Missing in action...

You think you've seen me excited? Think again! They've found Metropolis!

Metropolis is Fritz Lang's 20's sci-fi silent classic. No, don't stop listening - its fantastic. You can't take your eyes off the screen - admittedly, the absence of dialogue means you can't follow it if you do that - but the imagery is impressive, and at times genuinely scary. The plot is dire, but who cares when its that pretty? My original review is here, in which I note:

"I'm going to start with the bad things, starting off with the fact it's not all there. A card flashes up at the beginning of the film and cheerily announces that a quarter of the film is believed to be lost. Now that is tragic - I don't believe anything has upset me that much all year. It's horrible to think that in seventy years time, current films may be similarly fragmented. It didn't spoil my enjoyment of the film, but I just thought the idea was pretty distressing. Somebody evidently had a grudge against the Thin Man, because virtually all his scenes were replaced."

And it really did give me the wobbles to think about a quarter of such a wonderful film curling away into flames, or rotting in a box somewhere. The Wicker Man almost met this fate - just imagine films as good, which chance and time didn't save. I remember passing a rundown, boarded up cinema in a tiny limestone town in France - all very Manon des Sources - and wondering whether Metropolis was hiding away there somewhere. So sign me up for the new DVD! Here's the news, straight from contactmusic!

"Lost footage from cult sci-fi film METROPOLIS has been discovered in
Argentina.The director's cut of Fritz Lang's 1927 classic, featuring an extra 30
minutes, was believed to have vanished forever after it was cut by Paramount
bosses because of bad reviews.However, the curator of the Buenos Aires Film
Museum discovered a copy of the movie in his archives - and a projectionist
noticed it was longer than all other versions of the iconic film. Film restorer
Martin Koerber, who is one of the few people to see the lost footage, says, "No
matter how bad the condition of the material may be, the original intention of
the film, including all of its sub-plots, is now once again tangible for the
normal viewer. The rhythm of the film has been restored."

Well, use of the word cult gets my goat as it always does, but you wouldn't believe how relieved the news makes me. I keep everything. I'm a hoarder, and a sentimental one at that. In front of me as I speak - a tin of uber-strongmints I won two years ago at a speacking contest, a 3-yr old birthday card, a dollar note from an old art project, a WKD bottlecap from my 18th, and a Guiness tower paperweight - with its original packaging. And I'm a creator - I draw, write, shoot, paint and everything. The idea that a whole work of creation has winked out of existance is one of the most horrific things to me. I'm still in mourning for a poem accidentally trashed a few years back. Admittedly, it wasn't great, but the idea still troubles me. Its why I love film, and not theatre. Yes, being in the room has an atmosphere - but its so brief, and my memory so short. It fades and vanishes. You can't compare theatre directors fairly, as you can in cinema - because all you are relying on is memories of distant events.

The impermenance of such things disturbs me. Ovid, Roman poet and quoted here suprisingly often to say he's never made a film, ends his first book of the Amores by claiming he will live on through his poetry. At the time, it was a pretty generic claim for a poet to make - but he has lived on, and will far longer than I shall, and in that sense it makes pretty chilling reading. He prefaces this claim by listing past greats who have been remembered. Homer! Virgil! But others, a lot of others, of who no trace remains. Particularly scary is his praise of Gallus, of whom not a single line remains, but whose name is also praised by most other Roman love poets. He must have written some formidable stuff. Aristophanies was a Greek comedy writer. To be a serious scholar of Aristoph. seems to be made up of trawling through his jokes and trying to work out why they are funny. Its like watching Comic Relief, without a knowledge of contemporary TV, or watching Broken News, without ever having seen a news item, or watching Spitting Image when its the only record you have of half the politicians mocked. One of the people he makes fun of all the time is fellow playwrite and author of tragedies, Euripedes, only 18 of his 95 plays which survive to the modern day. Some of Aristoph's jokes poke fun at plays we know he wrote, but no longer exist. We know, for example, that he was notorious for including beggars only through Aristophanies' parodies - because barely anything of what survives contains them. I blame the bastards who burnt the library at Alexandra. Tom Stoppard has a comment to that effect in Arcadia - which another character answers like so:

"We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language. Ancient cures for diseases will reveal themselves once more. Mathematical discoveries glimpsed and lost to view will have their time again. You do not suppose, my lady, that if all of Archimedes had been hiding in the great library of Alexandria, we would be at a loss for a corkscrew?"

Yes, I just typed it all up. I think its meant to be comforting. It doesn't work. What does work is Neil Gaiman's Sandman, in which the God of Dreams has a library of lost, half finished, half dreamt of books. At least they still exist somewhere.

Its not just film and TV which suffer from the ravages of time. Back in the late 60s, the BBC destroyed old episodes. Why shouldn't they? Contracts prevented rebroadcasting, and the home video player unthought of. Whole TV shows have vanished into the aether. The show Z-Cars has two whole years from which no episodes survive - despite the fact it was being shown weekly at the time. United! has no episodes left at all. A whole show! Just like that! You remember faintly enjoying something from yesteryear, look back and its gone. I only found this out recently via my association with Doctor Who. 108 episodes are missing, presumed destroyed. It used to be more - just like Metropolis being discovered in Argentina, so episodes have been recovered from censors offices in Australia, New Zealand, Japan. All that's left of them is a few photos (or "telesnaps" if you're a real fan) and the audiotrack of each episode. Gone.

On the DocWho forums, there's a lot of conspiracy - and anger - directed against collectors who supposedly own and secretly hoard some of these episodes. They're thinking too small - I'll be unhappy if I never see Fury from the Deep. But I'll be unhappier if there is no way at all for me to ever have seen it - short of a time machine and a video-recorder. I find the concept of these things gently sitting in someone's private room quite comforting -we come, we die, but the art lives on. And one day - maybe not in my lifetime - a well meaning relative will return it to the BBC. I rank its survival for the human race as a whole as more important than it being recovered by this generation.

Does this give anyone else the shivers in the same way it does me? Its not only their absence. There are people who have memories of these things that no longer exist - they've seen them, and one by one their memories die with them. Recently, I got onto Doctor Who with my Latin teacher - not an avid fan, but she used to watch Hartnell and Troughton. Back in the 60s. My first reaction to Hartnell fans normally is one of faint embarassment - he's the original, his episodes are lengthy and B&W, I've still not got around to seeing them - in film parlance, like talking to someone who claims Citizen Kane is their fave. But she's not a fan who discovered them through video like me. She was there. At the time. My first reaction was one of internal shock - maybe she saw "Fury from the Deep"? Or "The Tenth Planet"? Its there, in the corner of her mind, just flickers of black and white - the odd image or idea she recalls, augmented by time and memory. These things which only exist in minds.

I was only 9 or 10 when I watched Through the Dragon's Eye. Its one of those surreal childhood memories which everyone has tucked away. Children from the 60s recall hiding from the Daleks behind the sofa - I was terrified by this, an educational program wrapped up in a sub-Narnia story of a magical fantasy world. Not just me either - IMDb reveals a whole generation it has tainted. It was scary at the time, but its scared me since as well. Our hero disappearing into the fog. Boris drowning in a quagmire. Charn. The knitted scarf. For years, its been in the corner of my mind - and one of the questions I ask pretty frequently of strangers is if they have seen it. The tactics payed off recently - turns out one of my best friends not only remembers it, she recorded it on video. We watched it, and it was weird. Like going back to a place you remember but have not visited for a long time. I remembered very little, yet it was all familiar. And the scene I remembered most vividly - the human-sized mouse turning back into a real animal in the underground cave sequence - where was it? It never happened. And just as entire seasons of Troughton's Doctor Who have been erased in solid form, so they are being erased in the memories of those who saw it.

Incidentally, mum has the same reaction to Escape to Witch Mountain. She has minimal interest in watching Doctor Who, but keeps harassing me about a particular episode which she recalls through the same creepy childhood mist. Her predominant memory is of corridors, dark corridors in a military base - although she did recall enough for us to track down the only one it could be. "The Singing Ringing Tree" is another one often associated with childhood trauma. And I'm sure you have your own. But I stray from my point, which was that in absence of a solid version, our own ideas start to influence the story as it exists.

Robert Rodriguez plays with it in Planet Terror by deliberately inserting a "Missing Reel" card, then jumping to twenty minutes later in the movie with no explanation. Characters have been killed or injured, buildings damaged, whole situations changed. Tarantino, in one of the many pre-Grindhouse interviews, describes a film he saw when this actually happened, and which he was always dying to know. Eventually, with fame, time and cash, he managed to dig one up - and it wasn't half as interesting as the speculation. It happened with "Tomb of the Cybermen", which people raved about for years as the lost gem of Doctor Who - a real classic. Then it was found, and everyone discovered it was really rather ordinary after all. It led to a pretty effective quip on Tachyon TV webzine, "The BBC have found Episode 7 of The Daleks Masterplan. However, it's so embarrassing they've wiped it again." In another place they suggest: "The BBC have announced that the final three episodes of the new Doctor Who series will be destroyed before they are even transmitted. A BBC statement said: "For the fans who complain that the series isn't as good as it was in the 60's and 70's, we will be wiping the final three episodes as soon as they leave the edit suite. This way fans can debate whether they were ever any good or not for years". Losing things gives them an epic status - and this is because memory takes over.

I warned you I had a hangup about this. People often refer to these times as a "throwaway lifestyle" - temporary communications through email, temporary fame through TV or the web, using items designed for temporary use. What no one points out is that now we're saving more than ever before. Take your favourite DVD - chances are it'll have deleted scenes, maybe even a blooper reel. You can order Through the Dragon's Eye on video - other vigilantes have copied their copies, and buy them through eBay. Day of the Daleks has survived, been released by the BBC, and so my mum can resolve her bizzare memories. Amazon, ebay and the rest allow you to contact people who have what you look for - myriad file formats, and the technology to muck around with them in the home gives us a greater flexibility. Look at those 60s Doctor Who fans, who recorded the episode as best they could with an audio tape recorder and a microphone - creating the only surviving evidence. We can record onto video, Skybox, a HDD player, transfer it to DVD, download it off the iPlayer or even, for those of flexible moral standards, various illegal methods of preservation. In the medieval times, few people were rich enough to have books - they were rare luxuries, which had to be hand copied at great expense. Ever seen medieval chained libraries - like something out of Harry Potter- where the books are in heavy wooden boxes, literally chained to the shelves to preserve them? How many books do you have in your house? We have the National Film archive, and a library under the British Museum with a copy of every book ever written. The BBC have even apologetically set up a detailed tribute website so you can reconstruct what's gone, and Blue Peter are offering a life sized Dalek to anyone who can return missing footage.

In such an atmosphere, its unlikely anything will be lost in quite the same way as Metropolis was. And after sinking into a well of despair halfway through, maybe there is some comfort to be found in Arcadia.

"oh Septimus - how can you bear it? All the lost plays of the Athenians!
Two hundred at least by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides - thousands of
poems - Aristotle's own library brought to Egypt by the noodle's ancestors?
How can we sleep for grief?"

"By counting our stock. Seven from Aeschylus, seven from Sophocles, seventeen from Euripides, my lady!"

Because this isn't a record of all the things a careless human race has misplaced, or "put in a safe place" - it's an expression of joy that something has been saved. The rest of Metropolis! Pray, O desparate movie buffs, pray that unlike "Tomb of the Cybermen" it was as truly worth recovering as everyone has always hoped. And now I'm going to watch some celebratory Through the Dragon's Eye...

My IMDB top 250 - part one

It's a long time since I printed out a copy of the top 250 and stuck it on my wall. Three years later (maaaan, this blog is old!), at 121/250, I have seen almost exactly half. Frustratingly, of course, films drop on and off the list - I'm sure both 12 monkeys and Butch Cassidy used to be here - but no matter.

So here's an analysis of the ones I haven't seen -

Initially, just as a prompt to get me writing - but now its more of a mission statement, a review of things to see over the summer. And a confession - yes, I have STILL not seen Kane...

1. The Godfather (1972)
2. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
3. The Godfather: Part II (1974)
4. Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966)
5. Pulp Fiction (1994)

6. Schindler's List (1993) - longtime readers will be aware of my pathological dislike of real life tragedy. I like to be troubled, I like to be disturbed - but only in a Tideland-y sort of way. I understand this film is brilliant, and if the chance to see it ever arises maybe I'll give in. But I'm not going out of my way to thoroughly spoil my evening. Selfish attitude? The truth.

7. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) - I didn't realise this was quite this high. In any case, its one I'm really looking forward to still. Insanity floats my boat; so does rebellion against conformity and institutions. Jack Nickleson is one of the "great actors" I still haven't got around to. Plus, my mother thought it was a "distasteful" film, or "very nasty" or something like that - and that's normally a good indication that I'll enjoy.

8. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
9. Casablanca (1942)
10. Star Wars (1977)
11. 12 Angry Men (1957)
12. Shichinin no samurai (1954)
13. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
14. Goodfellas (1990)

15. Rear Window (1954) - much like Schindler's Ark, I know this film isn't going anywhere. I'm not excited - bad experience with Vertigo and the first half of Psycho has put me off Hitchcock's psyce- dramas. Although 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes were a lot of fun. One day, it'll be on TV or cheap in Oxfam. Until then, I can wait.

16. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

17. Cidade de Deus (2002) - Hypocracy is the spice of life. Forget anything I ever said about avoiding harrowing real life dramas - this is one I'm looking forward to. I've heard a lot about the atmosphere - y'know, sweaty and raw, untrained actors, the crew almost getting linched by local gangsters. Looking forward to an excuse to see it.

18. C'era una volta il West (1968)
19. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
20. The Usual Suspects (1995)

21. Psycho (1960) - Watched the first half of this in film studies, and boy it was tedious. We got as far as the shower, but I wasn't inspired to watch on. Half a year later, on a school trip, we had just checked into our hotels after the longest day (we'd been up at three AM for a coach to Paris, then a flight over the Atlantic, then another internal flight, then another coach. Eventually, we were up for a full 24 hours) - at this point we had been up for maybe 20 hours straight. So I found the classic movies channel, and put it on as background noise. Turned out it was Psycho, and I suddenly got really fond of it. Hey, I was homesick, I was entertaining visits from others in our group (our hotel room was acutally a five room suite, so people kept coming up to ogle), and besides - I thought Norman Bates was great. Plus, my roomate began her shower at exactly the wrong moment...much like the above, I'm not actively looking for it, but I am now willing to sit it through to the end.

22. Fight Club (1999)

23. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)- did I ever tell you Kubrick was God? He never appears on my favourite directors lists, but he'd be near the top of my top 20 if pressed. This is one of the few I haven't seen - or rather, seen all of. Our history teachers let us watch the first half as a treat after finishing our Cold War studies. I loved it, tho I assume everyone else would have preferred Friends or Finding Nemo. All I need is an oppertunity. In fact, I'll get it out next time I go to the library...

24. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) - I've never been enthusiastic about this. Much like the Third Man, i feel a viewing would be marred by the "join the dots" spoilers. So for The Third Man, once you've got past Vienna-zither-ferriswheel-feet in the door - hands in the grate, you already feel you know it too well. Now actually, that's rubbish - there's so much more to that film, and all the famous bits are in the last ten minutes. But still, they can keep their chianti for now. Jodie Foster doesn't interest me, neither does Anthony Hopkins. Plus, my mother reckons it's still too unpleasant for me. And while I don't stick rigidly to my parents recommendations, I figure there's no harm in this one.

25. Citizen Kane (1941) - ah, dear old Kane - the bane of my life and butt of my every joke. I really need to see this film before I mock it into a corner it can't get out of. But there's nothing worse than watching The Greatest Film Of All Time while trying to watch it with a blank slate and fresh approach. In actual fact, I have seen it - back on a Saturday afternoon, barely recalled from childhood. Tragically, the true identity of Rosebud is all I remember.

26. North by Northwest (1959) - I've already expounded my feelings on Hitchcock. Some classic movies feel as fresh and modern as the day they were made - Some like it Hot, Casablanca, the Third Man. Some should have stayed in the 50s. Until you try it, you never know; but I can't help but feel a weariness when approaching them.

27. Sunset Blvd. (1950) - this film is an entirely unknown quantity. With the exception of "alright, I'm ready for my close up", and a passionate rendition of the musical's title song by John Barrowman, I know nothing. There's a fine line between knowing too much, and knowing enough to whet the enthusiasm.

28. Memento (2000)
29. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
30. It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
31. The Matrix (1999)

32. Se7en (1995) - Friend 3 is dead excited about seeing this, and in celebration of her 18th birthday bought it, Usual Suspects, Fight Club, Smoking Aces and a few other things she hadn't been allowed last week. I hope to borrow it off her - I need to lend her History of Violence anyway.

33. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - much like Citizen Kane, I saw this through the same childhood mist. I remember a motorcycle crash (or was that Dam Busters?), and the attack on the train. It barely counts as having seen it though...

34. Apocalypse Now (1979)
35. Taxi Driver (1976)
36. American Beauty (1999)
37. Léon (1994)
38. Vertigo (1958)

39. American History X (1998) - I caught the middle 20 minutes of this the day my sister broke her thighbone. We were up late, waiting for news from the hospital. It depressed me. Not the leg, that was very upsetting of course; I mean the movie. Ed Norton is always worth a watch, but to be honest racism pisses me off more than it makes me feel sad or sympathetic, and irritable isn't a good way to watch a movie. Plus, it was nasty, but not in a movie-OK way. Despite that, the black-and-white cinematography was very eyecatching - and I did only catch the middle on a day already stressful, so I am willing to give it a fairer trial.

40. Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, Le (2001)


41. Paths of Glory (1957) - more Kubrick. Am I excited? You can blummin bet I am...

42. The Departed (2006) - incidentally, I'm impressed to see this here. Current movies always get onto the list - few stay for long.

43. M (1931) - Boy am I excited about this. As mentioned above, there's nothing more exciting than discovering a movie classic is as raw and terrifying as anything produced by the modern world. I don't know, I haven't seen it. But I have seen Metropolis, and that more than earnt its stature as great. And people say great things.

44. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) - ugh. Well maybe that's unfair - I had that reaction to reading the book, and turns out that's fantastic (who knew?). So maybe I should give this a go. But I feel the same sort of safe tedium about it expressed above about North by Northwest. Plus, after loving Gregory Peck so much as morally grey Mallory in Guns of Navarone, I'm not sure I could go back to seeing him as whiter-than-white Atticus Finch.

45. A Clockwork Orange (1971)

46. Chinatown (1974) - this is now very, very high on my list of must-sees. Partly because I know there is a killer twist, without knowing what it is - a very rare state for me and a high-profile movie. But also because its a gangster classic, and I'm swiftly running out of those.

47. Alien (1979)
48. The Third Man (1949)


49. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - I recognise the name - but this is the first film on the list I couldn't tell you anything about. Actors? Plot? I kinda assume it's a boys own adventure, but was it a western? Or set in the war? Or was that Maltese Falcon? uncertainty is a wonderful thing.

50. Leben der Anderen, Das (2006)
51. Forrest Gump (1994)
52. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)


53. The Shining (1980) - are all Kubrick's films on the list? Well, sans Eyes Wide Shut (probably). In any case, I am actively avoiding this. I just can't do scary movies, any scary movies; scary movies that scare even hardened horror fans are one place I refuse to go. Kubrick or no.


54. Double Indemnity (1944) - oooooh, noir! Fun fun fun...


55. The Pianist (2002)
56. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
57. Laberinto del fauno, El (2006)
58. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
59. Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)

60. L.A. Confidential (1997) - I almost got my sister to see this yesterday. She is (guffaw) attempting the top 1001 film list, which is hilarious to me personally. Her plan to watch one a day is even more failed than mine - she's watching Wimbledon instead. The list is covered with films which she's refused to watch over the last two years. I came over with a craving to watch this, she agreed - because it was on the list. But I bottled out - she said "shall we watch it?" with such a sense of tedium I knew she wouldn't take in a word. It's about enjoying them, not ticking them off a list. Right?

61. Requiem for a Dream (2000) - my interest in this was first triggered by the theme's use in the LOTR: Two Towers trailer. Even though it has been overused in trailers since, I advise you to check it out because its a very exciting piece of work. I actually thought we had this recorded off the TV - apparently not. I'm still looking out for it though.


62. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
63. Aliens (1986)
64. Reservoir Dogs (1992)
65. Boot, Das (1981)


66. The Maltese Falcon (1941) - no, this is the boys-own WWII adventure, which makes Sierra Madre the western, right? Right? It hurts being unfamiliar with great films - and a trip to IMDB points out it is actually a film noir (oops...) Where Eagles Dare was the one I had in mind. At least I got one right...

67. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) - its funny that the sequal always gets the honours - it doesn't happen with many films. Even the Alien, Godfather and Star Wars franchises have the decency to praise both parts one and two. I'm not desperately excited about this.

68. Untergang, Der (2004)


69. There Will Be Blood (2007) - ugh, sounds a bit worthy for me. Plus, despite the attractive promise in the title, I can't help but recall it was also the tagline for Saw II.

70. No Country for Old Men (2007) - on the other hand, the Coens are always worth a watch, and I couldn't be more excited about this. Plus, Friend 3 got it for her birthday...

71. Raging Bull (1980) - Scorcese is one of the greats, I get it. I don't get him, though - I recognised Goodfellas was great, but didn't feel it; I did love The Departed; again, Taxi Driver bounced off without changing my life. I refused to see The Aviator and, just like my mother, Age of Innocence may still be his greatest achievement. I am still excited about Casino, and particularly Mean Streets. But Raging Bull sounds so unpleasantly downbeat. Plus, I am still confused as to the absolute godhead of de Niro. He was impressive in the end of Heat, but I'm missing the point somewhere.

72. Rashômon (1950) - I'm definitely willing to give this a spin. My contact with Seven Samuri was...completely underwhelming, in two words. I didn't even, as with Taxi Driver, recognise why it was great without feeling it on an emotional level. So I'm keen to give Kurosawa a second chance; and the multiple viewpoint device interests me.

73. Metropolis (1927)
74. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

75. Modern Times (1936) - watching Chaplin is just one of those things I'll get around to in time.

76. Rebecca (1940) - no. Nonononononono. I read this recently as part of my deluded quest to finish the "1001 books to read before you die", and adored it. Particularly Max, and particularly the central deed of the novel. Now while I'm sure Mr Master of Suspense does a great job of presenting the claustrophobia and "haunting" of a dead woman, that doesn't change the fact that someone has changed the facts within the novel. This central deed has been made accidental instead of horribly deliberate, removing one of the major things I loved. Plus, who could make Rebecca in black and white? Granted they had no other option, but when I remake it (and I hope you will buy a ticket, for all the critics will compare it unfavourably with the original) it will make full use of colour schemes. It's one of the most coloured books I have ever read...rant over.

77. Sin City (2005) - I wanted to see this when it came out for the style, and I'm still keen to. I haven't quite worked out how yet - it won't come on TV, I don't want to buy it and I can't get my parents involved - dad thought it was terrible (not enough intelligent plot), and I can guess my mum's reaction. Plus, I'm keen to get going on the graphic novel too - I'm devouring the local library's collection at a terrific rate.

78. Singin' in the Rain (1952)
79. Amadeus (1984)

80. Hotel Rwanda (2004) - you know my feelings on this I'm sure. My favourite Africa movies are Zulu and Out of Africa - buddy adventure and sweeping romantic triumph. Genocide? Oh wonderful. However good it is, you'll have a trick pursuading me to watch it.

81. Some Like It Hot (1959)

82. All About Eve (1950) - my entire knowledge of this film comes from my co-blogger Catherine, who blogged it for the Film that Changed my Life blogathon. Even though I'm always lazy with recommendations, nevertheless I intend to jump at it the first chance I get. I'm assured by her enthusiasm that it won't be a tedious classic, and that its bite will have survived into the 21st C.

83. Vita è bella, La (1997) - English class - and five people were late. 15 minutes late. When they fell in through the door (and falling is the only word to describe it) they were all clutching kleenexes, red eyed and snuffling miserably. They had been studying Holocaust movies in Drama, and this was my introduction to Life is Beautiful. Yes, I'll watch it, OK? Are you happy now?

84. The Prestige (2006)
85. The Great Escape (1963)

86. The Elephant Man (1980) - not even a film I've ever thought about. I know its good, but apart from that I neither know nor care about it.

87. City Lights (1931) - more Chaplin. I remember being recommended this film a lot in a circle from a few years back. Much like Modern Times, I'm not going to run out and go looking, but I'm willing to watch.

88. Sjunde inseglet, Det (1957)
89. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
90. Jaws (1975)
91. On the Waterfront (1954)

92. Touch of Evil (1958) - this is another one which sends me scurrying to IMDb to confirm it's the Orson Welles noir. Now I'm looking forward to this - because its noir, and I want to enjoy something Welles-y which isn't on the same pedestal as Kane.

93. The Sting (1973)

94. Once Upon a Time in America (1984) - Sergio Leone, oh yeah! Gangsters! New York! 3 hours...nah, its definitely worth it. Even though de Niro again makes me feel slightly less enthusiastic.

95. Blade Runner (1982)

96. The Apartment (1960) - um Jack Lemmon and Billy Wilder? Well, Some Like it Hot was awesome - and Billy Wilder was on Empire's top 20 directors list (two years ago it was my mission to see one by every director - I'm still missing Sam Peckinpah and Orson Welles. I've got Woody Allen completely covered now...) So just give me the oppertunity.

97. Nuovo cinema Paradiso (1988) - I know exactly what to expect from this film - which is nice. And on a day when I feel like unashamed sepia nostalga, I'll go running for it. I love the music in any case.

98. Braveheart (1995) - there's a flipside to "knowing what to expect" of a film. I know exactly what's coming from this film, and I'm already bored. Still, it'll be fun to see Patrick McGoohan stretch his hammy-evil muscles as King Ed.

99. The Great Dictator (1940) - look, more Chaplin! Gee, I hope I enjoy the first one I watch, cos otherwise I'll be stumped for the others...

100. Strangers on a Train (1951) - Friend...actually, she doesn't have a number. In any case, a good friend with excellent taste recommended this to me. I enjoyed Hitchcock's other train film (The Lady Vanishes), and I'm definitely ready for this.


OK, running out of time for Easy Rider. It's a sad state when you would rather write about film than watch film. But I can't help myself - watching classics depresses me. Catch you later.

Brideshead Regurgitated

Go and see Speed Racer. Take your kids. And your pets. And your next-door neighbours

Ahem. Sorry, I'll stop dribbling and try to write coherently.

9 years ago, the collective human jaw crashed to the floor a few minutes into this little action movie known as The Matrix, as the camera spiralled around a hovering Carrie Anne Moss. I was only 9 at the time, so by the time I saw it the wow factor had worn off.

What very few people noticed is the anime influence. It certainly never struck me until I saw the Animatrix, discovered the Wachowski's love for the whole...is it fair to call anime a genre? A movement? In any case, they adore it, and the concept behind bullet time was merely what anime had been doing for years - hero leaps up into a pose and pauses before delivering a killer blow. All they did was translate it into three dimensions and you have it, instant cool.

I knew it was based on an anime series, but I was amazed how faithful it was. Not to the story - I never followed Mahha GoGoGo, but the style. Particularly the way heads move past each other in dialogue.

I just wish I had more courage in my convictions to say outright that its the most brilliant original movie made since whenever. It's easy to dismiss this as a kids film, and believe me your 8-year-old boys will love it. But that's not quite the point - this is the movie Kill Bill wanted to be, a gleeful pastiche of a much loved genre. But where QT failed, the Wachowski's succeed: in filling the audience with their enthusiasm. It's still sufficiently childlike to entertain the nippers, but stylistically, it looks like the most expensive episode of Power Rangers ever.

So please, go see Speed Racer ready to experience deliberately obvious characters in the midst of an offbeat masterpiece. It's not even style over substance - the substance is a level clever than it had to be - and go see it at the biggest cinema you have. You're lucky - your local doesn't have 9 seats in a row at its widest point. There were two other people in the cinema besides us, they were at the back, we were at the front and there were only 20 rows between us.



But lets talk about the real reason we went to see Speed Racer - Matthew Fox, the artist formerly known as Jack from LOST. The irritating doctor to those of you who switched off in the first series. Remarkably, his acting has visibly improved across the series - he's starting to plough some impressive emotional depths, and increasingly looks like the only one who'll get off the island with a career. He was good in this. The last Film I Watched With My Sister Because It Had Matthew Fox In was We are Marshall - see this post for what I thought of that slushfest - which was the utter antithesis of this. It was obvious; this is knowingly obvious. It was boring. This is pretty damn exciting, and I don't mean loud music and car crashes - I mean visually exciting, thrilling direction. You ain't seen nothin like it.

Unless you're an anime fan. When you ain't seen nothin like it...in three dimensions.



PS - Doing a bit of investigation into the new Brideshead Revisited movie. The prospect is bleak. As a fan of the book, and the tv series, it has some work to do in my estimation. Hell, I've een been seen to complain that the series (a virtually word perfect adaption) cuts my favourite line
from, the book!




I don't object in principle - after all, Pride and Prejudice also made a good book, then a good perfect BBC adaptation, then a good two hour movie with all the dross chopped out. There's a lot of Brideshead that could go, but the difficulty is that it's ALL dross. They eat dinner. They drive. They talk. If you're looking for plot, then frankly there ain't none. Once you start cutting, its hard to know what to keep.


Brideshead is a story in two acts, and inevitably the movie intends to focus on the less interesting, less subtle and frankly, less romantic relationship between ordinary bod Charles and Julia Marchmain than betwee Charles and her brother Sebastian. Think Brideshead - think teddies, Oxford and strawberries on the lawn! All doomed to the big bad world of cut. pparently they're removing the references to catholicism, which is really ripping the guts out of the novel. Without lingering in spoiler territory, it'll put Julia's motivation entirely oput of whack.

Brideshead is also a story of a life. People drift in and out, Charles gets a lot older. The Julia relationship takes place when they are both in the middle of it. Inevitably, they'll rocket it into his youth so the actors can remain pretty, which will again change the focus and feel of their eventual coming together.



I don't want to damn it automatically. They could still make a good story out of it, even if it ain't whats on the page. But it won't be Brideshead, at which point they could easily twist their desired rewrite into a totally new film. Mind you, marketing and distribution and all, tying it into a recongised concept will increase its appeal. But not by much - because the Brideshead lovers are into period drama anyway, and thus you won't expand your audience by much.



Lets look at the official guff:

"A provocative and suspenseful drama, “BRIDESHEAD REVISITED” tells an evocative story of forbidden love and the loss of innocence set in the pre-WWII era. i.e. it wants to be the new Atonement. This line gets up my nose bigtime. There is no suspense, its far too sedate a story for that. I don't know what they mean by provocative; probably the same thing as evocative, a film which moves you, just like every other film ever made. That's production company double speak. I don't get what's so forbidden about it either. Loss of innocence is arguably the best descriptor.


In the film, Charles Ryder becomes entranced with the noble Marchmain family, first through the charming and provocative Sebastian Flyte, and then his sophisticated sister, Julia. The rise and fall of Charles’ infatuations reflect the decline of a decadent era in England between the wars. That's much better. Oh how I wish that was the film they are making, as it sums it up wonderfully. Academy Award-winner Emma Thompson co-stars as Lady Marchmain. No I don't think so. No please. The film, based on Evelyn Waugh’s acclaimed novel is adapted for the screen by multiple BAFTA Award-winner Andrew Davies who did pretty much any BBC adaptation you can name and Jeremy Brock and directed by Julian Jarrold."





Now for the poster:

I like the dramatic placement of Lady Marchmain - even though this was probably just to get their biggest star, Emma Thomson, on the poster, she's a key character and well suited to the "overshadowing villain" position here. Unfortunately, I can forsee her standing in the way of the "forbidden love" mentioned before, which'll be a pity - her damaging effect is so much more subtle and realistic in the book. I also like them featuring Brideshead itself - it's a cornerstone of the book, an important character in its own right. Obviously the three pretty leads are playing "spot the love triangle" in the corner, but it works.

But you know my low quip about it wanting to be Atonement (ironic for a book which clearly itself wanted to be Brideshead at times, with the fountain and tiled floors)? What colour is Julia wearing? What colour is the word "revisited"? Yes, its the same shade as that stunning and iconic dress sported by Keira Knightly in all the publicity. Clearly gunning for your subconscious!

The tagline reads: "Privilege. Ambition. Desire. At Brideshead, everything comes at a price." Two minds. On the one hand, I hate it for being so obvious, so American, so everything that the book isn't. It sounds like the characters will be striving for those things, aiming at complete hedonism. They're not - the tragedy is that they're born into the privilege. On the other, aside from the wretched clichedness, it does sum up the themes pretty well. Change it to "Privilege, Love and Catholicism" and I'd be happy (because it is love, not desire, even though love doesn't sell as well as sex these days)

Rating: PG-13 for some sexual content. Because even period dramas don't sell unless someone takes their clothes off.

And now for the trailer. This could be the deal breaker. Like a watched pot, a watched youtube buffering bar never boils.

Pardon me, wiping the vomit off the carpet. What was that?! It was all going so well. It was very bizzare seeing the well loved Castle Howard inhabited by a new generation of flapper dresses and cravats, very odd indeed. As such, it was quite bizzare to see other actors in the roles. I'm not a complete Brideshead obsessive, you realise; I didn't expect to feel this facet of a new adaptation would feel so troubling. It looks like the catholicism is back on the bill, for which I am thankful. As predicted, the whole time frame has been shrunk - Julia is going to Venice, and any relationship there will be taking place while the actors are young and gorgeous. It looks like they'll deal with the sexual ambiguity of the Charles/Sebastian relationship, probably making it more overt (in the book, it's never stated that they are more than friends, even though there is a troubling transfer of platonic affection from Sebastian to proper passion for his sister, who it is often stated looks very similar. For me, the most satisfying reading is that he and Sebastian are in love of a kind, but not one that's ever stated. i.e. I feel ambiguity is best.)

The grot set in when they called Evelyn Waugh's masterpiece an "acclaimed" novel, which for me is a bit like saying Shakespeare was a fairly good writer. Acclaimed may suit for a modern little known novel, but it feels odd here.

And then they start frantically cutting like it's the most exciting thriller ever, giving away half the plot, and what a plot it is! They've turned Charles and Julia into Cecelia and Robbie as far as I'm concerned. After all this meandering and mulling over the various possibilites and trying to be even handed, I'm not sure I'd get to the end of the film. Not sure I'd get to the end of the trailer for a moment here.

It was inevitable that there would be chopping. But why introduce entirely new elements? It's a powerful story alone. Charles is seduced by the lifestyle, but he's not a social climber. Like I said above, making things which are subtle more obvious and cheap. And as for engaging Julia against her will? Perlease. She's barely a maiden fair being carried off by a villianous monster.

All in all, maybe this is one I'll have to miss. And make myself one day, and properly. I'd quite like to see the movie in the first half of the trailer, that looks OK. But from 1:44 onwards, things go downhill. They're trying to churn drama out of an entirely undramatic book. The joy of Brideshead Revisited is the sublety, but they have to make everything so horribly obvious.

PPS - Boycott Heinz Sandwich Spread! It's too creepy. You note it's not "tomato spread" or "chicken spread". Nope, it's "Sandwich Spread", to distinguish it from all those spreads you don't put on sandwiches. Lets see what it's described as: "A tangy cruchy spread". Oh look, it spreads. Ingredients? Well, whatever they are, they're tangy and crunchy. Dead mice perhaps? Finally, the serving suggestion - and this is the idiot-proof bit. "Heinz Sandwich Spread is a perfect addition to any sandwich".

Er, thanks. Naturally. NOW BAN THIS SICK SPREAD!

WHAT IS PAST IS PROLOGUE

Hello, reader. I want to play a game...

Last night I watched what can only be one of the most brilliantly exciting films ever made, and I want you to guess what it is.

What dya come up with? The Matrix? Die Hard? Run Lola Run? Something with explosions. Probably not three hours of exposition in smoky rooms, and a murder mystery without a real conclusion.

I'll give you another clue. I voted it best film two years ago on the strength of the first three quarters alone - we had neglected to video further than Donald Sutherland's appearance - and have been hanging on tenterhooks since. Ironically enough, the DVD cut out about ten minutes before this point, just as Joe Pesci shouts “I’ll tell you who shot the president!”. But we gave it a wipe, and glared at the player, and after that it worked just dandy.

I don’t think I can rate JFK highly enough. Forget the politics, I’ve got no opinion there: just look at the skill with which it is told.

Stand up editing team. A lot of films don't make it obvious what an editor does - the Coens edit their own films, under pseudonyms, thus making it an extension of the writing/directing process. The same goes for M. Night, who meticulously storyboards everything. Well, folks, watch this film to learn.

Take the opening sequence, presented as a series of genuine pieces of footage. It allows us to suspend our disbelief when, a few minutes later, we get the montage of what happened on The Day Itself, presented as real. The editing comes so fast, we can hardly identify what is real and what has been reshot for the movie. Throughout the film, they play constantly with the images on screen in this way. What of the dinner conversation inexplicably, brilliantly intercut with the faking process of a key photo.

Part of the brilliance is surely also down to Gary Oldman, and his great talent for invisibility. He vanishes into his role, creating the seamless illusion that genuine footage is being used.

The same goes for sound. Listen out for geese in the background during Joe Pesci’s first interrogation, as he lies about the supposed hunting exposition. Even John William’s music is exactly where it belongs in this one – supporting, and only really breaking out for the court room brilliente at the end.

In fact, the only weak part of the movie was Sissy Spacek, playing Default Movie Wife #4 - but that's hardly her fault, because there's not much new you can do with "honey, I just don't understand your genius, so why not come back to me and the kids". It would be wrong to overlook the human cost of his quest entirely, but putting in a character who is trying to prevent our hero (and thus the audience) from reaching his goal is normally known as a villain. You wouldn't be watching if you didn't want to know, and thus her role is frustrating.

So what of the evidence? Well, there’s no denying it’s very well presented. For all its layers, this is not a hard film to follow. As for its accuracy, Oliver Stone has released an annotated edition 0f the script with all his claims backed up.

I’ve always thought there was something fishy, and it’s not so much Kennedy’s death as everyone else. We know they were planning to scrub Castro. In that period, Martin Luther King, Marilyn Monroe and Robert Kennedy also died under odd circumstances. This cumulative heap of connected and influential assassinations is the thing that’s always made me suspicious, and I was happy to see this touched on in the film. It’s particularly the Sirhan Sirhan affair, where the lone assassin gets off 18 rounds without reloading, supposedly in a gun only holding 8.

Did you ever read fanfiction? Seriously don’t, it erodes your mind and makes your brain trickle out of your ears. Occasionally there’s a good piece, but it’s mostly tripe. Did you ever meet the concept of slash fiction? It always comes to mind when people start “proving” conspiracies, because if you want something to be true, chances are you’ll find some evidence for it. I call it “slash logic”, going from 1 to 3 without going via 2 in the middle, or even considering 4. “I think Butch Cassidy is in love with the Sundance Kid, here’s a scene that features a little possible evidence, thus they are in love, no other explanation.” Or, did you ever take a class in English literature? Point, Evidence, Explanation. I’ve got a quote from Dracula, I can make it mean whatever I like. Give it a feminist spin, and we can read Mina as the strong woman trapped with a weak, impotent Johnathan. Or alternately, it’s all about men subduing the fairer sex, which is why they are so keen for the freedom Dracula represents. Is he the threat of syphilis, or of hidden desires, or of breaking away from society, or covert homosexuality (in which case, through close reading, it can be proved our Bram was both pro- and anti-); or is he, like a Marxist article I sat through once, “The capital which, after lying “buried” for twenty long years of recession, rises again to set out on the irreversible road of concentration and monopoly… his ambition is to subjugate the last vestigies of the liberal era and destroy all forms of economic independence”. Or is it just a damn monster book?

For me, this little story about AIDS defines the conspiracy theory. Supposedly, it’s a manmade virus engineered to wipe out blacks and gays – it was distributed with vaccinations using the World Health Organisation as a front. Someone has found their evidence, matching the start of the spread of AIDS with the cities in which this vaccination was given out (think the end of 12 Monkeys). Like all the best theories, it relies on an unsubstantiated coincidence – indeed, an unsubstantiatable coincidence, which can never be proved, nor wholly disproved – and an idea that is just mad enough to be true. And like all the best, if it is true, the world is suddenly a far scarier place to live.

Anyone here see Loose Change? It’s the American-Government-Caused-9/11 movie, a sort of 20 minute JFK-style analysis of evidence, proving among other things the Pentagon was not hit, and Flight 93 did not crash. I haven’t seen it; my sister has, and at the time she was very convinced. The word proving is used lightly here. As the Dracula example, “prove” is a relative term. The truth is not out there. There’s no such thing as truth at all.

This is where conspiracy theories fall down for me personally. Kevin Costner tells his movie kids “the truth is a scary thing” and he’s damn right. On the one hand, sure we have a duty towards the dead, and to Justice. On the other, I don’t want to live in or know about a world where a government would actually do that to its people, be capable of covering it up, and all in the name of profit. Because like the AIDS thing, slash-logic means you can take whatever evidence you like, and make it mean whatever you like.

What were we discussing? Ah, JFK. Thankfully, it doesn’t fall into the realms of speculation so obviously. By making the bullet-thing the focus of the case, he escapes vague coincidence and sticks to what can be proved. At the same time, it doesn’t allow the film to forget that Garrison might be a paranoid nut after all. His tragedy is being able to deconstruct the lone-assassin theory with such skill, and prove something fishy was going on, while not coming up with a plausible alternative to blame. As soon as the film has to tackle who is responsible, it’s back to Dracula again, vaguely intoning the FBI-CIA-Mafia-Martian coalition had something to do with it. And the Cubans.

But sod all that – despite what it says about 2029 being the year the files will be released (aren’t you just itching for them to come out…), it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever get to the bottom of the facts. Instead, sit back, disengage your brain and politics, and enjoy a brilliant piece of filmmaking, be it fiction or fact. And it’s still the best film from two years ago.

Incidentally, with a cast including Donald Sutherland, Jack Lemmon, Tommy Lee Jones, Sissy Spacek, Kevin Costner, Joe Pesci, Gary Oldman, Martin Sheen (as voiceover) AND Kevin Bacon, this can only be the greatest six-degrees movie of all time.

How To Do A Special Feature

@ We are not interested in the producers. Ever. Nor are we interested in their casting agents, or "how the prowject came together." Too many special features are started off by a beardy producer intoning about his people phoning their people, and rights wrangling, and backstage legalese. Not only is it boring, it's rarely any different from any other film. Unless your film had its genesis in an insane or novel way, don't bother. This also extends to actors telling us how they got involved.

Sample Dialogue: "I was between projects when Bob -Robert Jenks, the producer - called me up, asked if I was available. Of course, I had worked with Bob the previous year on his Japanese prowject, so I knew they type of thing he had in mind. Well I got him to send the script down and I read it, and I think I was really attracted to the sense of scope..." e.t.c.

Key Culprit: Generally, any producer/director/actor who tells us how they got tied up in the film is likely to bore the socks off us straight away. Best bet is to avoid it entirely. I didn't get nto the end of The Guns of Navarone "Memories of Navarone" feature - I didn't even get past the beginning. I wrote this instead.

The one that gets it right: Just occasionally, there's more to an actor's hiring than agent wrangling. Tim Roth was cast to Reservoir Dogs on the strength of Tarantino liking his other films. They went out for lunch, the producer arrived and Mr Roth explained he'd really rather not audition. The producer was a little wary of this, but he left again in the hope QT might be able to get an audition out of him. They stayed in the bar, ordered a few more drinks, and a few more, and this continued until the pair got a lot more beer and went back to a flat. It was at this point - i.e. past midnight and completely inebriated - that an audition finally took place, with them reading the entire script through doing all the parts. Unless your casting process was this exciting, please don't tell us....

And another one: My beloved Memento special features will get a lot of time today. Did you know that Joe Pantoliano was deliberately chosen for his role because he typically plays so many bad guys. That way, the audience immediately distrusts him for no good reason.

@ No actor bullshit. Maybe you did have the greatest time on the set, and your co-actor Bob was lovely, a really class gentleman, and your director was a real visionary. But don't waste your time saying it, because half the time I don't believe you, and the other half I don't care. Even worse are actors who tend to star in a lot of these big-budget actioners, because they feel compelled to say nice things about every single one.

Key Culprit: The Mummy, or any other vaccum-packed commercial DVD. Heaven forbid they should suggest there was tension on the set! Even LXG papered over the cracks for their documentary, when a no-holds barred account of what went wrong would have been fascinating.

The one that gets it right: Apocalypse Now, with its somewhat belatedly released companion documentary, Hearts of Darkness, a 100% genuine picture of on set insanity.

@ Tell us about the story. Make the world larger. Days of work goes into the background detail of film - in Lord of the Rings, every paper in Saruman's tower is covered with properly translated Elven. When one of the prop guys added "Bob waz ere" in runes, it was swiftly removed to mainain the versimilitude of the sequence, just in case someone might be watching, might spot it and manage to translate it. The Special Feature gives you the opportunity to show us the things hours were spent on, but we missed on screen.

The one that gets it right: Did you know that Gaff's foregin conversation in Blade Runner is actually a language invented by the actor for the film, comprising words and expressions from Spanish, French, Chinese, German, Hungarian and Japanese? Nope, and you never would have without those handy special features.

And another one: The Memento uber-box is the greatest special feature achievement I've ever seen. Among the highlights is a gallery, which contains images of vital props - business cards, beer mats. Things like that make fans froth at the mouth.

@ When you interview your special effects guys, please don't sit them in front of an exciting bank of computer monitors, one of which reruns the same sequence of movie over and over again. It's really distracting. And give them a bath or something, they always look like depressing walking cliches of what a Special Effects Person should look like. Interview a girls or something, there must be some in the business...

@ Don't waste time on a script compared to storyboard. Has anyone ever paged through the entirety of these things on your DVD player? Why not focus on the interesting ones, or offer the whole thing as a PDF file?

@ Always make a documentary about your music, because I've never seen a bad one. A lot of people don't appreciate how much music contributes to a film, or the different ways instruments can be used. From the traditional orchestras of John Williams (works well in: Star Wars, dies in: Harry Potter), to the oddball electronics of Vangelis (works well in: Blade Runner pitifully bad idea in: Alexander), tell us what you're doing and why.

The one that gets it right: Lord of the Rings has an epic score befitting the film itself. There's a whole different sound pallate for each different culture within the world, with a selection of barmy instruments. Think that's a violin on the Rohan theme? It's actually a hardinger, an obscure Norse instrument. The extended edition soundtracks come with booklets detailing the lyrics of background choruses, and pointing out where themes and motifs are used.

And another one: Director M.N.Shyamalan claims he always makes sure the movie can work dramatically without music before adding it; hence Signs includes a sample of the most dramatic sequences of the film both with and without music.

And yet another one: Danny Elfman has a commentary on Planet of the Apes where he comments about his use of music. When he is not speaking, the film continues to run without sound, but with music. Its a fascinating watch.

@ Don't bother giving us free limited edition art cards. About three people in your audience will be insanely excited about them. The rest won't care.

@ The commentary should be a conversation between you and the audience, not you and your co-commentators. No reminicing unless it's really exciting (see: producers). Make what you're saying relevant to the screen - if you could say it as well in an interview, then what's the point. And pick your people wisely - never invite a producer, why not think about a writer.

Key culprit: Though the Reservoir Dogs commentary is intermittently interesting, instead of crowding their key players in front of a microphone, they've merely lifted soundbites from other interviews - and not very interesting ones at that.

The one which got it right: Kudos to the Memento bumperbox, which not only provides a facinating commentary from the director, but comes with a random ending. That way, if you listen to the commentary several times over, occasionally Mr Nolan will explain why a key character is lying, and other times why he is telling the truth. It renforces the uncertainty on screen.

@ Let writers have something to say. Writers are among the most interesting set, and yet they get the least screentime. Their part in putting scenes and characters together can be very revealing. They generally know what's meant to be going on.

The one which got it right: A Series of Unfortunate Events had a commentary by its author. Unfortunately, I have far too much respect for the internal fiction of the series that the author has created to actually listen to it, though I'm sure it would be facinating (Lemony Snicket, the name on the cover, is obviously a pen name, but within the series of stories Lemony himself becomes rather a vital character; so you see, the author has done his job too well for me to actually acknowledge his existance. Or I need to get more fresh air...)

And another one: Cache comes with an interview from writer/director Michael Haneke. After watching this bizzarely realistic drama, I floundered. Watching him explain his vision, and what had inspired him did not make me like the film any more, but I did appreciate it. Argue, if you like, that a film that needs to be explained has failed - but I felt far more satisfied after understanding what he had been trying to do.

@ Give the fans what they want. They bought your damn DVD, so reward them.

The one which got it right: I am still astounded by the amount of love which goes into the rereleased Doctor Who episodes. Frequent additions are: watch it music-only, watch it with more than one commentary, always involving the key players who you actually want to listen to, watch it with either the original cruddy effects or new lovingly restored CGI ones. Relevant episodes come with documentaries on specific characters, or PDF files of the Doctor Who annual for that year, or an episode of Blue Peter that might have featured the episode. They even give us a PDF copy of the TV listing from the week the episode was originally broadcast. Pointless, but brilliantly over-detailed. Someone somewhere really thinks of everything a fan might want to see.

The one which didn't: I recently fell in love with Miller's Crossing. So it really annoyed me to discover that my copy comes with "theatrical trailer, scene access, interactive menus and still gallery". My fault for not getting the bumper edition...

@ Deleted Scenes. There are only two excuses for them. The first is that the scenes are so good that they were worthy of being in the film. The second is to demonstrate the art of editing, and show why they were cut out. They should always be accompanied by a talk-track explaining why they had to go.

The one which got it right: Reservoir Dogs demonstrated both these qualities perfectly - the two major scenes are both brilliant in their own right, but if reinserted into the film, they pad out a tense section with backstory when you really just want to get back to the story.

And another one: Hot Fuzz's deleted scenes are more like deleted lines. They are not intrinsically great - but overall, they build up a great image of how to edit comedy. Every scene in that film has been cut within an inch of its life - anything even remotely flat has been removed, to make the remaining stuff funnier and keep the energy up.

@ Outtakes. I never watch them. I'd do without them entirely if it meant no one ever said this phrase to me again: "It's a really good film and the outtakes were really funny". Winds me up no end. Is that really the next thing you can say about it?

@ Interactive menus. Seriously, don't do it. Especially don't do it with music - otherwise, when you put the DVD in, you have to listen to the same clip overandoverandover again until you're ready to begin. It takes the menus longer to load. It means you have to watch the same snippets over and over again when flicking between other special features. And producers think it's acceptable to list "interactive menus" under the special features list if they haven't got anything better. Incidentally, when I made my movie, I had interactive menus. Because they're cool. But it doesn't mean you should...

Key Culprit: The Doctor Who DVDs always feature a repeating montage of clips, which is fine, except they invariably give the ending of the episode away. Completely pointless...

The one which gets it right: Lost's menus are animated, but cool. They have things like an image of the Hatch, which slowly turns from night to day; or a newly-filmed clip of the Others' camp where people just wander about in the distance. It's fun, spoiler-free and unobtrusive.

@ Don't bother with actor profiles. They're so old. Theatrical trailers are dull, but essential. The most interesting theatrical trailer ever was Spy Game, the slow paced meditative film we had just watched, including a trailer for Spy Game, the action-packed blockbuster they wanted to trick people into paying for.

@ Tell us something we don't know. We've just seen the film, so we are aware of whos in it and what happens. Gve us a featurette on the source novel. If it's Bond, or Dracula, give us one on the history of the character. If it's a period drama or historical, then tell us about what really happened. The script supervisor, the prop person, the fans.

Key culprit: Most of them. An example which annoyed me: Ed Wood is the story of the reputed worst director ever. It's all about B-movies and low-grade actors. It's screaming out for a documentary about the genre, about the cast of real life loons, about the man himself...(incidentally, Plan 9 From Outer Space fans, the real Vampyra has recently died. A moment please.)

The one that gets it right: Some of the rest. Blade Runner, who gave us a special on pretty much everything, included the fanbase, the original novel and the infamous "replicant" argument.

And another one: Singing in the Rain tells the story of actors who struggle to cope when sound came in. It is accompanied by a great feature on the end of silent film, with clips from The Jazz Singer and others of its ilk. It gives a background to the action that the cinematically-challenged may not have already known, as well as being interesting for the rest of us.

And another one: The Animatrix was, for many mainstream people, an introduction to the anime phenomenon - so they kindly packaged it with a very interesting documentary about the history of anime and manga for the uninformed.

@ Give us a suprise. The Prisoner had the Prisoner-spoof car advert. Reservoir Dogs had a certain key scene replayed with action figures. Shaun of the Dead included a scene from the contractually-obligated swear-free version of the film, with the oft-repeated offending word replaced (unconvincingly) with "funk". One token feature is always nice.

@ But not a ruddy easter egg. I recently saw a DVD which advertised "plus bonus easter egg!" on the back of the box like they'd just won a cookie. That completely defeats the point.

The one that gets it right: Doctor Who has recently used a DVD easter egg as a plot point within one of its episodes (it's called Blink- look it up - even if you hate the show, you'll love it.) The cool bit comes when they put the easter egg onto the boxset, as a hidden easter egg. It makes for very weird watching.

@ And finally. Something that will never change, that can't be helped. The people doing the talking. I generally don't have a problem with the American accent (and certainly nothing wrong with the country), but every now and then someone chats away who is horrible to listen to, and it goes up my spine every time the word "prodoocer" is used. And never refer to a character as "the Muir character". It's Nathan, or Muir, or Robert Reford, but never "the Muir character". It makes him sound like a chesspiece.

If heaven was a DVD Special Edition, it would be: Memento. Specials on the colour schemes, the characters, the source novel read out by the author, several contradictory commentaries, hundreds of galleries of interesting stuff, the script, the soundtrack, the works. Not to mention a version of the film in chronological order (incidentally, when watched properly Memento is a catchy little thriller - but put the scenes in the right place, and it is far more upsetting)

What makes this box so special is that it enhances your enjoyment of the film. You understand the film in a way you couldn't possibly before seeing all the thoughts which went towards making it. What are your ideal special features?

"STOP THIS DEBASING FILM"

Nothing gets my hackles up or piques my interest like censorship. And so i was pretty excited to see this screaming headline on the front of the Sunday Times:



MP's SHOCK AT VIOLENT NAZI FILM



To summarise the lengthy article AND editorial they dedicate to said violent Nazi film:


Films with graphic everything are being sold freely on high streets. The BBFC have just unbanned a clutch of violent films banned 20 years ago, including SS Experiment Camp, and "quietly put them on sale in high street shops". The BBFC claims sensibilites have changed since first banned. However, MPs want more power to appeal against the boards decisions. the prime minister is set to meet a committee to discuss tightening up rules against "video nasties" (incedentally, if this campaign goes anywhere, I'll be really upset, but at least there'll be some interesting news coverage). The MPs are concerned these films desensitise us - and they are particulary worried about extremely low budget 70s exploitation flick SS Experiment Camp, which they add are "being sold alongside family films at high street shops". If that comment isn't trying to stir us up, I don't know what is. Jewish groups are also worried that these films trivialise the suffering of Holocaust victims. They then give a few details about the film's content, cue wincing in middle class households all over the country. "Because it has an 18 certificate, it can be sold on the same shelves as U and PG certificate films"



Stop the press. This article has an agenda. Can't they just tell us the news as it is, instead of overdramatising. I'm not sure whether the author has ever seen this film - I've seen the DVD box in my local store, and I can guarentee you it was a long way away from the PGs.



It continues: thus film was approved by the director, present and two vice-presidents of the BBFC. A spokeswoman added this very level soundbite:

"there is nothing in this film which anyone should have concerns about. It does not include harmful sexual violence. If there was any concern about it, we wouldn'y classify it. It is tasteless, but then I find most Mel Gibson films tasteless. if you are upset by something, that is your personal take on this. We do not believe that anyone watching this title is going to become anti-semetic as a result. We accept that people are going to be offended by it, but it is not going to create an attitude towards Jewish women that is harmful".



Meanwhile, a private members bill (whatever that is...) supported by senior MPs from all parties is being introduced to challenge the release of these extreme films. Brazier claims the release of said film is "a clear case of the BBFC failing to protect the public". It is not clear whether or not he has seen the film. He does add that "half of all males think that forced sex is justified under some circumstances", which I can't believe. Dunno where he's getting his facts from. They then go on to talk about the various MPs who are trying to get this garbage bill through parliament, but it's convincing enough to worry me, and they end up by adding that it's the 63rd anniversary of Holocaust Memorial Day.



First reaction - shock. The idea of all these stiffs in suits proclaiming lofty death on a film they haven't seen annoys me.




The funny thing is, I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'd be the first to defend a Real Film against such charges (say, A Clockwork Orange...), but this is SS Experiment Camp we're talking about. Even the title feels tackily exploitative (be thankful it isn't well known under it's other name, Captive Women II: Orgies of the Damned, which is even more amusingly dire)

It isn't even pretending to be art - and while the BBFC can claim it won't actively harm people who watch it, you can't deny that wanting to watch it proves you are one of a very nasty element of young men. Or women, there's no accounting for taste.

This film gets right to the heart of the argument - how nasty should our TV be allowed to be? Lots of other, better films have side-factors which muddy the issue - "it's funny", or "ironic", or "artistic" or "making a point", and thus defensible because it is (on some level) art. SS Experiment Camp is indefensible on those grounds; this is a purely moral argument.

So, morality then. BBFC policy is that adults should be able to watch what they like, if it isn't likely to cause actual harm. I'm not sure anyone can disagree with that too strongly. I like having the right to see this film, but don't particularly want to - and I don't mind others seeing it, particularly if it's from the desire to watch some kitch trash. I myself am a fan of really bad music, found on one of my favourite sites, the Museum of Bad Album Covers.

There has never been a conclusive study as to the relationship between violent films and real life crime, and until there is, neither side can use statistics to conclusively back up how much harm these things are doing. (I recently heard a radio interview with a batty theory that violent films decrease the crime rate, because they attract the Young Male demographic, get them off the streets and away from the alchohol. The sceptical interviewer shot it down almost instantly by asking if crime rates go up during Finding Nemo...)

It is my opinion that violent media unlocks something already within us - if you are a normal, well adjusted citizen, then these things may give you bad dreams, but it won't turn you into a psycho. And if it does, it's not the film alone that did that - and it's just triggering something which was inside already, whether from childhood abuse, genetics, mental disorder, frustration at the world or whatever scientists feel violence stems from. And that could be set off by anything. I have no proof, but it seems to make a sort of sense. Certainly films influence our behavior - I myself am very guilty of this. I fall into a fictional world, and it takes me a long time to claw my way back out. I have to make a conscious effort not to swear too much after seeing a film where language is in the rhythm of the script, I feel my opinions on war or suchlike change in response, I try to dress like my heroes. But I've never felt, even for an instant, more angry or vicious - sometimes more alive, maybe - but never more likely to rob old ladies after than before. I'm not denying that media and fiction influence us - I'm saying they don't turn us into something new. To ban A Particular Film for the protection of the public is to suggest a significant proportion of those who view it will go nuts as a direct result.

My dad's seen Natural Born Killers. He's still sane.

The BBFC are perhaps being a little optimistic when they say that "there is nothing in this film that anybody should have any concerns about". There's a lot to be concerned about any film this exploitative. But then again, they've seen it - I haven't, and neither have half those MPs, if I know anything about these debates. Mary Whitehouse never saw the films she chased; our local authorities hadn't seen Natural Born Killers when they kept it out of local cinemas. Lets see what the BBFC, who have watched it, have to say:

"The content of the film is in fact very mild and poorly executed. If anything, it was the title of the film and its original packaging that led to difficulties, rather than the content. The idea of the film may, of course, be offensive to some but that is not a good enough reason to cut or reject it. We would only cut or reject a film for adults if the content was illegal or harmful. "SS Experiment Camp" is neither illegal or harmful, just tasteless."

Amend "offensive to some" to "offensive to almost everyone", and they've got a good point there. Lets have a look at a review from IMDB:

"SS Experiment Camp" is a very, very badly made film - those of us with a taste for extremely sick kitsch watch it for its ludicrous, campy sleaziness - for which we should be thankful. If it was a well-made film, it would be pretty impossible to watch without puking your guts up."

Of course, this argument is getting close to territory I don't want to go into - if they can pass SS Experiment Camp because it's so bad it doesn't matter, what about films which are well made and nasty? A few more gems from IMDB:

"Please, do avoid this garbage at all costs."

"This film was, like The Driller Killer, banned in the UK because of the cover art; and that's hardly surprising, as aside from the aforementioned transplant and a few sex scenes; there really isn't anything here to warrant banning, or seeking the film out for."

"I really didn't expect anything this depressingly awful." (this from a guy who's set himself the challenge of seeing every one of the DPP Video Nasty list)

"a total failure on every possible level.This film was banned in Britain as a video nasty,but it surely isn't as outrageous as many people claim.In fact it's pretty tame even by today's standards. "

"Well, it is sleazy and in highly dubious taste but the execution of the film is so amateurish and unrealistic that it really sounds a lot worse than it actually is."

"If you like the worst of the worst (Or is it the best of the best?) you simply have to check out the Nazisploitation genre. They will NEVER make movies like this again. Thank God."

I'm not just plucking quotes to support my point, this is the unanimous verdict of everyone on the board. Which makes me wonder, what has this film done to deserve front-page treatment. Or, have any of those MPs seen this film - no where in the article does it mention it being rubbish. Banning this would be like New Line sueing me and my buddies for our 45 min Lord of the Rings, technically a good and lawful move, but actually a thorough waste of time.

In light of the fact this film is, supposedly, so lousy, it strikes me that they are giving it more notoriety than it strictly deserves. I mean honestly, Jewish groups are worried. I'm sorry about the Holocaust, I really genuinely am, but do you think a piece of turd like this will politicise anyone against the Jews? Of course not - hopefully, anyone watching it will take it as the exploitative trash it is. I've no doubt that anti-semetic films get made which deserve their concern; I've also no doubt that they get banned just as promptly by the BBFC as something "likely to cause harm". This is in no way a "Nazi video", as claimed by the Sunday Times - IMDB reviewers note that the Nazi element is purely background setting for an otherwise irrelevent series of events which would be much unchanged set in a normal prison, or a mad scientist's lair.

I talked about this at my Cambridge interview. Perhaps that's why I didn't get in? I was given a passage from Ovid, a Roman poet who wrote rather racy love poetry for which he was eventually exiled. The section I was given had him complaining that it is not his fault if people read his stuff then misbehave:



"If I’m allowed to present it in order, I’ll show, below,
the mind can be harmed by every sort of poem.
Yet every book’s not guilty because of it:
nothing’s useful, that can’t also wound.
What’s more useful than fire? Yet whoever sets out
to commit arson, arms his bold hands with fire.
Medicine sometimes grants health, sometimes destroy it,
showing which plants are helpful, which do harm.
The robber and cautious traveller both wear a sword:
one for ambush, the other for defence.
Eloquence is learnt to plead just causes:
it protects the guilty, crushes the innocent.
So with verse, read with a virtuous mind
it’ll be established nothing of mine will harm.
But I ‘corrupt some’? Whoever thinks so, errs,
and claims too much for my writings."

That's a translation from latin, but despite the gap of years, the video nasty debate instantly sprung to mind. Here's a little more:

"Anything can corrupt a perverted mind:
everything’s harmless in its proper place."

I love Ovid for his timeless modernity - that he can say something so true about poetry in his own time that it is still relevant today. Incidentally, I heartily recommend Ovid's Amores 1:14 to all teen girls, in which he complains his mistress is destroying her beautiful hair by dieing and straightening it - "tortured by fire and steel", as he puts it. One brilliant line complains that her hair is now " it was not black, and nor yet was it golden, but, though of neither colour, it was mixed with both". I'm sure you know what that disaster looks like...

Or, as Oscar Wilde puts it, "Books are neither moral nor immoral. They are either well written, or badly written - that is all."

SS Experiment Camp plainly doesn't deserve the fuss - if anything, it deserves to be forgotten as "badly written", not condemned as "immoral". It's a storm in a teacup over cheap, cold tea.

Final word: the point of the BBFC is to censor films. They are doing an awesome job. Leave them alone. Banning this (again...) is unecessary, and it sets up a dangerous precedent - SS Experiment Camp is indefensible on its own merits, but if the BBFC give in to public pressure this time, how long will it be until the same calls are being made about a film which IS art? The idea of rules being tightened up instinctively leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

EXTERMINATE THE DIRECTOR...

I have, in the last few weeks, positively overdosed on Doctor Who. I've got some sixty years of episodes to catch up on, so have been doing very little else. As part of this, I got the...singular pleasure of watching Paul McGann's outing in the "Doctor Who movie".

There are a lot of “fan complaints” I could make about this film, ranging from the significant (hang on, how many Laws of Time get broken in this film?) to the picky (the Master as a growling buff American with sunglasses?) These myriad nitpicks would be of some significance if not for one, basic problem – this film is lousy from anyone’s point of view. It renders any serious debate about the story’s canonicity pointless – it’s just not worth the effort. It’s like kicking a puppy with rabies because you don’t like its colour.

You can argue that this 80 minute special is Doctor Who in a nutshell. Few fans could deny the endlessly repetitive nature of the show – Doctor arrives, in ten minutes the world is in peril, in thirty minutes the Doc works out what’s wrong, before solving it in the nick of time. Has anyone ever sat through them all and counted how many times he’s actually saved the universe this way? A good episode of Doctor Who should make you forget how unlikely this all is. This film dangles neon arrows, just in case you miss it.

The Doctor meets with peril instantly, the world gets into a ridiculous level of danger within hours (what exactly is the Master’s plan again? If he destroys everything, then what’s the point of more life?), and not only have we “only thirty minutes left!”, the film is set at the Millenium so EVERYONE else is counting down as well. Obeying conventions are good, but doing it so obviously hurts – not to mention that Hollywood has done this one so many times before, just thinking about it is dull.

It’s not just the plot which is so conventional, it’s stupid. The Companion’s job is simple – she should be schooled in the arts of shouting “Doctor!” and “What is it Doctor?!”, asking exactly what the audience want to know so the Doctor can explain it for us, occasionally scream and be kidnapped, and generally be less interesting than the Doctor. And, at the same time, do it with sufficient charm to make us forget what a limited role she plays. Martha Jones, I forgive you. I have never loved you more than now, reeling from the irritating blip which was Grace Holloway.

It honestly isn’t because she gets to kiss the Doc. Honestly (see: no point in fan quibbling above). It’s because she saves the universe, gets brought back to life (hello Adric?), is relentlessly generic and has less personality than a Dalek. And because saving Doc 8 in no way makes up for her hurting Doc 7…

Something the old series does right is keep the companions in their place – they just ask questions; universe saving is left to our hero. I’m sorry Mr Writer, but showing her crying at opera is not sufficient character development to make me forget she’s a) rubbish and b) able to save the universe by crossing two wires in the Tardis.

And yes, because she gets to kiss the Doc a further two unnecessary times (I was seriously OK with the first time, I feel I could explain that away. It was 3 and (particularly) 2 which annoyed me...) At least her hospital colleagues, who call her “amazing Grace” behind her back, seem to loathe her as much as I do.

I initially thought the Asian hero-kid was kinda interesting, but he soon fell into generic territory too. Can’t even remember his name. If this film had been made today, Shia LeBeouf would be playing that role – the cocky kid with heart who can appeal to Da Youf (see: Shia in Constantine, Justin Long in Die Hard 4, Seann William Scott in Bulletproof Monk etc)

Similarly, despite some promising moments, bad guy The Master is inevitably a disappointment. Perhaps I just couldn’t get over the American accent (not that I have anything against it in theory, but whoever thought of transplanting a show about an old bumbling British genius-gent to San Fransisco deserves to be thrown to the sci-fi geeks. It’s not just being in America – it’s the fact that it suddenly became American I object to. Suddenly, from being a supernatural Miss Marple, it’s been Hollywoodised. Also, I protest that no Doctor worth anything ever has, or ever will, use the word vacation.) He almost got it. Like the best Masters, he’s more than a match for the Doctor, one step ahead of him most of the way and comes even more close to winning than anyone else. But someone has forgotten the things which make his character unique. I can’t even define what they are – all I can tell you is that Derek Jacobi got it spot on, and this feller didn’t. And even though local Master fan Friend 4 disapproved of him giving him the Doctor a few hearty kicks, I feel if he’d taken this approach earlier on he would have got much further.

All this should sound fairly familiar to anyone who watches the show – make it up as you go plot, annoying companions, so what’s new?

Well, despite the sameness of the elements, at the same time, this isn’t TV – and boy do they go out to prove it, with varying success. Generally, the CGI is well used, a step above the cardboard and burger boxes from the original, but not too too flashy. No, it’s the direction that made me snort with derision. Compared to the old series’ static camera, Someone Who Has Been to Film School has decided to make it “cinematic” in a pathetically naive and obvious way. Look at me, Ma, I can cross cut! When they did it in Birth of a Nation it was exciting. Just because you CAN murder someone to Puccini, doesn’t mean you should. It just means you’ve seen Oldboy, Clockwork Orange, Reservoir Dogs, or one of the million other films who’ve already done it and done it better. Just because you CAN crosscut a character coming back from the dead with Frankenstein, definitely doesn’t mean you should even consider it, because it’s naff, and always has been naff. And all that Millennium countdown crap? Seriously, it might have been OK had this been made in late 1999 when “the Noughties” were so terribly chic – but it’s from 1996, three years before all that unnecessary fuss, which begs the question why?

Oh, why did we need the comedy fat guy again? I recognise him from a million other lousy movies. Surely they know that the only person allowed to provide amusement on the show is the Doctor himself.

The sorry, who? Because there’s someone I haven’t mentioned yet. Partly because you should save the best ‘til last, and partly because he’s only a minor character in the story of how an ordinary nurse saves the world. And partly because I wanted to establish quite how generic this film is.

Because that’s what Doctor Who is. Barring the odd brilliant episode brilliant for its brilliance alone (Blink anyone?), the thing that sets this show apart is the Doctor himself. But for him – say the X-men were solving all those world-ending problems instead – the stories would seem as thin as they are.

(by the by, does anyone think it’d be a really fun game to transplant “world saving teams” into other “world saving teams” plots? Partly because the Doc would whup Torchwood by saving the 21st Century When It All Changes far more efficiently than them, and partly because it would be fun to see how Heroes, The X-Files, The Men in Black plus the entire Marvel/DC back catalogue fared in the face of the same dangers. Incidentally, if I was in mortal peril, I’d be crossing my fingers for anyone except Torchwood (because they’re incompetent) or Constantine (because he has a bad track record with dead friends and allies, and a 50% survival and sanity rate is the closest Hellblazer gets to a “happy ending”. Also, the person in trouble usually ends up betrayed, dead and/or eaten by demons in hell…) Most Doctors would probably be OK, but I’d be slightly alarmed if a modern one showed up – they waste extras and supporting characters at quite a dramatic rate.)

And it’s the sheer loveliness of both Doctors involved which makes me think it isn’t all bad. The Tardis interior is glorious – far more cosy and lived in than the others*. Gothic is good.

*On a scale of one to three, where 1 is “David Tennant is da best and I luvvvv Rose” and 3 is “I’ve seen every episode at least three times, read all the spin offs, own all the annuals and have built my own Dalek”, I score a two. Or maybe 1.75, but I’m working on a two.

I love the fact he has a spare key – in fact, I love the fact the key design has stayed the same (mostly because I watched Planet of the Spiders, featuring said key, directly before this mess) – beats the modern key style by some way. I love the fact he appears to have bags of gold just lying about.

And even if this Master, companion and adventure are enough to make us envy a period of brief amnesia ourselves, this Doctor, like all his predecessors, lift the story out of the dirt whenever he opens his mouth. It’s a pity he never got to stretch his talents over a proper run, because it is likely he would have proved fantastic (maybe, before Paul McGann gets to old, they could start filming some adventures with him at the same time as the normal series, and slip them in chronologically? It’d allow for a more cohesive continuity with the future, it would be fun to see history building up in the background. You don’t even need to do the Time War (in fact, please don’t…), just have it lingering ahead. You could do it in a completely different style. Why are you pratting around with Torchwood? HERE’s your Doctor Who for adults, just waiting to happen. The film has set a more leisurely, dark style already – now trash all the “modern” elements and create a romantic epic 8th Doctor arc, to contrast with the fast-paced-editing, moping and very-hipness of the modern stuff…)

In a timeline sense, it’s horrible to think that Sylvester McCoy settling down to read his book is the last moment of proper happy piece and quiet he’s going to have for at least three regenerations (messy deaths, Time Wars, destructions of Gallifreys, bereavements, returns of Masters, departures of Masters and whatever emotional grindmill Russell T. Davies has planned for series 4 are all in his immediate future). I have a funny feeling the Doctor actually had something to do with H. G. Wells, but it could just be a hunch. Still, it is nice (wrong word…different) to have a Doctor killed by accident, not in the midst of saving something - more heroes should go out this way.

There are lots of good things in here, but they are buried very deep beneath every thing which I could conceivably criticise. I can’t forgive it for cruelly exposing everything we’ve always secretly known was lousy about this show. You may, at this point, be saying “all you’ve really done so far is criticise it from a fan viewpoint when you initially claimed this was pointless!”

True. I have been – bad Cinecism! That still doesn’t mean you should risk it. This isn’t a Constanine situation, where the fans nitpick and groan about what is basically a solid film – only a fan could find anything redeemable here at all. It may just be the worst film I’ve ever seen. It’s up there with The Bulletproof Monk for stupidity and lack of imagination.

Overall analysis: Doctor Who is the longest running sci-fi show on TV. Unless you’re a completist fan, in which case it’s (unfortunately) a must see, there’s over 80 years of decent episodes you could be watching instead. Start somewhere else, anywhere else. Even Daleks in Manhattan is better than this.

Top 100 Ways to Spoil A Top 100 list...(part 1)

I dislike the AFI - or, properly, their top 100 lists. They're too...for them, something in black and white is always better than something in colour.

To start with, by their very nature they are voting for soley American films - and anyone who know anything about film can tell you you're ignoring 70% of good movies through doing that. For me, a good list must have variety (and, obviously, pick Godfather I above Part II.) While 100 American films is good in theory, it cuts down on that variety. Argue if you like that there's plenty of variation witin the US - all to naught faced with a crowd who will vote for anything with James Stewart or Henry Fonda in it.

I don't feel that I have seen the spread of America's filmmaking ability looking at that list. My goodness, there are three Charlie Chaplin films. Now I've never seen any Charlie Chaplin, so I'm in position to judge, but it strikes me that if you're narrowing every film ever down to a fixed number, you should be throwing the net as wide as possible. They obviously have their own merits, but surely you only need one to get the idea? And don't try arguing it shows development or his comic range - it may be good, but it certainly ain't that complex. As a percentage, it implies 3% of American films are slapstick silents. (In fact, make that 4% - The General is also on that list.)

It suggests the "AFI's blue-ribbon panel of more than 1,500 leaders of the American movie community" don't know horsedung about movies. Literally, they all won Oscars. There isn't a single one I've never heard of. It's just so desperately worthy - I can't get excited about this list, not that they're not good films, but...

What do you think won it? I'll give you some clues...it ALWAYS wins if snobs are voting, but it's not Hitchcock. It's black and white (oooh, there's a suprise...) It's about Power, Age, America and the Human Condition. There's a snowglobe. And a sleigh.

I'm not denying it's good - how can I, I haven't seen it - but that doesn't mean its not a dull end to a dull show. The last top 50 I watched was exciting and vibrant - even the fact they only listed 50 was a measure of quality. Taken from all ages and all over the globe, see all of these and you could call yourself well watched. The highest film I had never heard of was listed at number five. That's a measure of the invention. Lets compare us some top tens:

10 – Manhattan – a smart and slow paced romance

9 – Donnie Darko – an unusual modern classic

8 – A Bout de Souffle - some exciting French new wave

7 -North by Northwest. - yeh, Hitchcock, but an unusual one.

6 – 2001:A Space Odyssey - interminably brilliant

5 – Sexy Beast - nasty but good natured sub-Scorcese Brit gangster flick

4- Chinatown – modern noir

3 – City of God - something foreign and worthy, but still vibrant

2 – The Apartment – a classic romantic comedy

1 – Apocalypse Now - a rock-n-roll protest film come war epic come goodness knows.

It's not so much the varying subject matter as the varying tone. They're brilliant, and good fun at the same time; they don't carry the weight of ages conferred by Cinematic Classic status, but are no less good for it. Lets see what the AFI think are the ten best things to come out of the States...

1 CITIZEN KANE - classic lengthy and serious (fictional) bio-epic
2 GODFATHER, THE - classic slow paced and serious family epic

3 CASABLANCA - classic romance. Not too slow paced or serious, but getting there.
4 RAGING BULL - don't know enough to mock effectively. But it ain't a barrel of laughs.
5 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN - OK, I admit this is brilliant. It's fairly silly, it's pretty short in contrast too. But seriously...is this the fifth best film American ever came up with?
6 GONE WITH THE WIND - classic, studio-bound MAMMOTH of a historical epic.
7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - another classic historical epic, really serious, really long, and really BRITISH.
8 SCHINDLER'S LIST - very worthy film about - what else? - the Holocaust. In black and white. Serious is a given; jury's out on it's length
9 VERTIGO - Hitchcock. Serious, felt long, and has a total absence of joy.
10 WIZARD OF OZ, THE - technicolour musical, but still far too long and lacks spark.

Oh, yawn. Sorry, dozed off there. Even adding the runtimes together would prove something, or scoring the number of Oscars. At some point on all of those films, a comittee sat down. I can name directors for half of them, and actors for most. There's a lack of innovation. They may be good individually, but together they're virtuallly the same film eight times over. The US has animators, comedians, indie filmmakers, purveyors of enthusiasm and energy, and people who make films WITHOUT songs.

And let me reiterate - two musicals in the top ten? Are you serious? Using my illogical percentage trick again, this implies 20% of America's best films are musicals.

It's just so very old school. Perhaps it's the lack of foreign flavour - in that company, even Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid seems a bit dull (and that's my favourite film, folks)

Recently, they did a ten-year update of their 100 films list to celebrate what's changed in the past ten years. Bit of a shock for a crowd who are still suprised by the concept of colour television. As such, they made a few basic errors, like not voting Fight Club, The Matrix, American Beauty, Memento, Donnie Darko onto their list.

By the way, those aren't films I especially love - just highly acclaimed crackers from the top of the Imdb 250 which appear on a high percentage of other lists.

They're not remotely in contact with real people. Hate populist lists if you like (and I frequently do), voting Star Wars top and all that - but this is completely out of touch. I'd have a fight on my hands claiming Saving Private Ryan, the Sixth Sense and Fellowship of the Ring were the best three films of the last ten years.

They even voted for Intolerance over Birth of a Nation, which shows an awful tendency towards being PC. This is my problem with this list - there's no suprises, nothing likely to alarm. Just very middle of the road, and very well behaved. Sample dialogue:

"ooooh, what about Pulp Fiction?" Says one panel member, "it's very famous!"

"Put it on the list," says the other, "but not near the top where any human with eyes would - after all, it has revitalised cinema and suggested a new way of doing things, it's in colour, it's unhealthy fun and doesn't involve Orson Welles. No, we can't ignore it, but we'll leave it langishing at 94 to put it in its place...upstarts!"

It's not that I especially care about Pulp Fiction (don't smirk, I meant that!). Just look at that list and tell me it's not the odd one out. We shouldn't cater to da youf, but it's like a big shield for the AFI against the accusation they only vote for cosy 50's fare. Yeh. One. Now what about everything else? Wot, no Coen brothers?

They're not films which are going to get your pulse racing with excitement. Cold blooded admiration, perhaps, but not much spice, and absolutely no quirk.

Perhaps the criteria is at fault. Even though it professes to be America's 100 greatest, the official ballot points you towards films which have:

CRITICAL RECOGNITION
Formal commendation in print, television and digital media.
MAJOR AWARD WINNER
Recognition from competitive events including awards from peer groups, critics, guilds and major film festivals. (note that minor film festivals are excluded...)
POPULARITY OVER TIME
Including success at the box office, television and cable airings, and DVD/VHS sales and rentals.
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
A film's mark on the history of the moving image through visionary narrative devices, technical innovation, or other groundbreaking achievements.
CULTURAL IMPACT
A film's mark on American society in matters of style and substance.

None of those make a great film. How many people like it. What the professionals think. What bull. Historical significance and cultural impact I have more sympathy for, but it doesn't matter whether it broke gay rights records if it's still a dull film. (incidentally, as far as I can see, In the Heat of the Night is the only one with any genuine "significance", and it looks brilliant).

Or perhaps its the voters, who ignored these shortlisted films:

Airplane!, Alien, American Beauty, Austen Powers (what was THAT doing there?!), Babe (ditto!), Back to the Future, Being John Malkovich, Brazil, The Breakfast Club, Die Hard, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Fantasia, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Fight Club, Freaks, Ghostbusters, Grease, Harold and Maude, Jurassic Park, Lost in translation, The Matrix, Memento, Moulin Rouge!, Requiem for a Dream, The Rocky Horror damn Picture Show, Scarface, sex lies and videotape, Shrek, Sideways, Stand By Me, the Sting, this Is Spinal Tap, Three Kings, Traffic...

Are they good? Not necessarily. Are they bona fide classics with a meaty message about justice? NO. They're innovative, newfangled, exciting and films which real people watch. Put two of those films back on the AFI hundred, and all of a sudden you have some suprises.

PS - isn't funny how 4/5 of the modern films I said were missing were shortlisted?

At least The Jazz Singer wasn't there...

What makes an "American film" anyway? Splitting these things can be pretty tricky.

They might have The Third Man at no 57., because Orson Welles is God, but as far as I can see that's stealing - it's definitely a British film. And as if to prove my point, the BFI rank it at no. 1 on their top 100. Incidentally, the BFi also have two David Lean films in the top ten, which reinstates my faith - I could have been sure he was a Brit. So I was a little suprised to see Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia listed by the AFI. I was pretty sure Clockwork Orange counted as British as well...

See what I mean? It just does little things to wind me up...

This was all tied up in a big bow by Morgan Freeman - yet again cast as a kind of "voiceover man" - providing some syrupy interludes before and after the ad breaks. Now when the Brits do top 100s, they have John Cleese or some other comedian making lame jokes in between. Accompanied by these horrible strings, that even 50s filmmakers would have rejected as "too sappy and OTT", he gravely intoned about how films touch our lives and influence both our past and our present. Do I smell stilton?

Incidentally, even though this destroys my point, it also got my goat by reaffirming the Oscar's greatest mistake - and listed Titanic at 83, and forgot L.A. Confidential (which was on the shortlist). That's above 12 Angry Men, Goodfellas, Toy Story and Blade Runner folks...

Still, I enjoyed hearing what directors had to say. Spike Lee, famous for his gritty city movies, likes Midnight Cowboy. M. Night, Mr Big Cinematic Emotion, likes The Shawshank Redemption, Rocky and - who'da thought it? - E.T.



In fact, what makes me hate this list more than anything. Two little words:

1.CITIZEN KANE (1941)

I ain't saying it's bad, just do something ORIGINAL!


The AFI revised list is here: http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/100Movies.pdf?docID=301

And in case my day couldn't get any worse, they're making a sequel to painfully cliched comeing-of-age-thru-dance flick Step Up.