Childhood Terrors

... or "TV programmes that scared the bejeesus out of you but were too afraid to ask"


There are two TV programmes I recall vividly as a child that I found terrifying. Really terrifying, not just a "ooh look a cuddly monster, I'll hide behind the sofa" style, but the "I can't sleep, cos if I shut my eyes it'll get me, soaked in sweat, gripping duvet cover for dear life" sort of way.
And recently I've managed to track them both down, and now possess both on DVD. Unwatched thus far, of course.

So, to make it clear, I never found Dr Who scary as a child, and I never watched it from behind the settee. It's just not that frightening (well, some of the recent Moffat episodes have been, but let's not wander too far from the path. You'll be able to pull me up on the 'wandering' thing shortly. Trust me).

Anyway, back to those programmes. Well, not actually. Whilst I'm in the general area I'll mention three films that left a great impression on me, and I think they are still quite effective today. But they were all first watched as a child, so bear with me. The first is 'Quatermass and the Pit'; it's the scene in the house towards the beginning, when the policeman is explaining that the house has always had a strange feeling and was generally empty, and the explanation of the origin of the street name - Hobbs Lane (being the name for the Devil I think?). The second is 'The Haunting' - the Robert Wise black and white version. Too creepy to go into details. It just is. And then there's "Something Evil" one of the TV movies Speilberg made before his big movie breakthrough came. Unlike 'Duel' this is a straight-forward horror movie, along the lines of several made in the mid- to early-70s ... couple move into farmhouse, strange things happen, turns out to be occupied by demons. In this incarnation the wife is played by Sandy Dennis, with Darren McGavin as her TV producer hubby. As is typical, 'she' is convinced something's afoot, but 'he' is more dismissive; the key scene is at the studio when he's reviewing some test footage taken at his house earlier in the day. "Wait, what was that? Rewind back for me." And behind his wife, from inside the window of his house, a pair of demonic red eyes glows then fades, as we zoom in. Unnerving.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes ...

So, as a child I loved lego. The proper, hard to take apart, sharp and hard as glass stuff, not that flimsy collapsing inferior rubbish you often were treated to. And when I was but seven of eight my uncle gave me his son's lego collection (it was the yucky stuff by and large), in a lovely box he'd made himself (my uncle that is). About a metre square by four centimetres high, with a sliding cover made of hardboard. Beautifully painted on the cover was a road layout, around which you could build and place lego buildings, and there were a few cars in the box too. It was very, very nice. Lovely little compartments for your lego to be sorted into. Great stuff. However, on the back of that lid (on the rough criss-cross underside of the hardboard), if you could locate that box today - and I can; I don't "hand-down" my lego to no-one, not no how, no way, bud - you'd find a drawing of a house. A simple, childlike drawing; four windows, two up, to down, each divided into four 'panes'; door in the middle; chimney pot; fence; path; gate. You know the sort of thing. However, the 'garden' of the house unusually holds a number of rather unpleasent looking monoculus rock-like blobs. And the windows of that house ... well, someone has scribbled over them in some sort of pique.

It's all a bit sinister. Or not. As I did that drawing, echoing what the main protagonist of terrifying TV programme number one did. Although her actions had much more interesting consequences, other than merely defacing a fairly nice present. So, this is (I got there in the end) 'Escape into Night'. Based on the book 'Marianne's Dream' it's about a young girl, who whilst off school with a broken foot, draws a house in a sketchbook. Then when she falls asleep she awakens in the garden of that house. But it's a house with an occupant. A sickly, wheelchair-bound boy, who might just exist in real life. One who perhaps can't walk because he was never drawn with legs. In one encounter etched on my memory they argue, and when she wakes up she scribbles over the house. When she returns to the house in her next dream, black bars cover the windows, exactly mirroring the arced lines of scribbled lead she had made earlier that day. There's an out-of-tune radio that whispers to her; a grandfather clock with but a single hand; the rock-like sentinels in the garden with their light beams issuing from their single eye, slowly advancing on the house; and then, finally, the boy's lost father, set to return to the house in the final episode, blind, furious, and utterly deranged.

All this in the 4:20 slot for 'younger children' preceeding the likes of fluffy Magpie, and happy-go-lucky Blue Peter in the scheduling. I would watch it (on Wednesdays I think) on my own. Like all series at that age, it seemed to last forever, yet was only six episodes. Lost to time I thought (no-one else at school ever watched it ... in recent years I've almost doubted the memory) but it's now on youTube (illegally?), and those nice people at Network DVD have it for sale! Me bought. So, of course, it's terribly dated, with 'jolly hockey-sticks' children saying "mummy, mummy, whhhyy don't the poooor children like us?" yet imagine this as a children's programme, when you're seven.


If I have the wit I'll include a link or two below:

(watch the opening seconds, if only for that "dum dum dummm, darr da-darrrrr" of the ATV logo!) ... watch from 6:30 in for about 5 mins, until Marianne leaves the house again. This is just after she argued with Mark (the boy) so rubbed him out in her pad, and drew her friend in to take his place. #Fail, were she around today!  Oh - and do watch the end credits, for more creep-out time :)

The second programme was a much shorter, but much much scarier memory. For which I blame my mother. All I recall of it was this: there's a scene set in Victorian times, I guess, of a man recounting a tale of terror. He claims that his house (or family) is haunted by the ghost of a horse. The man's house is by the edge of some moors. As he tells the tale, we cut to a view of the moor at night, the camera panning as though following something, before we switch to a view as though from a horse, the image bouncing up and down, the sound of heavy horse breath, the pounding of hooves. The scene switches to inside the house. A man is walking along the hallway away from the door. He stops, apparently startled by something. He turns. We are outside again, seeing as the horse, pounding towards the house, galloping down to the doorway. Back to the man, he opens his mouth as though to scream, but before he can a splintering crash breaks the silence. We're the horse again, in the house, the man before us, we bear down on him, then rise as though preparing to kick and trample him to his death ...

At which point, my mother says, "Oh I think this is a bit frightening for you, better get to bed." Oh yes, that's a good plan. Now I only have my imagination to terrify my for the rest of my life. Much better than seeing the whole thing and having the suspense dispelled.

So for (possibly) about forty years I've had that in my head, and it's really been a bit too scary for me to look into. And I didn't think that searching for "TV ghost horse Victorian" would be much good. But then again, I was wrong. So I now have in my possession series one of a short-lived thing called "The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes", a series of independent stories featuring other Victorian era detectives, who never enjoyed the Baker Street occupant's fame. And episode 5 is entitled, "The Horse of the Invisible" with plot synopsis: "A ghost detective enters the gas-lit shadows of the Higgins family in search of an invisible horse which haunts them." Now that sounds 'promising' (if that word is appropriate). And it even stars Donald Pleasance, and I have the vaguest of vague recollections of seeing him in the show. It's almost as though the more I consider it, the more I recall. The watching itself might take the odd stiff whisky ... or daylight. Plenty of daylight.

Well, there you have them. Two 'moments' from my childhood. Forgive me my rambling, but the context is quite crucial for these things.

What were the 'killer creepies' of your childhood? And have you laid those ghosts to rest, or do they still haunt you?

Flash Fiction Fun!

As one of my (two) followers is (at least) a Wannabe Writer, I thought I'd have a quick go. Following this little blog here, my attempt. Okay ... much less than 1000 words, but what can you expect for 15 minutes' work?  :)

---

Silent Smile Satisfaction

I live in silence.

There are times when I'll look at you. Times when you think I'll speak, but I never do.

There are those times when I catch your eye, and you seem to understand. There's a glimpse. Something in your look that hints at understanding, and then it goes. It goes when I see your jaw tighten, when I watch your chest rise, and the air fill your lungs, preparing to say something. Sometimes it lasts longer. The understand. The moment. The point where I think you might know. But it fades. You kill it with your words. Choking away the silence and shattering the chance you might hear me. You speak and I drown, and there's simply no hope for me then. No hope.

Now, when I recall when there was hope, it seems like a foreign land. A country I once visited so long ago that I can't tell whether the recollection is a real memory, or simply something I imagined. If it's a real memory, then it's no familiar to me now than you are. So those times, those short times, I find myself hoping that it is just an invention of my mind. At least then I'll know there was never a time when we did share those thoughts; when our ideas were as one, and the future was always bright and full of colour. And hope. Ah, yes, that hope again. God preserve us from hope. Acceptance is such a better option I've found.

Then there are those times. The look. That glimpse. That sub-second stare, when I think that ... But no. Then you speak, and it's gone.

Ha! There you are. Looking at me all this time, as I've thought these thoughts. There you've been staring at me with that new look you've had for ... how long has it been? When did 'that' look first appear? Was I looking at you when it happened? Was it one of those times when you looked as though you wouldn't speak? A time when I hoped for hope. Ha ha. You see, I'm making myself laugh now. And yet still you look at me. The new look. Lingering longer than I've known it before. What is it ...

But now you turn, and walk away. Leaving me untouched by your words. I would smile if I could. If anyone would see my smile, and listen to the gentle breath slipping from my lips. Alone again. Safe again.

Your words unsaid. You. Me. Apart. The silence. At last. At last.

2012 Torch Lighter - yes, it does matter!

Today's news seems to be all about the route the Olympic torch is taking around the UK.  At the moment I'm not that excited about it, yet I am quite passionate about who should carry the honour of lighting the flame in the Olympic stadium to launch The Games.  And here's my thoughts on that very matter ...

There's a lot of betting apparently on who it will be, and here's a quite recent list:

• Sir Steve Redgrave - 1/2
• Dame Kelly Holmes - 7/1
• Tom Daley - 10/1
• Daley Thompson - 12/1
• Chris Hoy or reigning monarch (at the time) - 16/1
• Lord Sebastian Coe - 20/1
• The Princess Royal - 33/1
• David Cameron - 40/1
• Prince William and/or Kate Middleton - 40/1
• David Beckham or London Mayor (at the time) - 50/1

So, I hear you not asking, who do I think it should be? Well, I think there are some fairly obvious criteria:

1. It shouldn't be a politician

I think for obvious reasons; there would be little more unseemly or cringe-worthy than an out-of-touch politician aping to the crowd as they mount the steps of the stadium. And the Olympics shouldn't be overtly about politics.

2. It shouldn't be anyone who helped win the bid

That would smack too much of a 'reward'. As much as maybe Beckham or Coe might be decent choices, for this reason I don't think it can reasonably be either of them.

3. It shouldn't be someone who's actually competing

I think this puts too much pressure on the person, and they probably have better things to focus on. And then, if they fail, does that reflect on the games themselves? It seems too much 'now' and not about representing the nation, and not merely the team. The team has their chance within the tournament, and at the opening ceremony parades, not within the pre-Games moments.

4. It should be someone respected

Which goes without saying, but I don't think a typical response by the man in the street of "why are they getting to do that?" is helpful.

5. It should be someone with a world presence

At that moment the UK, and London, will be the centre of the sporting world. Television images sent around the world, and a moment that probably won't occur again for another 20 years at least. This is a special world moment, and we need someone who won't be greeted with "who are they?" across the globe. And just because someone is incredibly well known here, doesn't mean they'll be known internationally.

6. It ought to be an iconic British character

At the end of the day, this is someone who will be standing there in front of the world representing us. It needs to be someone who we can say "yes - that's a Briton. One I'm proud of. Somene who's one of us."

7. It needs to be a sportsman

The Olympics is a sporting event. Someone from sport has to light the cauldron. Actors are all well and good in their famous ways, but they aren't right for the Olympic stage.

---

Okay. So that's my criteria, and from it I think I can dismiss most all of those most fancied names. Let's look ...

Beckham (involved in the bid, and lives in the US these days);

Cameron or London Mayor (politicians)

Tom Daley (competing)

Thompson, Redgrave, Hoy (no international presence) (I'm well aware that Sir Steve is an Olympic legend, but outside of the UK, who really follows rowing that much, that he would be that well known?)

Coe (involved in bid)

So this leaves us pretty much with royalty, or Kelly Holmes. Now, probably Kelly Holmes could be a suitable choice. Although I do feel that world-wide middle-distance female running isn't a 'big deal'. In Europe and Africa, probably, but in Asia and the US, not at all sure. Close, but no cigar.

And as for royalty, well, HRH wouldn't do it, and Kate would be the wrong choice. The Princess Royal certainly has a world presence, is well respected, and has an Olympic connection.  But possibly too close, and would a royal be too political? Would that be too much of an 'old world' choice. Maybe so.

So, who do I think should be given the job?  

Well, I'm sure we all recall the moment in 1996 when a shuffling, trembling Muhammad Ali lit the cauldron in Atlanta. Arguably the most significant sportsman of the last century, he satisfied all of my criteria. It was the moment of the Games that year, transcending the sport, and being rightly recognised as an iconic event. This was a man with great respect fighting his body, and the world held it's breath.  If we could come up with something that momentous, the London Games would be given the right impetus.

And for that reason, I can only think of one sportsman for the job.

Someone not political; not directly involved in the bid; not competing; universally respected; with a general world presence; and an iconic British figure.

The person to light the Olympic cauldron in 2012 should be, without any doubt, Sir Bobby Charlton.

If you're not convinced of his world presence, then consider that football is the most played team sport in the world. And that Manchester United is probably the most famous football club across the globe (something Beckham has taken to many corners of the world ... it's certainly known in Asia, Africa, the US and Europe). And anyone who's heard of Manchester United will most likely have heard of Bobby Charlton. He also links back to the previous huge sporting event in England. His respect is immense; both former colleagues and former protagonists eulogise about the man. He has always maintained a link to his sport, and to his home city. And nobody has a bad word to say about him. And, for all of his success, for all of the adulation he's received, he's still "one of us". He's still very much a common man. Someone both great, and humble; someone who has experienced great highs and great lows in his life. And a genuine elder statesman, who carries himself always with dignity.

Whether you agree with me or not, I think this man would have few detractors. They'd be no-one saying of him, if he were to light the cauldron, "well, I don't think it should have been him." And for that alone, he's my man for the job.

Sir Bobby Charlton. British icon.

Riots? What riots?

I recall quite vividly the riots of the 80s. They were scary. Gangs of men (not youths) night after night, day after day, engaged in pitched battles with the police. CS gas being deployed, barricades on roads, virtual curfews imposed on some boroughs. It was an attack on authority, the government, with racial tension mixed in, and with strong undertones of ideological and political divisions, back when the left was on the left, and the right on the right. Hundreds of police were injured, buildings set alight. And this went on for months across many cities. Dark days.

The "riots of 2011" as they'll no doubt be known, have also had terrible consequences - loss of life, buildings burnt, but have felt more like (and appear to have been) opportunistic theft committed in general by a few hundred young people with simple materialistic aims. They weren't out to protest, or make a political statement (and Lord knows they have plenty of easy targets ... criminal MPs; untrustworthy newspapers; greedy self-interested bankers; fat-cat CEOs) .. but no, rather than attacking any of these elements, they seemed to mainly be after a new pair of trainers, or a flat-screen TV. Way to make a point guys.

So forgive me if I've not felt like this is the end of civilization as we know it. Forgive me if it's looked like a bunch of youngsters thieving "cos they can". But that's youth for you ... okay, it's 'bad youth' for you. Of course, for every 'youth looter' there were many many more young people who didn't go looting. Society will always have its unseemly elements. That's why we have the law. That's why we punish. To deter others from following suit.

And of course, they weren't making a point. They were just out for what they could get. And maybe that's the irony, because rather than making a political statement against any of those groups I mentioned, they were simply following their lead but on a smaller scale. Hurting those same people, those same businesses, that were already suffering from an economy ravaged by rich influential people interested only in gaining more influence and wealth. Maybe these youths had found their missing role models after all, and in some ivory tower a fat CEO was tugging on a fatter Cuban, and saying "that's my boy" as the city burned.

For my part, I'm more surprised by the way in which we're discussing these riots as though we have no comprehension of what it means to be young. As though we don't know who 'youths' are. We're too keen to distance ourselves from "the youth" as though they're an alien species; forgetting that 10, 20, 30 years ago that was us. They aren't different people - just us, younger, and surely you can recall what that was like? You were often bored, felt awkward, and wanted to fit in. And had only a narrow perspective on consequences of actions, morality, and the like. But that's what being 'young' is, isn't it?  That's why the law does not punish children to the same degree it can adults. We make the distinction. We say that these young people will lack the moral perspective we attribute to adults, so feel less able to judge them against the same yardstick we hold up to the more mature. And that's why we lay the emphasis on moral propriety on the parents, the guardians, of the young. We cannot expect the young to hold the same moral values as society as a whole, and it is the job of the parents, of society, of the state, to put in place the framework through which such ethical training can be given. So let's not throw our hands up the air in horror when children act immorally - for society has already accepted that, and has mechanisms in place for it. When the children are not controlled adequately, then the guardians are responsible. That is how the law views it, and that is how we should act.

What then about those 'young adults' who retain a lack of moral perspective as they enter adulthood? Well, again, this is why penalties exist to deter unlawful behaviour. The problem of "copycat" rioting wasn't caused by inadequate police response to the initial protests in Tottenham and subsequent looting. The entire youth population of the country were not suddenly mobilised by the thought that actions were going un-punished. No. It was only a few; those who were prepared to commit crime if they thought it would go unpunished; it had no impact on those who were not committing crime already because they knew it was wrong. The apparent police inaction did not create criminals, it merely gave those with criminal intent the opportunity to act on those impulses. When we are forced to remove citizens from society due to their actions (the basis of the hypothetical imperative on which our legal system is founded) then we have to some extent already failed. A civilized society's job is to create people that do not require the threat of criminal recrimination in order to remain law-abiding; when it fails in this task, it hides its failures from sight.

It's become too easy to lose perspective when the key elements that shape your life are too remote from the experiences you've had. You forget how amazing it is that you can turn on a tap and get clean, fresh water; that you can break a leg and call for free assistance from trained medics, and get that treatment without having to pay a penny; that you can walk the streets of a night in (relative) peace and safety. It's all taken for granted. We're soft, idle, with time on our hands and ready to blame the state when there's no local social club open to entertain us; as though that's an excuse (and how many social clubs were there for youngsters in the 30s, the 40s?)  We have to fall back on the games available for free on the internet, on phones; the television; or (perish the thought) go to the free local library and read a book (yeah - there was entertainment before TV, honest).

The problem isn't that life's too hard, but that life's become to 'easy'. You won't find anyone rioting in Somalia. When your concerns lie around how you'll live until tomorrow, there's not enough time to worry about whether your smart-phone is too embarrassingly out-of-date to use in public.

We're in a society where 'what you have' is so much more important than 'what you are'. It's a trend started 30 years or more ago, and reinforced by every pointless purchase we make. Whenever we decry someone for wearing "that dress, again!?" we're doing it. Or saying "you're using an iPhone2 ?!"; as though it *matters*, as though it means something, as though it's important.

The elements that make up the issue are clear. We/society created them. And we have a way to deal with them. And that's what we're doing. So they happened. Those who are guilty will hopefully pay the price, and we'll move on. Society will change, yet roughly stay the same.

Not the end of the world. Not the end of civilization. A few people performing criminal acts in a time when moral role models are hard to come by. But we've been through worse times. So chin up, on to tomorrow and make things better one person at a time. There's no better way.

Banning Twitter? Uh-huh ... that'll work

As I type we're just emerging from what will likely be called "the Riots of 2011" in future years. There's much I could / have said but here's a quick response to the proposals to 'ban Twitter' in times when it's believed to be being used by rioters to communicate their plans.

It's a bit barmy for (at least) four reasons:

1. Why punish Twitter?

Okay, why punish Facebook or whatever? It's not the vehicle's problem, any more than it is television's issue for showing pictures of the riots. Certainly I didn't think "ooh - riots - let's go out and join in" when I saw pictures of the Tottenham unrest. So it doesn't 'incite' those who do not wish to be incited. That's as crazy as saying that violent films cause violence.

So, it's silly to ban Twitter because it's not a cause.

2. Why push communication underground?

If the rioters weren't using Twitter / Facebook then they would use their mobile phones, email, IM, whatever to communicate. In fact, it was mainly BBM that was being blamed wasn't it? But more importantly, if the messages are on Twitter they are in the public domain. We can all read it, see it, and see who is posting these messages. Isn't it better to know these things, than have them being passed around in secret where we won't be able to monitor them?  Give people the forum to express their (odd) views, then we'll know how they are thinking rather than hide it away so we won't know.  This way we can hopefully dissuade people early in their criminal careers, rather than have them silently growing in hatred and plan heinous acts for months and years.

So, better to let people have the rope to hang themselves, than withhold it from them like an over-cautious nanny.

3. It harms the innocent as well as the guilty.

A lot of police forces are using Twitter now to both monitor criminal activity, and to spread information in a timely and effective manner. At times when people are feeling anxious, withholding information will spread panic, not calm. It's better to work with the technology rather than throw your arms up in outrage at it, and insist it is removed. You can't ignore the good that comes from the positive messages being spread just because of the negative.

So, it's best to show how Twitter can work for good, rather than remove it and lose all benefits.

4. It plain won't work.

If China with an internet infrastructure controlled directly by the governing body can't block Google, then the UK are hardly going to manage the same with Twitter when they have much less control. There are many Twitter clones out there. And blocking an internet service is very hard to do. Very hard.

So, it will waste resources and fail.

---------

Just a few quick thoughts.

It's all a pile of sh........

In contrast to posts about films, or even social media, today's blog is all about sewers!

Today I received a somewhat confusing letter from my local water authority, Severn Trent, detailing new legislation which means that the majority of sewerage pipework that used to be under the home-owner's ownership was now being transferred to the water authority. Details here.

And this is all very good for us, they say. I'm sure that most people are aware that they are responsible for the sewer pipes from their house until they hit the main sewer, which is typically at the centre of the road, and usually outside of their property boundaries, along with any communal stretches of pipework. If there's a failure there, it can be expensive to fix ... digging holes and the like.

So, all in all a good thing. Yay for them.

Hmmmm ... what's this? To pay for the extra responsibility of maintenance, all water bills will rise by between £3 and £14 a year? But there are 25m homes ... that's about £250m to water companies. For taking something that's currently ours. Okay, I've had my fair share of drain problems, and I've invested in a set of drain rods to fix those problems. About £20. In 10 years. Not £14/year.

What am I getting for my money?  If I have a blocked drain now can I ring my water authority and they will come around and unblock it? That's not clear if it is the case from the details. Is it really this expensive?

And hang on a moment ... Severn Trent  ... aren't they the company that kept sending me those 'maintenance contract' letters, saying "pay £100/year for peace of mind. We'll cover any expenditure if your sewers collapse. After all they are your responsibility." But no, not for much longer. And didn't you know that? In fact, the proposal for ownership change was made in 2008 - 3 years ago - how many times have you received these sales letters in that time? How many people have unwittingly taken out this 'insurance' only to find out that the major cost they could encounter is now being removed? Isn't this, at the very least, sharp practice by a company that knew they were going to end up owning those very pipes within the year?

This smacks very much of the 'payment protection schemes' for credit cards, except having paid for protection you find that it wasn't needed at all. In fact, it's exactly like that isn't it?

The last ten!

On a wet Whitsun I proudly present to you my final collection to complete the 'best 50 movies of all time'!? Ha! 

A Christmas Carol - The classic version featuring Alastair Sim in the role of Scrooge. His face is so expressive in the scenes where he is torn between the two paths offered him, and it remains a beautifully uplifting story, perfect for Christmas. This is the definitive adaptation (although the Muppets did a pretty good job too!) Everyone must have seen this. If you haven't then wait until next Christmas and do.

A Matter of Life And Death - More magic from the Powell and Pressburger partnership. And this is the best. Amazing visually; a cast of legends; and a brilliant story. The opening scene with Niven talking to 'June' across the airwaves is completely captivating. There's so much that goes on. It's wonderful. Truly wonderful. Don't die before seeing this(!)

Altered States - Something reminiscent of the 60s, but from the 80s. Has the feel of '2001'. A bizarre mixture of religion, drugs, and science. William Hurt is manic and driven as the central character, and supported by the gorgeous and talented Blair Brown. A strange film indeed, but thought-provoking, and entertaining. I fear it might not have aged well, but there's a scene in it clearly stolen by the director of Ah-Ha's "Take On Me" video, so watch at least for that!

Angels with Dirty Faces - Cagney was a mesmeric screen presence, who portrayed a man on the edge of violence at any moment beautifully. Here, mirrored by Ed O'Brien, he's the hard nosed gangster from the wrong side of the street, doomed to a premature death. His character is not at all sympathetic; a thug and a killer. But it's the final scene where he sacrifices his reputation to save his doting young followers that lives with you. Hard to beat. 

Apocalypse Now - There's not a lot that hasn't been said about this film. Brando is barely featured, but dominates throughout. Sheen is superb, together with a cast of Coppola regulars, that take on the daunting task of tracking down the almost deified rogue colonel. Of course there's the music, and Duvall barking mad in the mornings. It's long and confusing, but bold and ambitious. Brilliant too, of course.

Before Sunrise - Torn between a cheat of including the sequel as a 'pair' I've settled on the first of Linklater's films. This is wonderfully scripted, acted, and observed. Vienna presented as a fascinating backdrop to an unlikely meeting that turns into a night that neither character will ever forget. It's never too obviously romantic, sticking hard to how people act and react. And people do talk about ideas. It's a movie you can't turn away from whenever it's on, edited brilliantly, so you never lose interest in what will or won't happen. Delpy and Hawke are outstanding. Quiet, warm, romantic, intelligent. The sequel almost matches it, and I hope for another match-up before too long! 

Diva - One of those utterly French, utterly beautiful (visually and aurally), utterly bizarre film noirs, that oozes cool class from every pore. The story of a misunderstanding (the hero has a recording of a studio-shy Diva in concert; the villains think his tape holds damming evidence of their crimes) typical of the best thrillers, which features an array of chic characters, weird villains, and elegant set-pieces. Classy.

El Dorado - There are many great John Wayne films. He was an underrated actor, and not often given the greatest material. However, ignoring his bigger roles, I love his traditional "heroes holed up in a jail" stories (if you've ever seen 'Assault on Precinct 13' you'll know where Carpenter got the story from). This Hawks film is brilliant at what it is - Wayne, Mitchum, and the début of James Caan. All of the classic elements are here - Mitchum drunk; feisty females; duplicitous vamps; Wayne shooting left-handed. It's all there. All magnificent.

Execution of Private Slovik - Okay, nobody has seen this film I dare say'. It stars a young Martin Sheen in the true story of the only GI shot for desertion during the second World War. I think it was a 'TV Movie' and has rarely been shown. Sheen is completely amazing in this film. His portrayal of guilt, fear, and hope is superb. You can't take your eyes off him. This film placed Sheen firmly as one of my favourite actors of all time. In 'Film 9n', he gave an interview on the set of the film 'Stockade' where he described Duvall and De Niro as the "heavyweights" of acting ... "I'm not in their league; I'm a middle-weight". Cut back to the study, and Barry Norman responded with "some middleweight - he's the Marvin Hagler of acting." I agree with the sentiment.

Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle-stop Café - I love this 'chick flick'. It's funny, fast, exciting, hopeful, and eventually, happy. Beautiful performances by MSM and Mary-Louise Parker. The original set-up with the 'modern' story juxtaposed with the 'older' tale relates the two trials of the search for independence and freedom intelligently. Great cast. A lovely, feel-good film.

Super-Injunction craziness

Okay, enough is enough, I just can't follow these super-injunctions. To my mind they seem inherently illogical.

So far as I understand it, an injunction is a legal requirement to not talk about something. Okay, think I have that. To make a simple example, let's say I went to the pub this lunchtime and stayed there all afternoon.  I don't want people knowing that, so I get an injunction. Okay, now nobody can talk about me being down the pub this afternoon. Except, they *can* still say "we're not able to tell you where Mike was this afternoon."  Well, that will just lead to suspicion won't it? So I take out a super-injunction and that means you can't even say, that you can't say what I was doing this afternoon.

But what happens now, when I go out this evening? Somebody asks me where I was this afternoon (someone who doesn't know I have an injunction out - how can they, anyone who *does* know what I was up to can't speak about it; nor can they say that they can't speak about it). So let's say that 'Fred' who wasn't there, and doesn't know about the injunction, or super-injunction, innocently asks, "where were you this afternoon?" Now, I can't say anything, and anyone who knows anything can't say anything. And Fred is utterly baffled by the silence. So he spends the rest of the evening asking other people whether they knew what I was up to this afternoon. And he's either met by silence (from those who know about the super-injunction), or is joined in his bafflement by anyone else he meets who also doesn't know about the super-injunction.

Now, are all those people breaking the super-injunction? As they can't find out about it, how do they know they are breaking it? And *are* they breaking it? They say that 'ignorance of the law is no defence' but this isn't ignorance of the law; but ignorance of what you can't talk about (or 'publish' as I think the injunctions are against). Or would word of mouth "shush - you can't talk about that" be not breaking the super-injunction? As that isn't publishing?? Either way, I can't see how you can be prosecuted for talking about something that you don't know you shouldn't be talking about! That sounds like madness.

Okay, now on to the world of publishing and a real example. I say "real example" - but I of course can't tell whether there's a super-injunction about this or not - I can only guess.

My example comes from Heat magazine. I've just been to their gossip section and they are talking about the Arnold Schwarzenegger love-child story. Okay, given that this is published, I guess there isn't a super-injunction about it. But can I be certain? Have I just broken it by publishing this blog? Has Heat?  "No" I hear you say, "Heat Magazine will have been told who the super-injunctions were about to avoid just this happening". Oh ... so if you are a publisher of content you are told somehow (not be email or fax I bet ... it would be strictly word-of-mouth of course). Similarly for the BBC, ITV, SKY, Times, Guardian, and so on and so on, I assume. If not then they could end up like 'Fred' above, breaking the super-injunction (or not, I am confused about whether Fred did or didn't) by accident.

All right. So if you're a publisher you get told, so that you don't break the super-injunction. Okay. I have it now.

No. Wait a minute. I thought the Twitter peeps could be in trouble (both the company, and the users - and bloggers, et al) because apparently the law sees internet content as publishing. You aren't chatting to your mates, you are self-publishing to some degree. Well, hang on a second then, if I'm a publisher then I (surely) must be granted the same grace against accidentally (possibly) breaking the super-injunction as every other publisher. Someone needs to let me (and every other internet publisher) know about these super-injunctions so we can avoid publishing anything about them. Yes? That makes sense doesn't it? That's logical. If not, then given I can't in any way know for sure who the super-injunctions are about, I can only avoid any possible issues, by not talking about anyone. And suddenly the internet is a very quiet place where only the sanctioned few, in the know, can publish content.

So, as a publisher of content, I demand to be told who the super-injunctions are about, then I will ensure I don't talk about them. If I don't have access to that information, you're either saying "you're not a publisher" - and if I'm not, then the injunctions don't apply to me - or you're not giving me the same information other publishers have to enable them to avoid legal consequences, and that is an unfair situation which would prove a ridiculous basis on which to take legal action.

[in order to speed up spread of the super-injunction information I suggest that whoever needs to, sets up a Twitter account, and all other Twitter members can follow them, and hence find out who they cannot Tweet about. That sounds efficient and sensible]

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

Look, even if Twitter *knew* who had the SI's out, how could they tell Twitters who tweet about them to stop tweeting about them without breaking the SI's????

Change of pace (well, endian-ism)

Hello. How are things going? Well, ahead of my final '10' I thought I'd *spit* present my "worst 10 films". For those of you that read my preamble to the 'top 50' list I mostly abhor the films that are a wasted opportunity (or wasted money), rather than those films which make no claim to be anything special. So, basically blockbusters that are exceptionally dumb, to a lesser or greater extent.

Okay - I hate to dwell on the negative, but here they are: 

1408 - the 'terrifying' horror film starring John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson. Except it wasn't at all scary, made no sense, and was dreadfully obvious. I'd classify 'Knowing' and 'The Number 23' in the same league although the former has some good parts, and I've never got past the first 23 (oh no!) minutes of the latter. And just for reference 2/3 = .667 :-)  Anyway 1408, a waste of good actors and dull and pointless. 'The Reaping' and 'The Happening' only just missed out too. Yay for them. 

2012 - The Day After Tomorrow wasn't that bad, and this re-treads the same ground. And yes, John Cusack again. I love John Cusack, so particularly unforgiving when he stars in turkeys. And boy, is this a turkey. From almost the first scene to the last, a jumble of ill thought out ideas, appalling script, unlikely behaviour, and dross. Abysmal.

Bicentennial Man. Robin Williams at his most overly-sentimental. Twaddle. Unutterably bad. And long. If you're gonna be this bad, at least be short. Made by idiots for idiots. 

Chain Reaction. Dear old 'Keeno' has been in his fair share of bad films (and is that Mr Jackson in the background as well? Oh dear). Rubbish, and contains what has to be about the worst line of dialogue in cinematic history. Our hero is escaping on some sort of jet-ski from masked gunmen, with Rachel Weisz in tow. She's riding pillion and leans forward to ask "what are you doing?" to which Reeves breathes over his shoulder in a Stallone-like bark "the best I can!" Honest. That is the line. Not a dry eye in the house. Everyone guffawing with laughter. 

Con Air. Oh dear John, you again? And Nicholas Cage - who stars in only two types of movie - very good, or very bad. Guess which this is? His character is just so outrageously unbelievable and corny, you can't believe any of the 'action' (such as it is). An insult to the viewer at every turn. 

Contact. Now this film is apparently much respected, but I find that hard to believe. Jodie Foster at her most simpering and annoying. Illogical. Stupid. And never-ending. Nations have risen and fallen during its running. Awful. 

Deep Impact. When you're cheering the wave that kills Tea Leonne and hoping it catches up with more of the cast, things aren't going well. Save for an admirable performance by Robert Duvall in the face of another awful script, there is nothing to see here. Bad characterisations, loose direction, over-blown effects, and no depth. This film has all that and less. 

Godzilla. The remake of course, by umm ... let me think ... Roland Emmerich (him of Independence Day and 2012 "fame"). Just plain stupid.You don't loose an enormous fire-breathing dinosaur in the middle of a city; you don't report in from a stadium full of mini-saurs; you don't fail to figure out that flying up gets you out of the clutches of said beastie if you are in a helicopter. Insult after insult is poured upon the poor viewer. Shamefully bad. 

Independence Day. See above. Crap. Thank God aliens have the foresight to fit their space-ships with USB ports (hey, maybe it really *is* 'universal') and have no firewalls. Stop insulting us Mr Emmerich, you tool. Overflowing with stupidity.

Jurassic Park 2. Well, I need say little about this stinker. T-rex's that break free, slaughter a ship-full of people, then re-cage themselves inside a locked ships hold, before they set the auto-navigate. Dock authorities that let any ship approach without any radio contact. Only the pinnacle of the idiocy; there's plenty more to not admire.

------

Well, I'm feeling slightly queasy now. If you haven't seen any of these films, then save yourself some time and avoid them.

11-20 ... almost done!

Happy Easter everyone!  Yes, it is Easter Sunday as I type this, and nice to be topical :-)

Here are the penultimate set of 10 films that are simply the best:

Goodbye Mr. Chips - obviously the Robert Donat version. It's a wonderful if slight tale of the history of one teacher as he observes the passage of time from the halls of his school. Covering his arrival at the school to the end of his days there, and encompassing the losses of his ex-wards to war. It's a sentimental, but poignant look at England and of loss of innocence. A tear-jerker to boot! 

Gorky Park - of a number of gritty thrillers in the 80s I liked this the most. William Hurt in one of his calm, cold roles, matched against cold-hearted Lee Marvin amongst the seedy Soviet underworld. Unpleasant at times, but stylish, and unflinching. Reminiscent of the Osterman Weekend in tone, but I like the coldness in this one more. 

Harvey - another Jimmy Stewart unmissable classic. This film is funny, delightful, and contains more than a little hint of sexual innuendo. Relying heavily on the affectionate performance of Stewart, there's a lovely story about life, love and perception told through the eccentric tale of someone who just sees things differently to those around him. You can see elements of many aspects of today's physical comedy and farce introduced here, revealed in a more gentle manner than the pure slapstick of earlier, silent, movies. It's about not losing sight of what's important in life, and letting yourself believe. A wonderful, happy, entertaining time.

How the west was won - this can be considered a 'cheat' choice, as we really have three films (at least) in one here. Directed by the three greats - Ford, Hathaway and Marshall - this is a true 'epic'. The cast list alone goes on forever ... Stewart, Wayne, Tracy, Peck, Reynolds, Moorehead, Peppard, Wallach, Malden, ... as we have the story of the American westward sprawl told through a number of stories, crossing several family generations. Odd to see on the small screen as shot in 'cinerama' (where a central screen is flanked by two side wings) but something that has to be seen. Truly epic. An amazing film that flies by, even though it runs to almost 3 hours. 

Il Postino - This is just a marvellous film. Telling the tale of a simple postman who is employed by exiled Chilean poet Pablo Neruda to deliver his mail, it shows the impact one man of words can have on a life. It's funny, but no comedy, romantic, but not sentimental ... it's about a life and what living should be. Not a huge tale, about dramatic events (although it is dramatic) but a small story about a man and his life. At times incredibly sad and heart-rending, a film that touches your heart. It's beautiful. 

Leon - a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Luc Besson made good films. 'Leon' sits between the good and the bad, and is certainly more commercially aware than some of his earlier work, but doesn't fall into the trap of being too obvious. There are still quirky characters, and odd performances - a manic one by Gary Oldman definitely, and an assured one from the débutante Portman. Full of stylish action, and tense standoffs (one of the best between Portman and a door) this is high-end French action for the US market.

Local Hero - practically flawless in every department, one of the best British films of all time. Whimsy, warmth, wit and wisdom as a US oil company more than meets its match in the Scottish highlands. Just everything that makes films great is contained in this wonderful story. Brilliant at all times.

Looking for Mr. Goodbar - This is a seedy, unsavoury film, almost a very black comedy, with Diane Keaton in a challenging role, showing more teeth than she was often given in the Woody Allen films he was making around the same time. Found shocking at the time, I still think it would be seen as powerful today. The story of a pleasant, amiable school teacher trawling the singles bars at night, looking for casual sex with strangers. Certainly a strong film with plenty of irony, and bleak 'everyday-ness' to it. I think it was Richard Gere's first film, but you won't see him until almost the end. If you've never seen it, then you must watch it.

Love and Death - and here is the delightful Miss Keaton again. Wonderful, witty, gorgeous and engaging, her partnerships with Allen are the highlights of several of his classics. However, of all of their collaborations I find this the most consistently humorous, particularly the scenes when Allen is being despatched to the front, much to his displeasure. The latter Blackadders owe a debt to Allen - in much the same way as Atkinson plays Blackadder as a modern man in different times, so Allen simply plays a neurotic New York Jew in all of his movies of this era. He is the knowing wise-cracking fish out of water, whilst the cast around him live in the appropriate time. Much of the obvious humour stems from this position, but Allen is smart enough to draw the parallel both ways, so he often reflects modern-day issues through the events of the times he shows. And above all, it's a silly send-up of War and Peace. Nothing wrong there.

Marathon Man - well, is it safe? A tremendous, fast-paced thriller which rips along. Most of Hoffman's (early) films were outstanding and this is no exception. Many classic scenes and brilliant characters and actors combined. Brilliant.

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

Well, almost done ... just my final 10 to reveal. I think this ten is (again) as good as any. Thank you.

10 more!

I admit that I was going to blog about interesting(!) times with Freeview TV but can't find the passion for it at the moment, so ... here's another 10 (30 down, 20 to go).

Midnight Express: I regard this as one of those 'mega' movies; something that's a proper, full-on, experience. There is so much to this film - it's very gritty, grim, yet at the same time optimistic and (eventually) hopeful. A number of tremendous performances (I didn't recognise Hurt until the end credits) and something ironic in the eventual tale of Brad Davis. Iconic scenes too. Don't smuggle drugs in Turkey. No. Really don't.  My favourite Alan Parker film.

North by Northwest: Are we keeping a count of Hitchcock films? I didn't think I was a particular fan, but this in many ways is the definitive Hitchcock (of that time). A much-seen classic with all the Hitchcock signatures and Cary Grant holding it all together. Wonderful sinister villains, and paced so beautifully from start to finish. You're bound to have seen it, but watch it again. You'll have a great time.

Notting Hill: No, please, stop looking at me like that. Thanks. Okay - I think most of Richard Curtis's output (at least film-wise) is no great shakes. I'm certainly no fan of "four weddings" (it's nice enough) but I am a sucker for a good rom-com. And this is a good rom-com. A very good rom-com. The 'rom' is ably delivered by Julia Roberts (and the excellent ensemble supporting cast), showing a delightful, wistful London, replete in cosy suburbs and secret nooks. This is London not seen again until 'Last Chance Harvey' ... the London we export, rather than the London we encounter. And 'com' is matched by Rhys Ifans and Grant's quirky friends. It's pitch-perfect and lovely, and all the nice things. Nice isn't always bad. 

One Deadly Summer: Isabelle Adjani. Naked. Lots. And yet there's much more to this. It's a chaotic whodunnit (and what was done) that zips along with a frothy zeal that draws you in. At times obvious, and possibly a mish-mash of too many themes, but very engaging, and emotional. Sad, yet also full of life. Lots to commend this. A French film that isn't too French to leave you out of the sensibilities of what's going on. I think there are possibly 3 'foreign' films in my list, and they are all French. What does that say?

Outlaw Josey Wales: This Western sits at the cusp of the transition of Westerns, from the austere, traditional white-hat/black-hat westerns of the 40s-60s to the gritty realism of the 80s and beyond (we've since moved elsewhere with some atrocious tosh of late). Eastwood at his most laconic, with a superbly pithy script. There are numerous 'cusp' films of this era, but this is the most enjoyable, watchable, and well-rounded. In many ways the definitive western (almost ... more later). "Dying's not much of a living."

Platoon: Oliver Stone's epic war reflection. There are of course parallels to be made with Apocalypse Now, and the physical and vocal similarities between the Sheen pair is obvious. But this film belongs to Berenger and Defoe, both slugging out mesmerising performances, instilling dirty unflinching realism into the dark tale of the horrors of war; or simply the horror of mankind when pushed to extremes. A film you'll watch once and never forget. Iconic and cataclysmic. Powerful stuff. 

Quatermass and the Pit: Somewhere I have the BBC TV original. On some tape. Somewhere. Never watched it but I have it. This Hammer remake for the big screen is every bit the bum-clencher. I've watched it recently, and some of the impact has been lost, but it's still an eerie, spooky, unsettling feature, full of dark foreboding and chills. Has the feel of a 70s play (The Stone Recorder sort of thing) but another proper chiller.

Rear Window: Well, here's Mr Hitchcock again. And another definitive film (of there can be more than one). It has all the classic elements once more, but with the delightful pairing of Stewart and Kelly at the centre. It's simply wonderful in all of its elements, and no-one can fail to be supremely entertained by this film. This is Stewart at this peak, and Hitchcock too. An all-time classic, and deservedly so. Outstanding.

Room with a View: Okay, there was a whole raft of Merchant/Ivory, and not all were to my taste but this is delightful. Simon Callow and HBC can hardly do wrong, and this is both passionate and funny, yet also beautiful and uplifting. A reminder of happy times in more than the obvious way. 

Say Anything… : In my head this sits alongside The Sure Thing, possibly for obvious reasons. However, written and directed by Cameron Crowe there's more here than John Cusack in the rain wooing Ione Skye with Peter Gabriel. There's at least John Mahoney too in pre-Frasier days, and lots of sharp dialogue with more than a little truth. Okay ... we know where we're going from act one, but it's a decent trip and not so formulaic as to be patronising. It's iconic of the 80s. Which don't seem so bad from this angle, and probably quite reminiscent of today's times in large part.

--------

Almost done!

Another 10 (they are all great - honest!)

Following swiftly on from my initial 10, and still in no kind of order save vaguely alphabetty -

Shadowlands: A beautiful (true) story with one of those familiar Hopkins performances at the heart, ably complemented by both Debra Winger and Edward Hardwicke. I'm a sucker for Hardwicke from his 'Holmes' days, let alone who his forebears are. And besides everything I think Lewis's tales were the first I really fell in love with. So add all that together and you'll find it hard to dislike this poignant, beautiful, and painful film. It's a complete tear-jerker to boot! 

Shawshank Redemption: Well, I almost left this out, as it's now become one of those films that everyone rates highly, and by that familiarity it's power is somewhat lessened. However it's a beautiful moral tale, excellently acted and directed, with a great plot and the performances of Robbins and Freeman at the heart. Let alone Clancy Brown in one of his many fearsome roles.

[Maybe there should be a list of favourite TV series ... I've already mentioned ITV's definitive working of Sherlock Holmes; we'd have to include Carnivale as well; Buffy  - well Angel at least; Farscape; West Wing; Hill Street Blues - well, at least one British production in that initial list]

Slaughterhouse 5: One of those bizarre sci-fi confusions from the early 70s, directed by George Roy Hill, covering many concepts and jumping about as unevenly as the central characters time-line does. A film that was made to tell a story, not to make money. It's a confusing and not always satisfactory adaptation, but still one of those films everyone one should see. Ambition is good.

Some kind of Wonderful: Uh-huh, yeah. Chris Columbus/John Hughes territory. I think I first watched this on a video rental, than taped it from a BBC showing, which I probably still have. The continuity announcer says something like, "...and now for a tale where in terms of beautiful women, Keith can't see the wood for the trees" (yes, I've watched it too many times ... I even have the closing song on CD somewhere). What can I say? The script *is* funny. The characters are slight and the situation is silly (and the same as 'Pretty in Pink', etc.) but it does have Mary Stuart Masterson. I don't think I need any more justification. Yup. That'll do.

Spartacus: Well, it's Spartacus. What more needs to be said? Amazing cast, cinematography, direction, story, ... everything is epic and incredible. You'll go a long way to find a better film. Something you can watch again and again and still enjoy. A proper 'film' in every sense. Brilliant.

Terminator: From the opening credits to the final scene this is a superb. I recall watching it in the cinema not knowing whether Arnie was the goodie or the baddie to start with. It handles the tricky time travel subject in a more coherent manner than any other film I can think of, and is tightly directed with outstanding action. The franchise is still going 20 years later, but the original has yet to be eclipsed. Some might argue that T2 is better - but it merely has higher production values, and is practically a remake. This, though, eschews the glib one-liners and tongue-in-cheek patter to deliver a seminal sci-fi thriller. It put both Cameron and Schwarzenegger on map, and whatever either have done since they owe to this film.

The Cat People: The RKO/Val Lewton classic, not the Paul Schrader remake (which is very good for completely different reasons). Like a number of the black and white classics, the film deliberately leaves much vague and ill-defined, leaving it to the much better imagination of the viewer to determine what exact form the menace takes. Only towards the very end is a somewhat lazy adjunct added, but this does not lessen the overall dread pervading the film. Just because this is the 40s doesn't mean that the plot lacks bite ... the central theme of a woman afraid to consummate her marriage for fear of what it might release in her is pretty bold and handled frankly. This is 'horror' as it should be - frightening, not merely horrific and distasteful. A lovely example of proper film-making with characters fleshed out as real people. Watch this.

The Haunting: Well, see above. I obviously mean the Robert Wise original, not the dreadful rehash. A black and white movie with no hideous monsters, no gore, no blood, no massacre. How can that be scary? Okay. Get this. Watch it. Alone. At night. When it's dark. Then come back and tell me it's not scary. Genuine terror and suspense. One of those great scary films that just aren't made these days. Something that will have you pulling the duvet up tight around you at every creak and shadow. "I'm not holding your hand."

The Lady Vanishes: An early Hitchcock classic and possibly my favourite of all his works. This is just an enjoyable romp. Wonderfully eccentric characters litter the piece, with such delight and wit that you want to board that train, even if you might never get off it alive. Simply enjoyable and entertaining, without being malicious or unpleasant. Wonderful wonderful fun. If you've never seen this, then don't miss out. Satisfaction is guaranteed.

The life and death of colonel blimp: Powell and Pressburger. Is anything more needed? Okay - since you're being picky. The honey-voiced Roger Livesey making an incredible 40 year transformation as the main character; Deborah Kerr playing three roles; a sympathetic and realistic German soldier (this film was made in 1943); a backdrop of a world in turmoil; the strength of friendship; the beauty of love; the compassion of man; ... there are few films, if any, that can match this utter gem. An amazing achievement.

------

Okay - that's 20 down and 30 still to go. I know ... there can't be any better films than these. Some of these are truly classics. Don't deny yourself a good ole watch of them. Please.

Oops ... First 10

Okay, apparently the 'Top 50' proto-list was due to be out be now. Well, that's a private list for private people (oh yeah), but I'll be trailing that 50 here, in groups of 10 or so ... okay, here goes (no order here ... just going from the bottom of the alphabet up - probably).

The Right Stuff: Amazing recounting of the space race from before Chuck Jaeger broke the sound barrier, up to the Apollo missions. A stellar cast of 'major stars in the making' and amazing cinematography. See this on the big screen in its full uncut glory to be drawn into a world of exploration, daring, and down-right bloody-minded determination. Inspirational.

The shape of thing to come: Simply mind-boggling. This film version of the H G Wells classic, filled with British acting royalty, puts contemporary films in their place in terms of visual gusto and ambitious elan. What is portrayed here is not simply Wells's own views but the visual foresight of a world that barely seems capable of taking the steps this film does. Jaw dropping. I kid you not.

The Sure Thing: Several films of this era summon up an innocence and joy that is very much of the time. This Rob Reiner gem features the amicable John Cusack at his best, along with several other staples of this time. Always knowing and never insulting, I think this is more of a 'Ferris Bueller' than that. Less obvious, but just as compelling; fun, funny, silly, and a great distraction. 

The world According to Garp: Forget the maudlin, over-sentimental Robin Williams too often encountered today. Meet the newcomer just out of 'Mork and Mindy' perfectly cast in the tricky opus from John Irving. Combined with a typically solid performance from John Lithgow, and an amazingly composed one from Glenn Close (wasn't she nominated for Oscars in each of her first three roles?) this film has it all. Great quotes; wonderful characters; a central theme about life, hope, and dreams. Movie-making at its best. A film for everyone to watch

Truman Show: As above, when tied down and controlled, Jim Carrey has more than a little acting talent. Here he only occasionally threatens to ape in front of the camera. Peter Weir in fine form, and a lovely, small, restrained piece about whether we are actors on the stage, and even if we are, should we be content with that role? Sometimes a little loose, but never unenjoyable. I wonder what more Carrey could bring if he were stretched. Another film about hope and daring to dream.

Truth about Cats and Dogs: At the risk of being maligned, but I love love love this film for several reasons. Uma Thurman looking more gorgeous than is possible; Janeane Garofalo likewise, more quotable lines than you can shake a fist at, and a central theme about people not being easy to pigeon-hole. What's not to like? All this and a soundtrack featuring Al Green and Squeeze. Sit down and hug your knees. The only thing off colour is Ben Chaplin doing an impression of Dick Van Dyke, rather than using his own voice ("Ben, you just don't sound English enough. More dyke please. Not you, Garofalo ...")
 

Unforgiven: Eastwood is one of the best directors of our time. Fact. Sometimes he's too acclaimed, but films like Unforgiven make you realise just how good he is at his craft. This is a film the surpasses its genre. Don't treat this as a simple 'western' this is much more. Eastwood, Hackman, and Freeman form the heart of the movie, Freeman typically as the observer (c.f. Shawshank Redemption / Million Dollar Baby) with Hackman and Eastwood as two sides of the same coin. Hackman has rarely been better, which is some accolade, and Eastwood the actor gives his normal restrained performance. A story about right, wrong, and that huge area of grey between the two. No easy answers, and rightly so. Superb.

V For Vendetta: I love this film. Not simply for Hugo Weaving (are we sure it's him?) doing a lovely Blackadder impression, or Natalie Portman in frilly knickers (I barely looked), but for something very important that wasn't lost from Moore's dystopian future - something about the view of man as defining his own nature and not merely ceding all morality to the state. Visually accomplished, and with a thunderous score, it's never dull and draws the viewer into V's uncompromising purpose. A film about 'stuff', so no bad thing.

White Christmas: Yes, done to death and seen many times, but lovely and warm and friendly and nice. Featuring two of my favourite stars of that era ... neither Crosby nor Clooney, but the bright and shining 'co-stars' of Kaye and Ellen who simply click together in a heart-warming manner. The story is painfully slight and simple, the songs not unforgettable, yet it conjures such a happy and positive image it's hard to argue against. Without the depth of a Capra masterpiece, but sometimes you don't want to be bludgeoned, just warmed through by something wholesome.

Yankee Doodle Dandy: You'll have to blame my mother partly for this, as it was essential viewing whenever it was on. You can level accusations of jingoism against it, but at its heart we have the performance of Cagney. The knowing, post-gangster, post-hoofer Cagney; although there's more than enough of the hoofer to keep us going here. He radiates throughout the film, lighting up ever scene with a boyish energy and innocence. Something for the times, but also something for all times. And that dance down the stairs at the end is a moment of film history, making your stomach do silly things.

(apologies if my prose is too film-critic-y ... blame it on the Baz)

Phew ... 10 down. Maybe one or two would make the Top 10 even. Hope you enjoy. And if you disagree ... well, it is MY list after all :-p