Total Film's Top 100 Characters

I may delve into this in more detail later in the week but suffice to say that this is a completely hopeless list.

Bridget Jones at number 16 smacks of a desperate attempt to put some female characters in the top 20. Who on earth thinks Bridget Jones is one of cinema's finest characters? Total Film do apparently. Note that this isn't top 100 characters of 2000s, or even top 100 British screen characters. This is the top 100 characters of all time. Since cinema began. Ever. And she's 16th.

Jack Sparrow is number 1. Please. I don't think your greatest film character of all time can be in a film that can only be described as decent. Just can't happen. I think it's a rule or something. Plus he actually became quite annoying halfway through the second film.

If you want a decent list to whet your appetite, check out my colleague's far superior efforts.

Zodiac

It's rare that we agree, but, though I can't remember exactly what my colleague wrote, I think we're going to give this the same grade (unless I'm getting very confused, which frequently happens).

Zodiac follows a (loosely, at least) true story around a series of murders committed in the San Francisco area in the 1970's. It also takes a very clear position on who actually committed those murders, although (from the small amount of research I've done) it now appears that the man the film fingers has been cleared by DNA evidence. He's also been dead for a while, as the end of the film points out.

All in all it's a highly engaging, well-paced, thriller you can't take your eyes off. The mood and the pace are very well judged and the tension, while never aspiring to Silence of the Lambs like levels, builds nicely is overall pretty effective.
But, as with all films like this, the key lies in the performances. The film is full of interesting characters (with the exception of Anthony 'Dr Green' Edwards' dull detective) well played by the leads. My faith in Jake Gyllenhaal is restored after an unconvincing turn in Brokeback Mountain and Mark Ruffalo, an actor I had not consciously noticed or remembered before, is now on my radar.

The standout, however, is the comeback kid, Robert Downey Jr, whose eccentric, amusing and well-judged (sorry to repeat the phrase) journalist is the film's true highlight. It's a real shame that his character disappears in the last hour or so and somewhat unceremoniously. I don't know what that's about, perhaps they were just following the source material (the book written in real life by Robert Graysmith, Gyllenhaal's character) but that could have been got around and it is something of a disappointment. However, as things stand, all three will be shortlisted for my year-end top 5. There is also a nice little relationship between Graysmith and Melanie (Chloe Sevigny) which could have been developed more if it had been given more screen time.

Apparently, this story influenced Se7en, also directed by David Fincher. I'm not sure it's quite as good, but it certainly merits comparison.

A-

Delicatessen

Delicatessen is the 1991 black comedy from director Jean-Pierre Jeunet and makes his other films like Amelie look about as whimsical as a documentary on abortion. This is seriously twisted stuff that you can only imagine someone writing after taking some pretty potent hallucinogens.

Dominique Pinon stars as Louison, the odd-jobs man who's hired by a butcher (Jean-Claude Dreyfus) who runs a not exactly typical delicatessen/hotel. What's unusual about this place is that most of the food sold here is the body parts of former odd-jobs men that our kind hearted butcher has killed once he's got some value out of them. Louison is next for the butcher's hook, and guests are getting impatiently hungry, except the butcher would like Louison to finish redoing the ceiling first. Louison's unaware of the butcher's intentions, but not for too long since the butcher's daughter (Marie-Laure Dougnac) falls in love with him and, after failing to convince her father to turn his intentions elsewhere, hatches a plan to have Louison kidnapped by an underground race. Just your typical Sunday morning comedy then.

This is wonderfully bizarre stuff and whilst maybe not consistently funny enough to sustain the running time, it does have some magical moments throughout. A lady's continued failed attempts at suicide and a wonderfully edited 'musical number' are the highlights. The set design is award-worthy stuff as well - in fact, and it's not often you say this, it is probably worth the rental fee alone.

What sets Delicatessen apart from other dystopic fantasies like Gilliam's Brazil, is it's whimsical sense of humour. Brazil, although it undoubtedly has ardent fans, for me just isn't particularly engaging and the emphasis in that film is on the satire. Delicatessen on the other hand has the emphasis on fun, on chance and on whimsy. It's what makes it work so well.

B

The Last Picture Show

Apparently, this is one of Dawson's (as in Creek) favorite films and, since the lad obviously possesses great film sense (being an avid Jaws fan), I thought I'd give this a try. And I've been wanting to see it for ages.

Made in 1971, the film focuses on a very small Texas town in the early 1950's and the lives of the teenagers who inhabit it. The picture house actually has a very small role to play in the film and it is certainly not the bittersweet coming-of-age movie I had imagined. Large parts of the film centre around the stunningly beautiful Jacy Farrow (a superb Cybill Shepherd) and the trail of destruction she leaves in her wake as she entices the lads of the town (and some of the men) with her siren-like ways.

A number of famous actors and actresses are in this (Jeff Bridges, Randy Quaid, Ellen Burstyn, brilliant as always, Ben Johnson (also excellent, but departs too early), Shepherd) but the standout performer is the less heralded Timothy Bottoms who, along with Shepherd, will probably find himself high up my list for 1970-1974. Bottoms excels as Sonny, the naive but very decent hero of the film and he delivers an emotional and wide-ranging performance as a very ordinary guy. I personally believe that it is very difficult to play normal or ordinary and Bottoms does it exquisitely. Spellbinding.


All in all, this is an expansive, thoughtful human drama which I know I'll be returning to. I feel more emotional about it, and about its characters, this morning than I did last night. The black and white cinematography is also excellent, delivering an authentic and very claustrophobic atmosphere despite the wide skies and open spaces over and around the town. I won't go into the story lines confronted by each of the characters, it would be better to discover them for yourselves and, despite the obvious presence of cliches, they speak of universal human themes that I'm sure most of us recognise.

As they say about houses, viewing comes highly recommended.

A

Ratatouille

Unquestionably the studio with the longest chain of unbroken success over the last few years (maybe even ever) Pixar have churned out critically acclaimed film after critically acclaimed film. From their first, the world's first feature length CGI film, Toy Story, through to their last, Cars, they've notched up an incredible 19 Academy Award nominations - in categories ranging from Original Screenplay and Original Score, not to mention the more obvious Best Animated Film. Worldwide grosses have never been less than $350 million for any of their 8 releases, which together have pulled in half a billion dollars in box office receipts. Their worst reviewed film, and the only release that can be described as anything even resembling a disappointment, scored 76% on rottentomatoes and grossed $461 million worldwide. The next worst reviewed film scored 91%. Two of their 8 productions, the two Toy Story films, scored 100%. By any measure, their creative output has been absolutely outstanding.

Pixar's latest film is Ratatouille and sees a return to the more familiar, near unanimous, glowing reviews that they've received for every release except for Cars. It stars Rémy (Patton Oswalt), a rat living in Paris who dreams of being a chef and with the inspiration of the recently deceased finest chef in Paris, Auguste Gusteau, he does just that. Rémy is left behind by his colony during an escape from a shotgun toting old lady and ends up in Gusteau's former restaurant. Its former 5 star rating has fallen to 3 since his death and it is now run by the former soux-chef Skinner (Ian Holm). One day Rémy teams up with a useless garbage boy, Alfredo Linguini (Lou Romano) to produce a soup that is hailed by a visiting food critic as wonderful, and soon Linguini and his hidden talent are entrusted with creating new dishes and winning over both the unscrupulous Skinner and France's toughest food critic Atom Ego (a wonderful Peter O'Toole).

Writer/director Brad Bird has delivered a brilliantly realised movie that is as visually impressive as anything yet created by computers for the big screen. With each release Pixar's films push the envelope in the visuals, but in Ratatouille that bar is set to all new heights. Every inch of canvas is lovingly crafted in every single scene. It really is an absolute wonder to view something so impressive. The crazy thing is that this is so very clearly so much more visually impressive than Finding Nemo, but when that came out it was so stunningly impressive that you thought they'd reached the limit with texture, light and shadow. Now it is obvious, especially during the underwater scenes and character close-ups, that they were only scratching the surface.

Ratatouille is certainly the best animated fare I've seen in a while, you've probably got to go back to Toy Story 2 to find something as enjoyable. I'm not actually someone who usually responds well to animated movies. One of the most enjoyable parts of a movie in my eyes is watching a great actor or actress on screen and you obviously don't get that with animation. Plus these films tend to play fast and loose with logic and, being the old grouch that I am, I just can't get past that. However, aside from a middle third that drags just ever so slightly, Ratatouille is a treat and well worth sampling.

B+

The Usual Suspects - The Gay Love Story Version.

Lack of Posting...

Should now hopefully be resolved...
Started a (non-film-related) project in company with Leicester library tonight and it's been taking up a lot of my time but I hope things will be easier now. And now the weather is getting horrible, I'm entering film season. Have loads of DVD's to catch up with, some prerecorded stuff, and Blockbuster has a long list of things I need to watch as well.
Missed an interesting debate you guys were having on the previous page, so belatedly posted a comment on that too.

Munich

Charting (briefly) the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics at the hands of Black September and (much more fully) the Israeli government's response to it (in the form of sending out Eric Bana's hit squad to kill supposedly legitimate 'terrorist' targets), this was the first film I've seen in a good while and, unfortunately, something of a disappointment. Despite some interesting moments, the story doesn't sustain itself and the film ends up dragging. Its biggest flaw, however, is its complete lack of characterisation. The characters are very two-dimensional and the acting is largely unimpressive although, to be fair, there is very little in the way of an acting challenge on offer here. Even the dependable Eric Bana (so good in Chopper) ambles through this in perfect harmony with the dozy, disjointed, nature of the film.

Further, it's a movie that can't really seem to decide where it's going or what it's trying to be and it ends up playing like a simple action movie. Given the choice of subject material and the (badly mishandled) more thoughtful moments I can't believe this was what Spielberg was aiming for. It's a film that simply doesn't know (or possibly hasn't even thought about) its own morality and it goes quite badly off-kilter as a result. The characters just flit from one revenge killing to another without so much of a thought as to whether they are doing the right thing or not. Is someone who has spent the past two years (or whatever it was) translating the Arabian Nights into Italian really a legitimate target for a counter-strike? It was very hard to see who the bad guys were though I didn't honestly get the sense that was what Spielberg and co were going for, at least the direction was just not subtle or nuanced enough to even suggest that. And the editing was, as with Minority Report and parts of AI, simply atrocious meaning the development of narrative and story becomes desperately unbalanced. This has been a sad theme of Spielberg's more recent efforts.

And yet, a little bizarrely, the film had something about it which I can genuinely not put my finger on that kept my attention held until the end. Perhaps it was the odd spirituality which, at times, I did find interesting. I can't honestly put my finger on what it was but something held me in my seat for the 2 and a half hours or so and I'm not sure the treatment of the material (though, it must be said, not the material itself) really deserved that. Still, I'll never be able to repay the debt I owe to Spielberg (no matter how many of his ropier films I sit through) for giving the film-watching public the sublimely perfect Jaws.

A generous C-

The Counterfeiters

Karl Markovics as Solomon, in The Counterfeiters

This German tale of a wartime concentration camp counterfeit operation is based on a true story, but has more incredible turns of fortune than most anything you could make up.

Karl Markovics stars as Solomon Sorowitsch - Germany's most notorious and wanted counterfeiter. Solomon is arrested and thrown into a concentration camp alongside thousands of fellow Jews. However, his illegal expertise prove to be his saviour as Solomon is plucked from amongst the prisoners and taken to a special section of the camp where the prisoners are fed and housed in better conditions. In return for this better treatment, and for being kept alive, they are to forge the dollar and pound to fund the Nazi's war effort.

The Counterfeiters benefits from a quiet and restrained central performance from Markovics. Solomon is subject to a pretty interesting dilemma. If he refuses to help the Nazis he'll be killed. If he helps them, he's funding the war effort of a country that has murdered so many of his fellow Jews. For one of the prisoners, staying alive under such circumstances is not worth it, but Solomon simply craves "one more day".

B-

Mr Brooks

Kevin Costner stars as the title character, a successful businessman who kills people in his spare time just for kicks. However he's just not enjoying it all that much any more and he's trying to stop - except he having a hard time doing so because the dark side of his conscience, given human form by William Hurt, eggs him on at every turn. Demi Moore completes the principles as the cop trying to track Costner down.

Bruce A. Evans' comedy is at times fairly uneven. The main plot, which see Costner pull one last job before quitting, only to be blackmailed into continuing, is enjoyable thanks largely to Costner and his sparring with Hurt. However the two subplots differ fairly dramatically in success. One involving his daughter works well, but the larger one, involving Demi Moore's cop, doesn't work at all. In fact Demi Moore's entire existence in this film feels overblown and unnecessary.

Still, this is certainly a film worth seeing, although maybe wait for the DVD, and even then wait until you've rewatched Grosse Pointe Blank; the gold standard to which all assassin comedies should aspire to.

Failed to see Halloween

I'm sorry, as I promised a review on it!
Unlike most things, however, this wasn't my fault as it was only showing as a friday/saturday late show and not after work when I planned to go. Will have to catch it on video instead. Was going to see Michael Clayton instead, but that wasn't on a single screen in Leicester last cinematic week. Shocking!

It's Arrived At Last...

My copy of Love And Honour (Bushi no Ichibun), the third film in Yoji Yamada's hitherto brilliant samurai trilogy. I've heard some murmurings that it's even the best and, if that's the case, it will threaten the top twenty five after The Twilight Samurai A-) and The Hidden Blade (A+) both impressed me a great deal.

Yamada makes sweet, delicate and poignant films of the highest order with understated yet emotionally powerful performances always based on characterisation and essential human drama. The Hidden Blade was also very funny. I have high hopes for this and hope to watch it over the weekend and will report on my views!

One sad note, no British or American distributor has picked this up yet, despite the fact it's been out for a while so a big thank you to YesAsia for delivering my sublime copy. Someone in the West needs to pick this up. Although perhaps I should take that back until I've actually seen it.

Can't wait!

The Kingdom

Jamie Foxx's latest vehicle is marketed as a smart action film with a little bit of political swagger thrown in. The opening credits play like an abridged history lesson on America's relations with the Arab world and, whilst the history may be over-simplified, the graphical presentation is really cool so that's okay. This uneasy alliance between serious political commentary and high-octane, stylishly presented action thriller isn't restricted to the opening credits, but to be fair it isn't something that jarred with me too much whilst watching. It's only something that I'm thinking about now I've come to jot down a review and I think I'm inclined to give the filmmakers a pass.

Berg and co knew they'd be open to criticism of of dumbing down a tremendously complex dynamic for the benefit of your Saturday night popcorn eating fare yet they've gone ahead and made the film anyway, and I feel they pulled it off rather well. It is probably not fair to criticise them for something they didn't do rather than what they did. The didn't set out to solve the middle east crisis nor produce a polemic against the American government. What they have done is resisted the sort of flag waving nonsense that we may have seen in lesser hands and have cleverly posed more questions than answers. More to point hovever, they've produced a brisk, at times very well staged, thriller that captures your attention and makes you perhaps think a little bit about some of the problems facing parties on both sides.

This fairly restrained approach hasn't helped at the box office though. US receipts of $39 after 3 weeks means it'll be well short of its $80m production budget and once you factored in marketing, and with the inevitable realisation that this film plays less well overseas than it does in the States, then you've got a box office failure on your hands, which is perhaps a shame.

Foxx is able as the lead investigator from the FBI who takes a team of 4 to Saudi Arabia after a softball game is bombed inside a supposed safe zone, home to numerous American citizens. His team are made up of Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper and Jason Bateman. Garner to me is a complete non-entity. Does she attract her own fans to theatres? That can be the only explanation in casting her in a role that could have been played by any number of young actresses at a fraction of the cost. Cooper and Bateman are obviously good value, although it's a little odd to see Bateman in a serious role after is deadpan brilliance in Arrested Development. The 4 Americans are joined in their efforts by the Saudi police force, lead by Ashraf Barhom, who turns in a nice performance opposite 4 better known actors. The Americans work to gain the trust of the Saudis during their 5 day attempt at solving a crime without being able to touch any evidence, nor interview or even touch any Muslims. It's all too frequently implausible but despite its shortcomings it manages to hold your attention thanks, in large part, to the direction of Peter Berg.

Now Berg has the distinction of directing one of the very worst films I've ever seen. Very Bad Things is just an appallingly unfunny attempt at black humour, that is of course unless you find it funny when your driving along and you crash, pinning your brother/cousin/friend between your van and another vehicle, crushing his legs and no doubt paralysing him from the waist down. Wait a minute, you do find that funny? Then Very Bad Things is your sort of film.

Some years after that debacle Berg helmed the very very good Friday Night Lights, on which a successful US TV series is now based. The guy undoubtedly has talent and has graduated to the big leagues in this film. Sadly for him its underwhelming return may see him back in Friday Night Lights territory, but that wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Berg is a very good director and skilfully executes the tricky material here. He's directed a flawed but undeniably exciting film that probably deserves a better reception that it's received.

B

Gives new meaning to "costume drama" in that it is a drama primarily about costumes. But the drama is about as subtle a sledgehammer to the temple.

A nice line from LA Times' Carina Chocano about a film I'm predisposed to hating. I've seen the trailer a couple of times, I've seen the "extended footage" trailer that played before Atonement so I feel I've seen the whole thing. I only barely gave the first film a pass and critics liked that, so if they're sticking it to this one, and they are: '42' on metacritic, and a shocking 24% on rottentomatoes, then there's zero chance I'll be able to watch this without gnawing at my own flesh.

I'm Not Sure How I Feel About This...

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull (AKA, Indy 4)

I honestly don't. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a truly great, genius, film that I harshly gave only an A to. I think I might have to review that as thinking about the new film has reminded me just how good Raiders was. Anyway, I digress. Despite that, I didn't think all that much of the next two, although they were both watchable. Therefore, the return of my childhood hero fills me with excitement and trepidation in equal measure.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be one of the first in the queue and will go wild with excitement when the trailer first previews in a month or so. But can they really and truly make it exciting and develop the characters in new and exciting ways. Perhaps the characters are so damn good that they don't have to, and there's something to be said for that, but I think there is potential to do interesting things with Indy's age (as the later Lethal Weapon films tried). It's a shame Sean Connery turned it down as well, I think the relationship between the Jones' was the real highlight of The Last Crusade.
Apparently, the Skull thingy might have something to do with Atlantis and the appearance of the word 'kingdom' lends further weight to that rumour. That would be interesting and I'm sure a great story could be written around it. And Indy is, lets face it, just the character you'd want to build it around.
This has been something of a selfish therapeutic exercise. I've really managed to talk myself round in the half an hour or so it has taken me to prepare this. I'm am now excited.
Officially.

And in case that excitement wanes I had to include a picture of Harrison Ford looking ultra handsome. Man, I wished I looked like that. I did try to be Indy once and did an archaeology course at university just because I thought archaeology was genuinely like that. It isn't. Imagine the furthest thing from Indiana Jones and you've probably just about got archaeology. Equally, for anyone who doesn't know me, imagine the farthest thing from Harrison Ford and you've probably just about got Matt.

Jeff Robinov and the women as leads

Robinov doesn't directly refute the original story that broke last weekend, and which I commented on, but says he is still committed to producing movies with women in the lead. He does infer though that action movies starring actresses give him pause for thought and that they'll be scrutinised a little closer before they get the go-ahead. Read the story here.

Site Updates

There were still some suspect links and a few other errors which are hopefully now fixed. There's also a new homepage although I'll be improving on it in due course - I guess it is a test for now.

Notably the features section is starting to build and may be worth a look, it'll be the home of the more substantial blog entries. If you missed the George Clooney piece or Matt's book adaptations wishlist they are there.

I'm going to see a film this week

Yes, I am!

Halloween.

But I'm not holding my breath.

And I'm sure none of you are either.

Lead Actresses

A news item doing the rounds in all the major online the film columns is the story that first broke on Deadline Hollywood Daily, namely that Warner Bros president Jeff Robinov has decided "we are no longer doing movies with women in the lead."

My first instinct is that he's probably on to something.

Clearly the film industry is about profits and unfortunately profit is much more important than quality. If you were president of Warner Bros, and you had shareholders beating on your door demanding profits, increased share prices, and a bigger and bigger market share year on year, you'd probably want to find a simple solution that will deliver the profit sheet everyone's baying for. Of course it's obvious that there isn't a simple solution and outlandish statements like we're banning films with female leads are not going to go down well. But is he right in his clear implication, that lead actresses are box office poison? Can women really open films?

Only a couple of weeks ago my colleague was lamenting the lack of decent roles for women, but isn't this because writers know their films are less likely to get made, and less likely to make profit if they are made, with women in the lead? It may not even be a conscious decision, but it is understandable if writers deliberately focus on male characters when the president of Warner Bros is openly coming out with a statement like that.

Here are the US box office grosses for what I believe to be the 13 highest paid women in film, in their last 3 films. Remember this is lead roles we're talking about. We're not talking about supporting or roles like Renee Zelwegger's in Cinderella Man where she's clearly supporting/co-starring Russell Crowe's lead. I will include films like Mr and Mrs Smith, where Jolie and Pitt are absolutely down the line equal (ditto Walk the Line, Intolerable Cruelty etc.) Equal billing in a film featuring a large number of supporting roles, such as Babel counts as long as the actor or actress is clearly billed first in the film's publicity.

(all figures in millions)

Witherspoon: Walk...Line: $119 Just Like Heaven: $48 Vanity Fair: $16
Zelwegger: Bridget Jones 2: $40 Down w/ Love : $20 Chicago: $171 **
Lopez: Monster in Law: $82 Shall We Dance: $57 Jersey Girl: $25
Bullock: Premonition: $48 The Lake House: $52 Miss Congeniality 2: $48
Jolie: A Mighty Heart: $9* Mr and Mrs Smith: $186 Taking Lives: $32
Zeta-Jones: No Res'tions: $42* Legend/Zorro: $46 Intol' Cruelty: $35
Foster: The Brave One: $34* Flightplan: $89 Panic Room: $96
Berry: Perfect Stranger: $23 Catwoman: $40 Gothika: $59
Kidman: The Invasion: $15 Bewitched: $63 The Interpreter: $72 ***
Swank: The Reaping: $25 Freedom Writers: $36 Million $ Baby: $100
Diaz: The Holiday: $65 In Her Shoes: $32 Charlie's Angels 2: $101
Barrymore: Lucky You: $5 Music and Lyrics: $51 Fever Pitch: $42
Roberts: Mona...Smile: $64 America's Sweethearts: $94 Mexican: $67

Compare that with the men...

Will Smith: Pursuit of Happyness: $163 Hitch: $179 I, Robot: $144
Hanks: The Da Vinci Code: $218 The Terminal: $77 The Ladykillers: $39
Cruise: Mission Imposs' 3: $134 War of Worlds: $234 Collateral: $101
Carrey: Number 23: $35 Fun w/ Dick/Jane: $110 Lemony Snicket: $118
Damon: Bourne Ultimatum: $244 Good Shepherd: $60 Departed: $132
Di Caprio: Blood Diamond: $57 The Departed: $132 The Aviator: $103
Pitt: Ocean's 13: $117 Babel: $35 Mr and Mrs Smith: $186
Crowe: 3:10 to Yuma: $49* A Good Year: $7 Cinderella Man: $62
Clooney: Ocean's 13: $117 Syriana: $50 Ocean's 12: $125 ****
Foxx: Dreamgirls: $103 Miami Vice: $63 Stealth: $32
Reeves: Lake House: $52 Constantine: $76m Matrix Revolutions: $139
Sandler: I Now... Chuck & Larry: $130 Reign Over Me: $20 Click: $137
Stiller: Night at Museum: $250 Meet the Fockers: $279 Dodgeball: $114


First of all that's a lot of numbers and probably not very nice to read so here's the bottom line: Average box office for the top 13 highest paid actresses: $57.6m

For the men: $113.6m

Around double.

So why is this happening? Do audiences prefer going to see actors rather than actresses? Or do actors generally find themselves in bigger budget films with better roles? Clearly box office receipts are no indicator of quality otherwise Adam Sandler films would be nominated for best picture every year. But looking at that huge list the only films I'd recommend would be, for the actresses:

Chicago, Intolerable Cruelty, Million Dollar Baby, The Holiday, Charlie's Angels 2 (yes seriously), plus Walk the Line, which I've not see but I'll bow to those who have. So 6 films in total. Maybe add Panic Room if you're feeling exceptionally generous. Call it 7.

and for the actors...

Collateral, Dodgeball, The Bourne Ultimatum, Blood Diamond, The Good Shepherd, The Aviator, 3:10 to Yuma, Cinderella Man, Syriana. Which is 9 films - and I'm leaving off a Best Picture winner in The Departed since I didn't care for it, but call it 10 to be fair.

So not only are the men's films making more money they're also better. Once again it comes down to the quality of the script. It must be that not only bigger but better roles are being written for men, but, since most screenwriters are men and they often write about what they know, that isn't surprising. It is rare for a writer to develop a great career by writing great roles for the opposite sex. In fact I can think of just one; Pedro Almodovar. Screenwriters are only writing these great (and not so great, but high profile and money-making) roles for men. But maybe this is because writing a lead role in a big budget film for an actress is just too much of a gamble.

It's not too bad if your Vanity Fair, or Freedom Writers doesn't take off, but when The Invasion, The Reaping and Catwoman all tank, you have problems. The discrepancy in the grosses of the 'popcorn' films is clear. But more telling is the discrepancy in the success of the more arthouse films. 'Difficult' releases such as The Good Shepherd (3 hour, dry 1950s set film) earns a 60 million and a near 3 hour biopic of Howard Hughes, The Aviator, earns over 100 million. Can you expect such results with female biopics? I don't think so - not unless it stars someone I'll mention later.

Is all of this then accounted for by the scripts?

Maybe it is. Maybe audiences are just more loyal to actors. Certainly if you were running a company the only hard and fast rules you could draw from any of this is let Will Smith make whatever he wants to make. But seriously, has Jeff Robinov really said anything that bad? He's trying to make money. The numbers don't add up. Blanket statements like no more movies with lead roles for women are probably too far but if you were in his position you'd certainly take a closer look at those movies featuring Halle or Hilary, whilst happily signing off on those with Tom and Leo.

Of course there is one actress who can open pretty much any film, but even she's a bit of an unknown quality since she hasn't lead a film for 4 years. Julia Roberts is, or was, the Will Smith of the actresses. Before The Mexican she had Erin Brokovich, $125; Runaway Bride, $152; Notting Hill, $116; Stepmom $91; Conspiracy Theory $71 and My Best Friend's Wedding, $127. These films were all back to back. That's a pretty unbelievable run of success and makes The Mexican look like a flop. And if your flops are earning $67m then you'll probably even get Jeff Robinov to give you a lead role. I bet they can't wait for her return.



*still on release but on too few screens to add significantly to this figure
** ignoring Miss Potter which never got above 102 screens
*** ignoring Fur which never got to more than 39 screens
**** ignoring The Good German which never expanded beyond 66 screens

Kenny

Either I'm getting more and more easy to please or this is turning in to a fine year for film. I'm already into double figures of films I'd recommend and this one, yet another fine comedy, is the latest. Kenny is a mockumentary that showcases, naturally enough, Kenny: an Australian portable toilet plumber.

What sounds like an exercise in toilet humour and lowest common denominator gags, is actually an intelligent, sweet and an times searingly funny film. There's probably half a dozen truly brilliant lines, all of which will be vying for my quote of the year, but I'll resist the temptation of posting them all in this review as it'll spoil all the fun, but I will post gem one just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about:

"I had a mate who's advice on marriage was 'cut out the middle man; find someone you hate and buy them a house.'"

Not only are there some great one-liners, but this is a script with a decent story arc and character development - not something you often find in comedies and not something you perhaps expect in a 90 minute mock documentary. Credit must go to the writers, brothers Clayton and Shane Jacobsen - the former also directs and the latter stars as Kenny. A fine family effort and the latest in a string of very good comedies this year.

B+

More Apologies...

I've not posted all week. Been ridiculously busy at work with two presentations and am now away for the weekend. Next weekend is already earmarked as 'film catch up weekend' so will have some new stuff then.

Jindabyne - the other perspective

Laura Linney and Gabriel Byrne star in Jindabyne

I had Jindabyne on my wish list long before Matt's A+ review, but that piece of wholesome praise (to put it mildly) only served to convince me that I had something special to look forward to. The reason I had my eye on this one is that it stars one of the most watchable actresses of her generation. Movie years nominations in 2003 and 1998, and an Actress of the Year award in 2000 for her simply stunning turn in You Can Count on Me, should tell you that I'm a fan. Linney is a totally captivating actress with great emotional depth, and there a few better than her working today. So with Matt's enthusiasm for Jindabyne and mine for Linney I went in to this with pretty high hopes.

To summarise the plot of Jindabyne you'd probably say 4 guys go fishing, find a dead body on their first day, but not wanting to spoil the trip they fish for a couple of days before contacting the police. The rest of the film follows the fall-out of their decision. Yet it takes a good hour for any of this to actually happen. The opening 60 minutes in which we amble along in the company of Linney, Byrne and co are not what I'd call gripping. There's no plot to speak of, the characters are not that interesting. Ray Lawrence's insistence in cutting every scene short with a fade to black had me wanting to put my fist through the screen. It's particularly galling on the 90 minute mark when it follows a major confrontation between Linney and Byrne - the best scene in the film. Instead of a lingering shot to let you take in the emotional gravitas of the scene, Lawrence has faded out around half a nanosecond after the last line of dialogue. I've just seen a film with a 4 minute static shot on George Clooney and it was fantastic. Oh to have those sensibilities rather than these. I recall now that he did the same thing in Lantana (at least I think he did) - I don't think I was particularly impressed then either.

Jindabyne is based on the Raymond Carver short story also featured in Robert Altman's Short Cuts. Now Altman is never one to rush a scene so automatically I enjoyed that more, but I think the main reason Short Cuts is far superior is the fact that it is based on a several Carver stories rather than just one. I don't think that Beatrix Christian has successfully adapted his short into a 120 minute feature. Apart from that slow first act, we have the presence of the killer popping up throughout the film, when he could have been excised completely and the film been stronger. But worst of all, a ludicrous 3 minute song at the girl's funeral that's just awful to sit through. And because there's too much padding here, Lawrence cuts short the genuinely successful scenes just to make room.

It's a great idea for a short story and does pose some interesting questions. Personally I don't find what the men did all that objectionable. The likelihood that the police would be in a better position to solve the case is slim so the only real ethical quandary is whether there's a family going through hell that need to be put out of their misery. For that reason they should have reported it immediately but maybe they didn't think of that. The allegations levelled at the men of racism or sexism are well wide of the mark, although Clare has a point when she asks if he'd have left a boy in the stream instead of a young woman. Somehow it seems a harder thing to do. I guess then that the men are guilty of ageism.

Jindabyne is out on DVD now.

C

Ricky Gervais

Apologies for lack of updates this week. One of the reasons for this is I went straight from work Tuesday to see Ricky Gervais at the Royal Albert Hall. It was the final show of his stand up tour and after paying a few quid extra on ebay I managed to get 5th row seats which was nice. Ricky was terrific, with genuinely hilarious bits on diverse subject matters such as AIDS, Simon Cowell and Commandos. I think it is probably slightly weaker than his Politics show but that's splitting hairs really as I was laughing out loud from his gloriously over the top entrance until his final bow. I suspect it'll be out on DVD in time for Christmas and would heartily recommend it.

Speaking of remakes...

How about this!

Michael Clayton

This hotly anticipated (at least by me) legal thriller from debutant Tony Gilory, the writer of the Bourne films, pitches 3 actors with 5 Movie Years nominations between them. 3 of those are for the brilliant Tom Wilkinson, who costars in this as the corporate lawyer who goes off his meds and starts having a nervous breakdown. This is not good news for the company that he's representing, UNorth, headed by Tilda Swinton, who are in the middle of a 6 year, 3 billion dollar lawsuit, and probably even worse news for the law firm Wilkinson works for, whose 9 million that UNorth owe is now in jeopardy, not to mention a possible merger with a London firm and all credibility in their own country.

The law firm needs someone to save the day and that someone is Michael Clayton, played by George Clooney, the business's "fixer". Clooney's Clayton is a very interesting character, someone entrusted with fixing very delicate, often high profile situations, but a guy who's own life seems to be in need of fixing itself. He owes 80,000 to people he can't pay after a failed restaurant venture, he's separated from his wife and has a gambling problem that at least partly explains his cashflow troubles. It's refreshing to see a 'hero' as troubled, although this wont be the first time in a review this year that I have praised the efforts of the writers of The Good Shepherd, Zodiac and Breach, who have also brought us screen characters that are layered and interesting. It's been a great year for intelligent thrillers and this continues that pleasing trend.

Clooney is wonderful and totally convincing as Clayton. He enjoys several great scenes throughout the film, 2 notable ones with Wilkinson, and 1 with Swinton that is as satisfying a scene as you'll see all year. The credits roll over a fixed shot of Clooney in a cab and holds on Clooney for a good 3 or 4 minutes. Even here, doing so little, Clooney is totally magnetic as a screen presence that despite the credits rolling on a packed Saturday night, not one person left the theatre until we faded to black.

Wilkinson and Swinton provide more than able support. If I did have a criticism, I'd say it was perhaps too short. At a fraction under 2 hours, I think we could have spent another 20 minutes with these characters, particularly the two Brits who don't get as much screen time as I'd have liked. But it is hard to argue with Gilroy's decision to spend nearly every second with Clooney. It's an intelligent script and wonderfully directed debut effort, which is certainly worth your time and money.

A-

The Sunday Morning Political Slot : )

One major issue on my mind this week:

Remakes

The recent appearance of Rob Zombie's Halloween has prompted a load of thoughts in my mind. Not least, why remake a film? So I thought I'd share some thoughts and see if I could drum up a bit of debate.
I think it could be safely agreed that remaking a bad film which no one likes is one, very obvious, reason. Of course, the problem with this is that there are probably no films that no one likes at all and, therefore, someone will always object to the remake. And they are perfectly within their rights to thunder back "well, what difference does it make if it's popular? Why remake the film anyway?". This is absolutely true. Our feelings towards films are fundamentally subjective and no one can tell us we're 'right' or 'wrong' (though, of course, people frequently do - see the last outing of this slot a couple of weeks back for an example, the imdb message boards). So, really, is there much of a point to this post?
Well, I think there is because I'm afraid, like the last one, it's going to end with a healthy dose of cynicism. I just don't see the point of remaking certain films unless you do it for money. Directors talk of "new interpretations" and "new imaginings", but, really, is this true? I can honestly say I've seen very few remakes which offer a re-imagining of the original premise, but I'm sure I will be corrected there. I've heard this about The Thin Red Line, for example, which I love, but I've never seen the original so can't honestly comment. Okay, I have Halloween largely in mind here. Just what is the point? It's about as perfect a horror film as can be and was hugely innovative and influential in its time, particularly in relation to John Carpenter's use of camerawork and the way Michael Myers lurks in the shadows throughout.

I really and truly don't see what could possibly be added to it by remaking it! Possibly a bit more could be added on Michael as a very young boy, but it would be very difficult to do without being utterly crass and possibly more could be added on the supernatural side but the same issue as before would inevitably arise. I don't think the 'greatest' directors on planet earth could possibly add anything to a film like Halloween. But maybe people who don't like the film could see things that could be bettered or done very differently? I would be very interested to hear, which is my I'm writing this post in the first place. Similarly, rumours persist of a Jaws remake. Why, why, why? What is the point except to make money? Okay, someone might respond, but the money these remakes make will help to make new films that you will like, so why are you getting so het up about it? That, I think, is a fair point, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that a lot of people feel very upset about their favorite films, which they often believe to be, or be near to be, perfect, being remade. Ikiru is also being remade into a Hollywood movie and, okay, this adds another level of complexity to the issue because of the intended audience (not the case with Halloween) but I still fail to see the point of that too, except, it could be argued, to reach out to a new audience with a very emotional and beautiful story. Re-imaginings in the way that The Magnificent Seven borrowed heavily from the Seven Samurai bring yet another level to the discussion and we're getting into very complex territory indeed. What is okay, what has a purpose, and what is not okay and does not have a purpose? Difficult, and I'm sure every movie-going person will feel very differently on the issue. And, further, is it not okay to 'update' a film?

In short, I think this is a hot issue it will be very difficult to find common ground over. I'm not totally averse to my favorite movies being remade (I'd give Halloween an A+, firmly believe it can't be bettered, but I'll still go and see the remake), I'm just not sure of the point of it as there are very few movies I can honestly say there would be a great point in remaking, even if they are not perfect. The story has already been told and you're making quite an arrogant claim to suggest you could do it better, especially where a genius is involved. Who would dare to remake Citizen Kane? Somebody is probably now going to tell me that this has already happened!

One final point. This is, fundamentally, about creativity. I like new ideas, I like new stories and new characters and remakes do take room away from new material. This, I think, is incontrovertible. Take Jaws. Clearly there is a market for films abut sharks, but I can see nothing in Jaws that can be improved as Jaws. It's pretty much perfect. The characters are great, the shark-in-the-shadows is great, the story is great and it has some of the most brilliant scenes in movie history. Leave it alone and tell a new story with a different twist. One such story would be 12 Days of Terror, which has been made into a straight to T.V. movie. Now, this suggests that the film could be bettered (that said, I've seen it and it's not at all bad, a lot better in fact than much pap which makes it to the big screen) and, indeed, it could but it contains a very interesting story which could be developed in a number of ways (which I won't spoil) Jaws simply doesn't allow for. Here's a link to the book.

There is room for remakes, they just have to be well chosen. 12 Days of Terror is, I would argue, a perfect candidate. It is a true story, the events of which, indeed, inspired Peter Benchley to write Jaws, and a great deal could be done with the attacks and the story and the characters around them. And it would be sure to make money if it was well handled.
I think other people's criteria of why to remake films would be very different, so let me have it, am fascinated to hear other views on this difficult subject.

And, my apologies if I bored you. Here's the trailer for Halloween in compensation. Or, should that read "punishment" : )

Thanks for reading!

Matt

This Might Make a Great Film...

The 'this would be a difficult film to adapt' thread got me thinking about my favorite book of all time, William Faulkner's The Sound And The Fury. Most of the impact of the book comes about through the way it is written, i.e. the way it focalises the narrative through the thought processes and streams of consciousness of the different characters. And it begins with a segment from Benjamin, a mentally handicapped man, now in his thirties (or thereabouts, if I remember right). It is blindingly original and, like with all of Faulkner's novels, written in staggeringly beautiful prose. I think only someone of the calibre and attention to detail of Terrence Malick could possibly make a success of it. It also jumps around chronologically and two characters have the same name, which is very confusing the first time you read it but would be less so on film. It is also full of comment and thought about the nature and stupidity of prejudice and ignorance (again, very Faulknerian themes) and equally full of beautiful ideas. For instance, it starts with Benjamin walking next to a golf course just to hear the golfers call out "Caddy", the name of his beloved, missing, sister and the emotional impact hits from the word go. The first part of The Sound And The Fury is, quite simply, perfect and I can't ever imagine ever reading anything so brilliantly and originally done. It would take a true master to make it into a great film, which it certainly could be in the right hands.
I've also just learnt that a film was made under the title in 1959 ("loosely" based on the book) and staring, oh dear, Yul Brynner. And, apparently, another version is planned for 2008, but I know no more than that. I wait with bated breath. It would be difficult, if not quite impossible, to pull off, so I wait anxiously. If someone tells me Malick is making it, I'll go and buy my ticket now! And if someone has a spare copy of the 1959 version lying around, I'll brave the insipid Brynner out of curiosity and pure adoration of the book so, please, send it my way...

George Clooney

In honour of the wonder that is George Clooney, whose new film, Michael Clayton, opens this Friday, I present to you a look at his career to date. Now everyone knows Clooney is impossibly handsome, and as Tilda Swinton, his Michael Clayton co-star put it at last night's premiere of the film in New York, "his very existence is a joke on humanity." But Clooney can act God damn it and I've been a fan since the early days of Return of the Killer Tomatoes. Well maybe not quite that early, but then who was? I have however been a fan since 1994, when a great new medical drama debuted on our screens and Dr Doug Ross was born. Here's a career retrospective:

ER: Dr Doug Ross, 1994-2000. Ross was the smooth talking, charming, ladies man who broke up marriages and bedded a whole string of women in his 4 seasons on the show. If he'd been a woman he'd of course been a slut, but he got away with it and everyone loved him. ER was brilliant back then of course, and not unwatchable as it is now. Clooney's finest hour came in the 2 part episode "The Storm", where he was just about the only character on screen for the duration. This episode proved his big break, as he (dressed in a tuxedo no less) single handedly saved a boy caught in a storm drain from drowning whilst showing off his ability to dominate the screen for 90 minutes . Gripping stuff.

From Dusk Til Dawn: Seth Gecko, 1996. Clooney smartly ditched his ER persona and took on the role of a badass in the Tarantino penned comedy horror for his first post ER role. Clooney showed a little range playing a bank robbing, hostage taking murderer, albeit one with a little more charm than your average bank robbing, hostage taking murderer. The film doesn't quite succeed despite some clever moments and an unbelievably hot dance from Selma Hayek, but Clooney convinces as the bad guy.

One Fine Day: Jack Taylor, 1996 Back on more familiar territory Clooney stars in his first romantic comedy opposite Michelle Pfeiffer. The two were perfectly cast in this underrated film. Okay it's a bit syrupy - the tag line, "She was having a perfectly bad day... Then he came along and spoiled it," probably makes you want to throw up, but there's plenty of chemistry between the two leads and the film definitely has charm.

Batman and Robin: Batman/Bruce Wayne, 1997. Uh-oh. Just when things were going so well. Clooney tried to kill his career in this ill-advised 4th installment of the Batman franchise (and last, until a complete recent overhaul by Christopher Nolan). I've not seen it. I don't want to. I can't imagine that Clooney pulls it off very well. Totally miscast methinks. Thank goodness the public forgave him.

The Peacemaker: Lt Colonel Thomas Dove, 1997. Clooney reteams with Mimi Leader, who directed him in ER, for this action thriller that was short on action and lacking thrills. Chemistry trouble with his costar Nicole Kidman didn't help. It didn't make its money back at the US box Office, taking in just $40 million, although by the time overseas receipts and DVD profits were totalled up it probably didn't lose much. Not what he needed after Batman though.

Out of Sight: Jack Foley, 1998. No we're talking. Steven Soderbergh's classy crime/romance drama found Clooney back in more familiar territory as a guy who robbed banks armed only with an abundance of charm and devastating good looks. Jennifer Lopez played the US Marshall out to capture him and of course they fall in love and she can't quite bring herself to bring him in. Clooney found himself a great director this time around and the casting was spot on: you can't imagine anyone pulling off this particular role as well as Clooney. Batman and Robin was now forgotten.

Three Kings: Maj. Archie Gates, 1999. Small roles in South Park Bigger, Longer Uncut, and The Thin Red Line notwithstanding, Clooney followed Out of Sight with another major critical success. Alleged clashes on set with the director signalled trouble but it wasn't to be as this is a great film, that is well worth watching. Clooney plays one of 4 soldiers set out to steal gold that was stolen from Kuwait, but they discover a group of Iraqi civilians who desperately need their help and must choose between the gold and their plight. Certainly a film I'd like to revisit again, I very much enjoyed it upon release.

O Brother Where Art Thou: Everett, 2000. This Coen brothers comedy wont be to everyone's taste, and to be perfectly honest it wasn't exactly to mine, but it again ensured Clooney was registering with critics for his delightfully madcap (but restrained) performance as Everett. Everett and two friends break free from a chain gang and are pursued by the law as they make their way home to recover some buried loot. There's a great soundtrack, and the film looks great, but I never fully became engaged with it. No discredit to Clooney though who took home a deserved Golden Globe for best actor in a comedy or musical.

The Perfect Storm: Capt Billy Tyne, 2000. This Wolfgang Pietersen helmed movie saw Clooney break into the big leagues for the first time. Even his critically successful films had returned modest sums at the box office, with Three Kings' 60 million return the best to date (Batman took 107 million, but has to be classed as a complete failure). However, The Perfect Storm took an impressive 40 million in its opening weekend and went on to gross 180 million at the US box office alone. The audiences weren't turning up for Mark Wahlberg or John C Reilly (as good as they were) so it signalled that Clooney was A-list for the first time in his career. The film itself is most enjoyable.

Oceans 11: Danny Ocean, 2001. Soderbergh and Clooney back together again, this time with his rival for most beautiful person on the planet, according to women's glossy magazines: aka Brad Pitt. That alone was bound to have audiences breaking down the doors of theatres the world over. Clooney took on the Frank Sinatra role in this remake of the rat pack heist movie and of course it was ludicrously successful. Shame that it actually wasn't very good. Clooney of course was perfectly cast and by now has this sort of role down to a tee. But it was a little too glossy with all style no substance and featured both a fairly stupid plot and the worst accent in the history of cinema (I'm looking at you Don Cheadle).

Welcome to Collinwood (Jerzy) and Solaris (Chris Klein): both 2002. I've not seen either of and have heard mixed things. Neither was a great success with either critics or the box office.

Intolerable Cruelty: Miles, 2003. Some might say this is lesser Coen brothers. Some might say this is lesser Clooney. I say that this is terrific Coens and the best performance of Clooney's career, for which I gave him a well-deserved Movie Years nomination to boot. A brilliant comic turn in what is a sharply written and engaging comedy, Clooney teams up with Catherine Zeta Jones, who plays the revenge seeking gold-digger to Clooney's smooth, rich, womanizing lawyer. Again the casting is perfect, Clooney not only playing the suave role that he's made his own, but this time it's laced with sharp, often black, comedy. I honestly think this is one of the Coens' better films and Clooney's perfect in it.

Oceans 12: Danny Ocean, 2004. Well based on the law of diminishing returns I thought it best I skip this outing. Same goes for Ocean's 13 in 2007.

Good Night, and Good Luck: Fred Friendly, 2005. A breakthrough year with the critics once again (despite that Golden Globe nom, he'd not been nominated for anything of note in 5 years) Clooney amassed 3 Oscar nominations and 5 BAFTA nominations in the same year. In GNAGL, Clooney wrote an intelligent and gripping historical drama that showcased the considerable talents of David Strathairn as Edward R Murrow, the journalist who took it upon himself to bring down Senator McCarthy, who was leading a witch hunt against Communism. Clooney also starred as Murrow's producer but it is his screenplay and direction that are the real standouts. It's a real treat to be so convincingly transported back to 1930s America. The screenplay really is excellent.

Syriana: Bob Barnes, 2005. Clooney went 0 for 5 at that year's BAFTAs but didn't come away empty handed at the Oscars. As he collected his Best Supporting Actor award for Syriana Clooney's first exclamation on stage was "...so I guess I didn't win Best Director". Indeed he didn't, but the supporting actor award is hopefully one he treasures as it was just reward for a unbelievable year in film. Bob Barnes is a CIA agent who becomes a fall guy for an embarrassing episode in the middle east, in Stephen Ganghan's dense and engrossing thriller. It's been called Traffic but about oil (Gaghan wrote the screenplay for Traffic as well as writing and directing Syriana) but sadly the film doesn't quite live up to that promise. It's a little too dense at times and things are not particularly well connected, which I often have a problem with. If there's no connection between threads then you're basically watching 2 films concurrently, and ultimately one will be more interesting than the other. Since one story line has no bearing on the other, you just wish you could spend more time with the most interesting one. And arguably in this film it's Clooney's thread that's most engaging. It's not quite as unconnected as I make it sound, things actually do tie up reasonably satisfactorily towards the end, but once again it's Clooney that stands out in a fine cast. My colleague cites Jeffrey Wright, who is indeed great, but Oscar fell in love with Clooney at last and rewarded him with a statuette that was by now overdue.

The Good German: Jacob Geismer, 2006. One I'm yet to see. Mixed reaction again, for this 5th (of 6) films with Stephen Soderbergh. I'll get round to it soon enough.

Michael Clayton: Michael Clayton, 2007. Baz Bambigoye calls it the 'best performance of Clooney's career'. If he's even half right then we're in for a treat. It opens Friday and I'm looking forward to it already.