screen return has never really happened. There were plans for one during the Tom Baker era and after the cancellation of the series in 1989, but these never really arrived. The closest we have is a television movie made in 1996. Made by a partnership of Fox and BBC, this is a very odd film. Unlike the previous films it is in continuity with the TV series and although it introduces a new Doctor, Paul McGann, for most of the action, the start does contain the regeneration of the last televised Doctor, Sylvester McCoy into our new hero. Now I won’t say too much, because I might do a review of this film one day, but it didn’t really work. The influence of Fox is obvious, as it’s too americanized, it’s set in San Francisco, as the characters except the Doctor are American and it just misses the British charm of the original series. To counter-act how obvious it is that the makers of film didn’t get what made the show great, it’s also filled with continuity references to make them look like they do, but it doesn’t work, and just makes it confusing for new viewers. It also has many other flaws, like the claim the Doctor is half-human, the casting of Eric Roberts as the Master, the plot doesn’t make any sense, etc. However, there are a couple of good moments and Paul McGann is amazing as the Eighth Doctor, so it’s not a complete failure. It probably shouldn’t have been made, and if it had been made at a time the series had been running regularly it would have been despised, because it is pretty awful in comparison, but there hadn’t been any new Doctor Who in 7 years and there wouldn’t be again for another 9 years, so at least they did something, even if it didn’t work.
Now how can I defend an awful TV movie and then complain about one coming out now? The reason is timing. The TV movie was made when people were asking for more Doctor Who. Some had to be made, and even though it didn’t work, the 1996 movie did fill a gap. The thing is though now, is that we have a series on TV. And it’s good. So, we can just watch that, was anyone really saying, no I can’t handle just a TV show that’s been running for 48 years, I really need a film as well. So that’s the first reason it’s a bad idea, there isn’t a demand for it. But hey, that alone doesn’t mean it won’t work, so let’s look at the other things. The man who’s planning this is David Yates, director the last few Harry Potter films and he’s expressed interest in making it into a franchise. A franchise? Well that brings up a problem. The films will obviously have a bigger budget, so they can do things the TV show can’t. Great you say? Well… no. If this was just one film, then yeh maybe, but if it was a franchise this would overshadow anything the show tried to do. If they did an episode with 100 Daleks then, people would say, who cares we’ve seen a film with a million of them. Although I might not agree with the need to have a big world ending finale every series, it would mean that if they did try and do one, it wouldn’t be a big deal, because we would have seen better in the films. It means that although the films might be good and spectacular, it would cheapen the TV series, which is what Doctor Who is all about.
Also if it was a franchise then you would have the sequel problem. I doubt they would have a big storyline planned out over a series of films, in case the films didn’t do well. So each sequel would a separate story. However, as we all know, sequels don’t really work. Maybe the first film would be good. Maybe even the second. But it would just be a matter of time for the films to deteriorate. They’d get shit. And that’s not something that happens with the show now, but if people had just come out of the cinema after seeing an awful Doctor Who movie, would they really want to watch the TV show? In fact, even if it was good, some people would stop caring about the show if it was overshadowed by a movie franchise. And maybe it’s just me but, is David Yates just looking for a new franchise to do now he’s run out of Harry Potters. That’s just speculation, and I hope it’s not true, because if it was his heart wouldn’t be in it, and if it wasn’t we would end up with a very lacklustre set of films.
And finally the biggest problem. The films if made wouldn’t be in the continuity of the series. They wouldn’t have the TV Doctor and they wouldn’t have any connection to the BBC show except for the concept. It would be like a reboot. Now you might say, why does it bother you then? Three things.
1. If I was a fan, why would I want to see a film with no connection to the show I love. It’s not like a comic book, when although it’s not linked to the comics, it’s a big deal to see, say your favourite superhero, in live action. We’ve seen the Doctor in live action, ever week. Just seeing it on a bigger screen with better effects doesn’t make up for it having no connection to the show. So why would I want to see it?
2. There might be too much Who. Let me explain. If there was a movie franchise and a TV show, general audiences might go for the movies as they would be bigger budget, require less time and less explanation. Now, you might say what if it brings new fans to the show? Well they’ll be confused as to who this other man playing the Doctor is and what’s going on with all this background continuity and might well give up and only care about the films. It wouldn’t be like they would understand regeneration or anything, because that wouldn’t happen in the films, or if it did, it would really cheapen the whole thing. Say a different man was the Doctor after two films, why would we care about regeneration? It wouldn’t be a big deal. But it should be. The films may just ruin the mythology of the show by dumbing it down, or overusing it.
3. It would a big budget movie. Why’s that a problem? Well, maybe they’ll market it to Americans and have say, Justin Timberlake as the Doctor. Or maybe they’ll not be idiots and actually have a Brit as the main character, but it would probably make him more of an action hero. But really can you see Gerard Butler as the Timelord? Or maybe they’d do the casting right, and even have a good companion. But I would put money down on the companion being a love interest, which is just not how the show should work. There are just so many things that if it was made into a film, would be changed and it would just not be Doctor Who any more.
So hopefully you now see my problems with the idea and I really hope they don’t make the film, because I just can’t see any way this would work. Maybe you disagree and maybe I’ll be proved wrong, but right now, just no. Unless, maybe David Mitchell as the Doctor and Michael Caine as Davros, but that’s just in my head, and will never be made. Unfortunately.
Story this article is based on can be found: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118046098
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
PODCAST NOW ON ITUNES
The Lewis and Chris Podcast now has a new name and a new place to listen.
Damn Dirty Apes is now on itunes. In fact, here's the link...
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/damn-dirty-apes/id478603015
Basically it's the same ramblings as before, but with a bit more slickness to make it less amateur and more itunes material. So it's as insane as ever, but just slightly more polished. Have a listen, give a rating... preferably a good one, subscribe, tell your friends and most of all... enjoy.
Damn Dirty Apes is now on itunes. In fact, here's the link...
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/damn-dirty-apes/id478603015
Basically it's the same ramblings as before, but with a bit more slickness to make it less amateur and more itunes material. So it's as insane as ever, but just slightly more polished. Have a listen, give a rating... preferably a good one, subscribe, tell your friends and most of all... enjoy.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Imdb Top 10: 10-6
And now we’re finally here. The top ten films of imdb. Obviously these aren’t the official top 10 films ever, it’s your own choice for that. But these are the films the most people voted high, so it’s a very good guide. I’ve split the list into 10-6 and the top 5, so I can give a little more detail to these films than I’ve done to the others we’ve already looked at. So without further ado, the top 10 of imdb, part 1.
10. Inception
Everyone knows what this is. It was the big craze of last year when Inception came out and everyone would talk about how good it was, or how confusing it was, or just go on about it in general. I missed out a bit because at the time it came out I was poor, so I couldn’t go and see it and I didn’t get the DVD for a while either because it was pretty expensive. So by the time I saw it I’d heard pretty much everything there was to say about the film. But even with all the high expectations I had for this film, it surpassed them. I love this film. The first time I saw it, my mind was blown, I thought it was amazing, best film ever. Over time I realised it was just sort of shock value, and the movie itself wasn’t quite as good as it first appears. It’s still a brilliant, well made film with plenty of interesting and well done ideas; it just misses the emotional heart that most other films on this list have. I would still rank it as one of the best films ever made, but maybe not quite top ten material. Give it a few more years and I have a feeling this’ll be one that goes down the list with time. Oh and it’s not as confusing as people say. Yes it’s hard to explain in a short paragraph, but if you watch it, you won’t be confused, well as long as you pay attention and aren’t an idiot.
9. The Dark Knight
Now this is one of my favourite films. I readily admit that the 8 films above it are better, but if you gave me the choice of which to watch, I’d choose The Dark Knight. The Batman films are a bit patchy to say the least, starting very camp in the 60s, going dark and really weird with Tim Burton, then family friendly, then Batman and Robin, the worst superhero movie this side of Green Lantern, however the funniest superhero comedy ever. Except for the fact it’s not meant to be a comedy. So Bats went away for a few years and then came back in 2005 with Batman Begins. It was a good film, but as an origins story it got bogged down in setting everything up and didn’t really get going properly. However it set everything up right for the sequel. We knew who everyone was, and how they got on, so there wasn’t any wasting time. It brought back all the old favourites, learnt from the mistakes of the last film and brought in two of the greatest Batman villains, Harvey Dent/Two-Face and the one and only, the Joker. Everyone is at the top of their game, especially the late Heath Ledger, giving the performance of his career, the stakes are raised, and everything is just bigger and better than any Batman film had been before. This is the film that showed that comic book movies didn’t have to be stupid or looked down on, and could in fact be masterpieces. My only problem with it is that it’s set the bar so high for the last in Nolan’s Batman trilogy and that The Dark Knight Rises will become this generation’s Return of the Jedi, still good, but not the conclusion we were hoping for.
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
We’ve got a slower, more psychological film here at number 8. This film is really disturbing. I can really think of what genre it belongs to. It’s the story of a man in jail who pretends to be insane to get into a mental asylum because he thinks he’ll get out quicker. But instead he’s trapped with a group of crazy people all presided over by the callous Nurse Ratchet. Sometimes it’s a happy film, with the inmates escaping and having fun on a boat, but other times, well let’s just say that this has some of the darkest moments ever put on film. This is Jack Nicholson at his finest. There’s not much more to say than this is one of the smartest, darkest and thought provoking films ever made and you should definitely give it a watch if you haven’t already seen it.
7. Schindler’s List
This is just wow. I really have nothing to say about this film. At the time it might seem like a strange choice to give a serious film about the Holocaust to a man who’d previously only directed action and scary movies. Well made action and scary movies, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Jaws, but still nothing quite like this. But really Steven Spielberg must have been really passionate about this film and it shows, it is a masterpiece. I like to make jokes about films or tell my stories about them, but really Schindler’s List stands on its own. I don’t really have any good stories about it, there’s no time to go into an in-depth analysis of why it works and it would be in poor taste to make jokes. So yeh, it’s breathtaking and unbelievably moving and that’s all I have to say about it.
6. 12 Angry Men
This is probably the least generally watched of the top ten. Now whether it’s because the film’s old or obscure, or that not a lot actually happens, I don’t know. What I do know is that considering how well known the others are compared to it, it’s a surprise this is so high up. Until that is, you watch it. To be honest if as many people had seen this as had seen Shawshank then I think it could’ve been the top film. It really is that good. The film shows a set of jurors who are all sure of the guilt of the accused man, except for one who isn’t sure. He keeps questioning the reasons behind why they believe the man is guilty and disproves them one by one and begins to persuade the other jurors who were so sure, that maybe they were wrong. It’s a very psychological film, which the entirety of the action set in one room while we see the workings of the men’s minds. It’s very intriguing and far more interesting than you would expect after hearing the plot. Well made, well acted, and just great all round, this film should be far more popular than it is, but when you say black and courtroom psychological drama from 1957 all set in one room with 12 characters without names just numbers, it puts a lot of people off. It shouldn’t though, give it a watch.
10. Inception
Everyone knows what this is. It was the big craze of last year when Inception came out and everyone would talk about how good it was, or how confusing it was, or just go on about it in general. I missed out a bit because at the time it came out I was poor, so I couldn’t go and see it and I didn’t get the DVD for a while either because it was pretty expensive. So by the time I saw it I’d heard pretty much everything there was to say about the film. But even with all the high expectations I had for this film, it surpassed them. I love this film. The first time I saw it, my mind was blown, I thought it was amazing, best film ever. Over time I realised it was just sort of shock value, and the movie itself wasn’t quite as good as it first appears. It’s still a brilliant, well made film with plenty of interesting and well done ideas; it just misses the emotional heart that most other films on this list have. I would still rank it as one of the best films ever made, but maybe not quite top ten material. Give it a few more years and I have a feeling this’ll be one that goes down the list with time. Oh and it’s not as confusing as people say. Yes it’s hard to explain in a short paragraph, but if you watch it, you won’t be confused, well as long as you pay attention and aren’t an idiot.
9. The Dark Knight
Now this is one of my favourite films. I readily admit that the 8 films above it are better, but if you gave me the choice of which to watch, I’d choose The Dark Knight. The Batman films are a bit patchy to say the least, starting very camp in the 60s, going dark and really weird with Tim Burton, then family friendly, then Batman and Robin, the worst superhero movie this side of Green Lantern, however the funniest superhero comedy ever. Except for the fact it’s not meant to be a comedy. So Bats went away for a few years and then came back in 2005 with Batman Begins. It was a good film, but as an origins story it got bogged down in setting everything up and didn’t really get going properly. However it set everything up right for the sequel. We knew who everyone was, and how they got on, so there wasn’t any wasting time. It brought back all the old favourites, learnt from the mistakes of the last film and brought in two of the greatest Batman villains, Harvey Dent/Two-Face and the one and only, the Joker. Everyone is at the top of their game, especially the late Heath Ledger, giving the performance of his career, the stakes are raised, and everything is just bigger and better than any Batman film had been before. This is the film that showed that comic book movies didn’t have to be stupid or looked down on, and could in fact be masterpieces. My only problem with it is that it’s set the bar so high for the last in Nolan’s Batman trilogy and that The Dark Knight Rises will become this generation’s Return of the Jedi, still good, but not the conclusion we were hoping for.
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
We’ve got a slower, more psychological film here at number 8. This film is really disturbing. I can really think of what genre it belongs to. It’s the story of a man in jail who pretends to be insane to get into a mental asylum because he thinks he’ll get out quicker. But instead he’s trapped with a group of crazy people all presided over by the callous Nurse Ratchet. Sometimes it’s a happy film, with the inmates escaping and having fun on a boat, but other times, well let’s just say that this has some of the darkest moments ever put on film. This is Jack Nicholson at his finest. There’s not much more to say than this is one of the smartest, darkest and thought provoking films ever made and you should definitely give it a watch if you haven’t already seen it.
7. Schindler’s List
This is just wow. I really have nothing to say about this film. At the time it might seem like a strange choice to give a serious film about the Holocaust to a man who’d previously only directed action and scary movies. Well made action and scary movies, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Jaws, but still nothing quite like this. But really Steven Spielberg must have been really passionate about this film and it shows, it is a masterpiece. I like to make jokes about films or tell my stories about them, but really Schindler’s List stands on its own. I don’t really have any good stories about it, there’s no time to go into an in-depth analysis of why it works and it would be in poor taste to make jokes. So yeh, it’s breathtaking and unbelievably moving and that’s all I have to say about it.
6. 12 Angry Men
This is probably the least generally watched of the top ten. Now whether it’s because the film’s old or obscure, or that not a lot actually happens, I don’t know. What I do know is that considering how well known the others are compared to it, it’s a surprise this is so high up. Until that is, you watch it. To be honest if as many people had seen this as had seen Shawshank then I think it could’ve been the top film. It really is that good. The film shows a set of jurors who are all sure of the guilt of the accused man, except for one who isn’t sure. He keeps questioning the reasons behind why they believe the man is guilty and disproves them one by one and begins to persuade the other jurors who were so sure, that maybe they were wrong. It’s a very psychological film, which the entirety of the action set in one room while we see the workings of the men’s minds. It’s very intriguing and far more interesting than you would expect after hearing the plot. Well made, well acted, and just great all round, this film should be far more popular than it is, but when you say black and courtroom psychological drama from 1957 all set in one room with 12 characters without names just numbers, it puts a lot of people off. It shouldn’t though, give it a watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)