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.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
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????
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????
Saturday, May 7, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)