Yes we’re a few days early but that’s so that you can get a heads up on what to buy for next week on the most romantic day of the year… Valentine’s Day! V-Day is just around the corner folks and for those of you who don’t see it as another way for Clinton’s to make some money (I am a proper romantic right here), the Blu-ray Disc Association have created this top 10 list of Blu-rays that you should buy or watch for / with your loved ones this Valentine’s Day!

All of these are now available to buy on Blu-ray and I’ve provided links for you on each page. So without further ado, let’s get started!

10) Cleopatra (1963)

• Studio: (20^th Century Fox)
• Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Rex Harrison, Pamela Brown
• Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
• Buy here

Why not have a glamorous and seductive evening with Cleopatra? Re-mastered in stunning HD so you can see the Egyptian queen (Elizabeth Taylor) like never before, this Blu-ray follows Cleopatra’s triumphs and tragedies with Roman leaders Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. The film was also where Taylor and co-star Richard Burton began their epic, off-screen romance.

As has been widely reported, Harry Potter made a massive impact at the box office in the last few weeks, and continues to do so. Success was inevitable, and the level of success predictable. Harry Potter is one of the most popular book series of all time, appealing to fans both young and old. All previous installments in the Harry Potter movie series have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and with the finale in sight, anyone with even a passing interest in the boy who lived wants to see how it all ends.

The success of Harry Potter financially, particularly in the case of Deathly Hallows, is also however part of a much bigger movie trend. We have seen, in the last year particularly, an apparent rise in the popularity of the family movie. Whilst in the past it has been big, effects heavy action movies that have been the big hitters, it seems there is now just as much interest, if not more, in family orientated, action adventure movies, in both animated and live action form.

It started at the beginning of the year with Alice in Wonderland. Directed by Tim Burton, and starring Johnny Depp, it was always going to have elements that would appeal to both children and adults alike. The novelty of the 3D experience was also just starting to become wildly popular thanks to Avatar, resulting in Alice setting the box office bar high early on in the year.

Then along came How to Train Your Dragon. The year’s first big animated movie, the original nature of the storyline, not based on a recognisable property, meant that How to Train Your Dragon started reasonably slowly at the box office. This Dragon however had long legs, and the combination of the 3D factor and fantastic word of mouth meant that it became a massive box office success.

The trend continued throughout the year, particularly with animated movies such as Shrek Forever After, and the big gun Toy Story 3. Toy Story 3 broke records to become the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Despicable Me enjoyed moderate success, and just a few weeks ago Megamind helped set a record for box office figures on the opening weekend of the Winter period.

There have been less live action success stories, but Prince of Persia broke the $100 million mark. With the recent success of Harry Potter, and the inevitable big money openings we can expect from the latest in the Chronicles of Narnia series and Disney’s Tron sequel, by the end of the year live action family movies will be nearly on a par with their animated peers financially.

Why, then, have family orientated films exploded in popularity recently? One factor that may have played a part is the recent global recession. Yes, you would expect that in a depressed economic climate, financial success would be more unlikely. However, with families forced to tighten their belts over the past couple of years, a lot of the entertainment budget for a typical family has been put to other uses. Now, instead of Mum and Dad going out for dinner, or on nights out with friends, and kids being taken to clubs and sports and the like, a family trip to the cinema looks to actually be a cheaper prospect. A £7 cinema ticket is cheaper nowadays than two pints of beer, or a bottle of wine, so is far more economically viable per person than a night on the town with friends. Combining everyone’s leisure time also means they can spend more quality time together.

Another part of the reason is that family movies are far more appealing now than they used to be to a lot of adults. Where once animated films were seen as childish and aimed solely at children, this perception has changed thanks in large part to the original Toy Story. Animated movies have become far more sophisticated. Pixar successfully combined adult humour with kid friendly slapstick action, and all the other studios began to follow suit. Now, it isn’t unusual for a an animated movie to be written with adults in mind first, and the kids second. Wall*E, for example, was actually quite boring to many young children, and achieved its popularity thanks to the appreciation of its adult audience.

With CGI now becoming more affordable, and available, live action family movies are also better equipped to sell to a broad audience. The action in family movies used to be confined to slapstick and pratfalls, but more affordable computer effects mean massive worlds can be used to entice adults and children alike. Films like Harry Potter would have been very difficult to make in a realistic way years ago, and the animatronics and plastic sets would have probably looked far too cheap and silly for a lot of the grown up audience to contemplate paying money to see. It is now far easier for the mature audience to buy into the worlds being created, as fantasy figures and locations are able to look much slicker and more realistic.

In the case of Harry Potter, it is also very much the themes explored and the richness of the original source material that have made the movies a must see experience. Adults were already engrossed in the novels before the first film was released, and in many cases the parents were looking forward to seeing the films as much, if not more than their offspring. This success has lead to similar types of book series being written, and adapted, like The Golden Compass and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. It has also seen older works like The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe dusted off to capitalise on this newfound interest in magical family adventure.

Only time will tell if the family movie boom will continue on for an extended period of time. Certainly, there are many external factors that influence cinematic tastes and trends. A major upturn in the economy, another massive global event, or even just the introduction of a new favourite source material amongst movie makers could all change the dynamic overnight. For now, however, family films rule the box office. With Harry Potter and Megamind still going strong, Tangled now on release, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Tron: Legacy imminent, it is going to be a family affair in theatres this Christmas. Maybe that’s just as it should be.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last weekend saw the latest installment of the Harry Potter franchise surpass all the previous movies’ performances at the box office to lead the weekend with a US opening of around $125 million. This was a massive success for Warner Bros, making them the leading box office performing studio so far this year. With only Tangled offering any real competition the following weekend, the success is sure to continue.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is part one of a two part adaptation of JK Rowling’s source novel. Splitting one film into two parts has become an increasingly popular habit in recent years, and with part two of Deathly Hallows sure to match its predecessor financially, it looks like a winning decision. However, I have to ask the question – is this recent trend an attempt at providing the right platform for epic tales to be told, or is it a shameless cash-in employed by greedy studio execs?

There are clear reasons why using this technique is a good idea, particularly in the case of Deathly Hallows. It’s important to point out that as a film (or films) primarily aimed at children, there is a necessity to keep Harry Potter at a reasonable duration. The stories appeal to children as young as four or five. Expecting children of this age to sit still for an epic of Lawrence of Arabia proportions is unrealistic, and would even be irresponsible. Deathly Hallows is a very long book, and whilst adaptations of novels are frequently condensed for cinematic adaptation, as the last installment of the series there was a responsibility to the fans to encompass the whole of the source material.

The problem occurs if there is not a natural stopping point in the middle of the book. Chopping any coherent story halfway through the middle presents a very real problem. Books, like movies, tend to be written in three acts. By making a film based on the first 50% of a novel, you risk creating a movie with an unbalanced structure. If there isn’t an exciting cliffhanger somewhere around the midway point, as well as a tangible sense of character progression, a part one movie will end with a whimper rather than a bang. This can be very much subjective though, and depends on what your idea of a good ending for a first part is. Do you want to be left hanging, desperately wanting more? Or do you want some form of resolution to the events of the story up to this point? The ideal is, obviously, some combination of the two.

Cutting a movie up, or specifically choosing to make a particularly long movie so as to show it in two parts, can be far preferable to the ‘cash-in’ sequel. With Harry Potter, the filmmakers could be confident that the movie would be a big draw, so there was no financial risk involved in making two movies. It is a lot harder to make this kind of decision with an original property. You can have no real assurance that a single movie will recoup costs, so to spend the extra money on a longer shoot, and all that is involved, is a major risk. This is how we end up with the cash-in, the inferior sequel. All the good ideas are encompassed in the first movie, and a satisfying conclusion is provided. Then, when the movie experiences big box office success, attempts are made to tack more of the same on in a follow-up or two, as in the Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean series.

I would much rather see a great idea split into two parts, thoroughly exploring all the different facets of the story, than be subjected to a mediocre attempt at a sequel. There is also a very practical aspect to shooting two films back to back. The sets, locations and cast are all in place, and well organised principle shooting can be completed in far less time than two full shoots would add up to. This makes it far more cost effective, and also helps avoid the inevitable continuity problems. Warner Bros have been very canny in producing the Potter films in short order, meaning the principle actors have not aged too far in advance of their characters, and therefore been able to portray their parts (reasonably) believably.

I think it is fair to say that the most prominent examples of ‘double dipping’ have actually been honest attempts at effective management. Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill was originally conceived as one movie, but being Tarantino, the screenplay ran very long. This led to the producers making the decision to show the film in two parts, so as to let the whole story be seen without audiences being put off by a butt numbing duration. The reverse was true with Tarantino’s Grindhouse collaboration with Robert Rodriguez. Originally meant to be shown as a double feature, Death Proof and Planet Terror were released separately in the end.

The story of Mesrine, the infamous French gangster, was wisely made in two parts rather than one movie, allowing sufficient length to tell as much of the man’s fascinating story as possible. The resulting Killer Instinct and Public Enemy No 1 were fantastic examples of cinematic storytelling. One film that could have benefited from being split into two parts was Red Cliff. The full feature is over five hours long, and was shown in its native land in two portions. Here in the West however we were given one movie, with an astonishing 90 odd minutes cut out to ensure that audiences could endure it. I would have much preferred to see the full story in two parts, as in Steven Soderbergh’s Che Parts One and Two.

Harry Potter has been very successful at the box office, and the vast majority of fans have been ecstatic with the quality of the movie. They will be overjoyed that they still have one more Potter film to enjoy, and will be eagerly looking forward to the final, final installment. I think that the decision to make two movies instead of cramming a rich and popular concluding story into one overlong film was the right decision, and one that was made for the right reasons. There is definitely a place for the two part movie, and as long as the technique is not overused, which up till now it has not, then I will continue to welcome this method of epic filmmaking.

Bazmann-You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last winter saw some unseasonably big box office numbers. Big budget disaster movie 2012 made over $700 million worldwide. Twilight: New Moon matched it. However, it was the Christmas period that was the big surprise. Sherlock Holmes surprised everyone with a great opening and long legs. I need not, of course, mention Avatar, the highest grossing movie of all time.

This winter kicked off with a record breaking weekend, as the triple threat of Megamind ($45 million), Due Date ($30 million) and For Coloured Girls ($20 million) combined to produce the biggest box office weekend opening for a November. Megamind carried that momentum through into the next weekend with another $30 million, meaning this looked to be just the beginning of a Winter that could almost be as hot as a traditional Summer.

The box office magic continued for the boy that lived, with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. The Potter franchise has been a box office juggernaut, running on the massive popularity of the book series and Warner Bros expert handling of the movie adaptations. Sequels have come regular as clockwork, meaning interest has never been allowed to die down, and the original cast have been able to effectively work right through the saga. There was no reason to think Deathly Hallows would be any different, and as part of the final installment, it was unmissable for a large number of movie goers. The decision to abandon 3D will hit the film’s final box office haul, with the extra revenue for the inflated ticket prices and the extra interest the format still draws capable of adding around a potential 20% to gross profits. The template for Harry Potter’s box office performance has been $70 million opening weekend, and a $300 million final domestic gross. Deathly Hallows shattered this with a US opening weekend of $125 million.

The next potential big hitter is Disney’s animated Rapunzel spin, Tangled. Animated family movies have made a killing this year, with How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3 doing particularly well, making hundreds of millions between them. Toy Story 3 on its own made history as the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Disney will hope to carry on the current trend, and build on the success of their last solo animated effort The Princess And The Frog. There’s no reason to think that Tangled won’t manage a similar opening to the aforementioned Megamind.

The third installment in the Chronicles of Narnia trilogy, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, should at least match previous outings with an opening of around $50 million. There is also the potential for the combined star power of Jonny Depp, whose profile helped lift the Pirates series to a billion dollar franchise, and arguably the biggest female draw in Hollywood Angelina Jolie to make The Tourist this year’s big box office surprise. To be fair, this is probably fairly unlikely, and an opening that rivals Salt’s $35 million can be seen as a success.

Next up will be Disney’s much hyped, over publicised Tron sequel. This is a really interesting one. Disney are trying desperately to match the success of their Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. They were only partially successful with Prince of Persia earlier in the year. The brand power of the videogame on which it was based didn’t prove strong enough to push it into the realms of their Pirates movies, as a reasonable opening led to a huge drop off. Tron is a sequel, so they will be hoping that the mixture of nostalgia, flashy effects and a huge promotional campaign will make Tron: Legacy this year’s Avatar. On the downside, their is no real star power attached, Jeff Bridges is a great actor but doesn’t have that box office cache. Add to this the fact that the original Tron was, in truth, actually not very good, and the outlook for Tron is hazy. It could fizzle out like Prince of Persia, but also has the potential to make similar numbers to the year’s first big box office hitter Alice in Wonderland.

Rounding out the year will be the Ben Stiller vehicle, Little Fockers. The third installment of the Meet the Parents series, Fockers could well match the £50 million + performance of its predecessors. Another comedy, Gulliver’s Travels starring Jack Black, has a chance of making an impact, but based on the performance of Black’s previous few movies hopes look pretty slim.

As we come towards the end of the traditional ‘Oscar contenders’ portion of the year, it certainly looks like the run up to Christmas will be a jolly period for the big studios hoping to cash in on peoples good cheer. There were only a few big winners financially speaking in the Summer, and this Winter has the potential to produce just as many, which will undoubtedly help give Hollywood producers a warm feeling inside during the cold snap.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest Internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 39th update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) – 8.7 No. 18

There was a lot that was fresh about the first Indiana Jones movie when it was first released. A white night in shades of grey in Harrison Ford’s rock ‘em sock ‘em archaeologist, the feisty female love interest, a winning mix of slapstick humour and thrilling action. In the intervening years, however, it has weathered a bit. Much of the action is a little too tame. The spirited Marion Ravenwood pales in comparison to modern day action heroines.

The finale, too, though showy and gruesome, is a little bit of an anti-climax after some of the action that has leads up to it. Class is class however, and it is the presence and great comedy timing of Ford that makes Raiders just as watchable as it was all those years ago. The hand of Lucas can be seen throughout, but there is enough darkness and intrigue to make up for the silliness that Lucas instills.

A bit tame in comparison to modern day action/adventure movies, but the original still holds enough charm, and one of the most iconic characters in cinematic history, to stake its place in the IMDb list.

Goodfellas (1990) – 8.7 No. 14

With Goodfellas, Martin Scorsese got the mix of old fashioned gangster story and more contemporary thriller almost perfect. What could have suffered from being a little slow, and a little dialogue heavy is brought to life by Scorsese’s snappy direction and editing. The manic scenes towards the end particularly, as Ray Liotta’s Henry Hill races around town trying to avoid the eye in the sky of the FBI are thrilling.

Liotta, of course, is the man who makes the movie. Alongside heavyweights like Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci, who would both go on to far more successful careers, Liotta somehow shines. He shows a great amount of on-screen charisma, puts in a powerful performance, and his narration is surprisingly compelling.

It is performances as much as direction that make Goodfellas one of the best movies of all time. The story isn’t actually all that interesting, but the conviction of De Niro and Pesci, and a surprising amount of humour carry it through. A deserving listee, and a personal favourite to boot.

Casino (1995) – 8.0 No. 178

Where Scorsese scored with Goodfellas, the apparent attempt to recreate the chemistry fails spectacularly for me with Casino. With a story even less inherently interesting than Goodfellas, the directors mix of dynamic cinematography and snappy editing aren’t enough, and are not used frequently enough. What results is an overlong, and rather disjointed narrative as Robert De Niros Ace Rothstein makes his way (slowly) to the top of Las Vegas strip, only slide down the other slide at an even more meandering pace.

The performances by De Niro and Pesci are good, but they have far less to work with than in Goodfellas, or Raging Bull for that matter. Where Liotta’s narration genuinely aided the story in Goodfellas, De Niro and Pesci’s voiceovers are draining and tedious. Sharon Stone puts in a surprisingly great performance, but thanks to the mediocrity of the story, I found it difficult to care.

There are some great moments, and when Scorsese turns it on, his filmmaking is second to none. Unfortunately, i can’t help but feel that the great director became as bored as I did, and the movie as a whole fails to sparkle. Casino really has no place in the IMDb list, and I can’t help but think if it wasn’t for the name power of De Niro, Pesci and Scorsese, Casino wouldn’t enjoy anywhere near the reputation it currently does.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994) – 9.1 No. 1

Throughout the project i have marvelled at how some movies that are predicated on a great twist, whilst great upon first watch, suffer greatly when re-watched without the all-important element of surprise. Thankfully, Frank Darabont’s masterpiece is genuinely great long before that awe inspiring ending.

Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are the names over the door, but in actual fact, every performance is great, and it is the work of every single actor involved that makes this a perfect film. The story at its heart, that of hope and friendship, is deceptively simple, but it is the believability of the character’s actions and behaviour that make them so affecting. That ending, of course, is the icing on the cake, and neatly draws the narrative together for a truly heart warming finale.

It is hard to fully describe just what a joy it is to watch The Shawshank Redemption. In many ways, it can probably be considered a surprise that it tops the IMDb list. There are so many films with arguably a much bigger reputation, but Shawshank has very quietly become one of the greatest films ever made. It easily deserves its place on the list, and it is difficult to imagine another film that could ever hope to surpass it.

Taxi Driver (1976) – 8.5 No. 40

Its a bit like Scorsese week, and Taxi Driver is a prime example of why there are so many of his films in the upper reaches of the IMDb250 list. A chilling character study of a fairly average New Yorker, whose perception of the world around him drives him to mental instability.

Travis Bickle is an ex-marine, suffering from extreme insomnia. With nothing better to do, he takes a job as a cab driver, driving the worst streets of New York at the most ungodly of hours. The constant grime and sleaze that he exposes himself to on a nightly basis take their toll on his psyche. He looks to be trying to make the best of his life, but a bad break-up and an obsessive personality lead him to delusion.

Robert De Niro is brilliant as the psychologically damaged Bickle. His gradual descent into madness is frightening, and oh so compelling. The ambiguity of his motives is what makes Taxi Driver such a fascinating movie. In the end, when the situation reaches its tipping point, the violence is shocking, and shot completely without glamour. Bickle ends up as a hero of sorts, but if events had gone a different way he could well have been the most heinous of villains.

Scorsese shows some great cinematic techniques, and even this (relatively) early in his career shows a true greatness as a filmmaker. A masterpiece of cinema, Taxi Driver is at times difficult to watch, but it is even harder to turn away. Every bit as deserving of a place in the list as the likes of  Citizen Kane az#nd The Seventh Seal, Taxi Driver is a true classic.

Come back next week for update 40. You can follow our progress at   www.twitter.com/baz_mann and   www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 37th update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

Blade Runner (1982) – No. 109 8.2

When four human form ‘Replicants’ go off the reservation, a world weary Blade Runner by the name of Deckard is reluctantly pressed into service to hunt them down. During his investigation, he meets a Replicant by the name of Rachael, who astonishingly is initially unaware of her true nature. As Deckard’srelationship with Rachael develops, his hunt raises more questions about the nature of humanity, and whether artificial human beings are less sentient than their creators.

I’vewatched BladeRunner so many times over the years, it has become hard to re-assess it afresh for this type of review. As far as an exercise in world building, BladeRunner is incredible. The mixture of compelling visuals, incredible musical scoring and the combination of contemporary lifestyles withfuturistic technology combine to make the world in which Blade Runner takes place so realistic that it is easy to completely immerse yourself in it. So many movies set in the future, such as I, Robot, Minority Report etc.. display it as a very sterile, white plasteel environment with flawlessly pristine technology available to all. Deckard visitingdingy shops and noodle bars in a flying car, chasing human form robots. The contrast between the progressive technology and the continuing poverty and decay of a big city is used to great effect to create a realistic vision.

The story, on the other hand, comes across now as a little mundane. The tale of a human chasing down artificial intelligence gone wrong is no longer fresh or original, and regardless of whether it was when the film was originally released, it makes it harder to get excited about now in the present day. The philosophicalquestions posed, about humanity, self-awareness and playing God, are very well posed however, and combined withthe unique atmosphere of the created world givea very unique feeling to Blade Runner that has never been surpassed.

For me, the performances aren’t great. Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty is clearly unhinged, which just about justifies his larger than life performance, but everyone else just come across as adequate. Even Harrison Ford, though displaying great screen presence, and a vulnerability refreshing for a male lead, doesn’t sparkle in the same way as he does in the Indiana Jones movies, for example.

I’ve never really been sure if i like Blade Runner all that much. I clearly enjoy watching it, as i have done so more times than i can count, but there does seem to be a simplicity to the sequence of events, leaving me wanting that little bit more on every viewing. For its unique atmosphere, and the thought provoking ideas behind the story, Blade Runner is definitely still one of the true greats, and despite my misgivings i can’t really argue with its position in the IMDb250 list on that basis.

The Green Mile (1999) – No. 96 8.3

The Green Mile follows life on the Green Mile, a death row section of a penitentiary. The prison guards are there to make their charges last days as comfortable as they can reasonably be, but the status quo is upset by bloodthirsty guard Percy Wetmore, the arrival of ‘Wild Bill’ Wharton, and gentle giant John Coffey, who it is discovered holds a very special gift.

The Green Mile has a very odd feel to it. Most of the movie is set within one very small set, and whilst it doesn’t necessarily look cheap, it does create a very contained atmosphere. This doesn’t detract from some very good performances, particularly from Sam Rockwell as Wild Bill Wharton and Doug Hutchison as Percy Wetmore. The story doesn’t suffer from it either. The Green Mile is a touching tale really, of a simple man suffering for God’s work, and of good men trying to make the best of a job essentially working as caretakers of monsters. Hanks as Paul Edgecomb and David Morse as Brutus Howell come across as genuinely likable, personable characters.

My problem with The Green Mile is that there is a dark, sinister edge to it, which seems at odds with the lightness and charm of many of the characters. Every story needs a villain, and Wetmore does display some truly reprehensible behaviour, as does Wild Bill. But the ending they both meet, due to the actions of a man doing ‘God’s work’ seems to contradict the message that all men, regardless of their behaviour, deserve a degree of civility that is threaded throughout the rest of the story. The wardens show great care and sensitivity towards their charges, making their final days as comfortable as reasonably possible. We seem to be being told that all men deserve respect, even if they are on death row. Then we are shown the vengeance wreaked by Michael Clarke Duncan’s John Coffey, and those final actions seem so out of character with the rest of the movie.

These macabre events, combined with the botched execution that leads to them, lend a grotesque tone to a story that starts out so genteel. This may be a completely intended switch, but it leaves the film feeling very off balance. It also means that when we witness Coffey’s final moments at the end of the movie, the impact is dampened by what has gone before. The Green Mile was perfectly watchable, but nothing more. Having now seen it once, i don’t imagine a scenario in which i’ll choose to watch it again. For me, not deserving of its place.

Fight Club (1999) – No.17 8.7

A white collar insomniac finds his Ikea-loving lifestyle turned upside down when he meets shady soap salesman Tyler Durden. They start up an underground fight club, a group therapy session that allows the common man to de-stress after a hard day at the office. The insomniac discovers, however, that Durden has grander ideas, and as events quickly spiral out of the narrators control, he finds that the biggest shock has been saved til the very last.

From the outset, it is not obvious what kind of movie Fight Club is. Comedy, drama , thriller? It starts out as a truly odd tale of a man who cannot find his place in the world. As you follow Ed Norton’s ‘Narrator’ through his adventures at support groups, and his first meeting with Marla, it is impossible to tell where the story is headed. Then Norton’s world is blown to pieces, literally, and things just get weirder.

Throughout Fight Club, you’re never really sure whether to laugh or be appalled. Norton’s character isn’t really likeable, and is actually a bit of a jerk, particularly with regards to his interactions with Marla. Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden has become an icon of cool, but really, he isn’t any more likable than Norton (which i guess actually makes perfect sense). Still, you feel hopelessly compelled to continue watching the car wreck to see the outcome.

Really, it isn’t the characters that you find yourself rooting for, it is the story. The anti-establishment, anarchic ideas of Chuck Palahniuk’s writing are what makes the story relevant and vital. The mischief and mean spirit of Durden’s army should be abhorred, but he makes a convincing argument. Sadly, by the end of the film, its biggest failing is that you can’t really care what fate befalls the protagonists. Whilst Durden’s rage against the machine is compelling in theory, the reality is that no real face is put on the villain of the piece, meaning that when his plan comes to fruition, it can only be seen as senseless. He has effectively waged war on an anonymous evil.

Are we supposed to sympathise with either Durden or Norton? You’d have to ask director Fincher. The talented director’s filmmaking ability is beyond question. The soundtrack and visuals are unique and striking throughout, and the stellar cast mean that you never question the believabilityof the madness that unfolds on screen. The only real issue with Fight Club is that it leaves you feeling emotionally cold. A story of reprehensible characters watching their lives unravel, there really is no emotional anchor to it. An entertaining film, by one of the best directors of his generation, but lacking that intangible something that would make it great. A good movie, but one whose reputation far exceeds its skills.

The Wages of Fear (1953) – No. 177 8.1

In a rundown South American town, the large mob of unemployed denizens are given the opportunity of a lifetime. The chance to drive a cargo across country to a remote oil field for a huge payday. The catch? The cargo is dozens of barrels of highly unstable nitroglycerin, and the vehicles are not built to withstand even the smallest pothole in the road. There are two trucks, and the first to safely reach its destination will win the big prize. It is the most lethal of races, but there are no shortage of men willing to take the chance for a better life.

The Wages of Fear starts off so slowly, that you’d be forgiven for giving up early on. The story of paupers in a run down town, with nothing better to do but make nuisances of themselves isn’t greatly compelling, and in truth this period of character establishment runs far too long. By the time the offer of a job, literally career suicide comes along, you find yourself desperate for a bit of pace. Strange, then, that the slow deliberate journey the protagonists embark on turns out to be one of the most compelling, sizzlingly tense tales ever told in cinema.

Four men, two trucks, and a whole lot of nitroglycerin make The Wages of Fear one of the greatest action movies of all time. The set pieces are inventive, and the performances are pitch perfect as the desperate men risk it all for the promise of a route out of the miserable poverty they live in. None of the characters have shown so far to be particularly noble or nice, but you can’t help but pull for them, even with the cruelty they so often show towards each other, as they race to be the first to get their payload to its destination. Some fantastic shocks, that in retrospect are all obvious but never feel so at the time, and perfect pacing of the second half of the movie make watching the wages of Fear an unforgettable experience. One of the best films i’ve watched for the project, it is just a shame that many have probably given up a third of the way into the movie. It is works of art like this that are the reason i took on the project, as i probably wouldn’t have seen it otherwise.

Memento (2000) – No. 27 8.6

Leonard suffers from a rare condition that means he is unable to create new memories, the result of an assault that left his wife raped and murdered. Despite his handicap, Leonard follows the trail of the man responsible, using a unique method of notation to piece together his investigation as every few minutes his short term memory is wiped. He thinks he has the perfect method to keep track of his situation, but we discover that Leonard is in fact very confused, and at the mercy of the people around him as they make use of his circumstances for their own benefit.

From the opening scene of a Polaroid developing backwards, Memento catches your attention, and arouses your curiosity. The unique decision to unravel the storyline backwards perfectly complements the memory bending storyline. In truth, with a little bit of re-jigging, the movie would have worked if it had been played forwards in sequence. The story is interesting enough to captivate you either way, as the story of Leonard’s quest, and the discipline he shows as he tries desperately to keep track of his investigation compel you to continue watching. It helps that, despite the fact that Leonard is a vengeful, violent character, Guy Pearce’s charm and sympathetic portrayal makes him a likeable lead character. That is the brilliance of the backwards chronology – you’re pulling for Leonard all the way until the end (or beginning), when you find out exactly who he is, and what he has done.

Having watched Memento several times, the gimmicks don’t hold up quite so well on repeat viewing. Each scene overlaps, showing part of the same scene in the next so you can see how it links up. a useful tool, but it starts to feel very repetitive upon subsequent views. The same problem also exists as with any film that relies on a twist. Though the subtle humour and intricacies of the plot shine through when watched again, by knowing how it all ends, what the big finish involves, a big part of the pull of the movie is taken away. On first watch, Memento is, for me, one of the best films i have seen. It is just a shame that it suffers so much the second, third or fourth time. The curse of not being unable to unsee a movie. A curse, i guess, that Leonard never has to fear…

Come back next Monday for update 38. You can follow our progress at  www.twitter.com/baz_mann and  www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

Well, it’s not a huge surprise, but it’s good to know that as well as overseeing the next Superman film Christopher Nolan has just confirmed that he will be directing Batman 3.

Empire had the rather good fortune to catch Nolan in a chatty mood and here’s the all important confirmation,

I don’t know if it’s announced or if it’s not announced,” said Nolan. “It’s becoming inevitable, I’ll put it that way. I feel myself falling into it, I guess. And getting it all figured out and I’m pretty excited about what we’re doing so… If I haven’t announced it, I think that people probably all know at this point that I’m doing it.”

Hang on, that’s not 100% clear: so we can safely assume you’re directing?

“I think you can at this point, yes.”

So, while we don’t all agree that Nolan is the best man for the job he is pretty much guaranteed a blank cheque given the success of the first two and the recent box office juggernaut Inception.

Who knows which villains and sidekicks Nolan will populate the third film with, personally I’m hoping Michael Caine suits up as a nice and unexpected twist on Robin.

Do you think this is a good thing for the Batman series? Would you have liked to have seen another director take on this project?

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 31st update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

So far, i’ve summarised the films i’ve written about for the project, but i’m not going to for the Star Wars trilogy. I appreciate there are those that haven’t seen them, but i imagine they’re in the minority. To be honest, so much has been written about the Star Wars movies i’d rather not cover them at all, but they’re on the list, so here are my thoughts on rewatching each film.

Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977) – 8.8 No. 12

The idea of Star Wars, and the mythology contained within, are undoubtedly awesome. Say what you want about George Lucas, but the concept of the force, what it is and how it works is a brilliant idea. It instantly adds a feeling of depth and spirituality to what otherwise would be a fairly straight forward space film. Luke, the young farm boy destined for greatness is not on its own an original idea, but transplanted to the star Wars galaxy, where he truly can effectively save the world adds a whole new level to the cliche. The introduction of Han Solo allows humour, as well as presenting a wild card story-wise. Solo is often likened to a cowboy type character, but is far more selfish and self-serving than those from tales of the old west, and you are kept guessing until the very end just what his motivations really are.

The death halfway through of Obi Wan, up to this point an integral character in the movie, is a shock and an unusually brave movie for a fantasy movie aimed at kids. It is pretty dark, and though i don’t remember the first time around, it must have been a blow to the system. Darth Vader and the Death Star are also fantastic works of George Lucas’ imagination, and are the real reasons Star Wars was so iconic. The pace is brilliant, with no wasted motion throughout. The race to destroy the Death Star is brilliantly constructed, and timed to perfection. There is a lot great about the first Star Wars, and to this day i can still understand why it has built up such a following.

OK, the dialogue can be pretty bad at times, but it is difficult to build exposition and background into such a fast paced story. Remember, it is a whole different world we are introduced to, and on that basis i think Lucas did a decent job. The droids ARE annoying. I can see why we loved them as kids, and i understand their function. I can see why Lucas became so enamoured by the idea of seeing such epic story from the point of view of the lowest class of beings, but i can’t help but be irritated when they go about their misadventures. It is the only time the movie slows down, and though i can’t imagine how the overall plot would work without them, i’d like to see a cut that diminishes their role as much as possible to see if the film actually loses anything.

Top 250? Of course. Special Edition? Not actually too distracting in this case, but ultimately pointless.

Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980) – 8.8 No.10

The ice planet of Hoth looks phenomenal, and the idea of the rebels hiding on an uninhabited, and almost uninhabitable, planet is really cool. The attack by the Imperials, and the AT-AT’s in particular, is probably the best sequence of the Star Wars trilogy, and to be honest, for me the movie suffers considerably from the subsequent slowdown of the pace. The cat and mouse game between the Millennium Falcon and Imperial forces is not particularly thrilling, though the development of the Han-Leia relationship adds a bit of emotional depth to the story. Luke’s visit to Dagobah, though amusing at times, is actually pretty tedious.

Events pick up with the visit to Cloud City. Billy Dee Williams adds some much needed flair to proceedings, and is probably the most charismatic character of the series. Over the course of the movie he shows depth,and presence, and his ambiguity adds some real interest. The big story is obviously the face off between Luke and Vader, with some awesome revelations that you really don’t see coming. The second lightsaber battle of the trilogy is exciting when it gets going, but does not involve quite enough action to provide a climatic finale to the movie.

The dialogue is, once again, pretty poor, and actually more obvious because the pace of the movie is so much slower than the previous one. People call Empire dark, but no major characters die, with Solo effecctively only being kidnapped. The open-ended climax, whilst providing some surprises, doesn’t really feel like a proper ending because it is so heavily aimed towards leading into the final part.

Best of the trilogy? Difficult to choose between A New Hope and Empire. Empire is probably the most well made, with the more in depth story, but as a stand-alone film it has no beginning or end, leading off of the first film and setting up the last. A New Hope is the only film set out as a beginning to end movie that can be watched in isolation, so on that basis it probably works better as a film.

Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (1983) – 8.3 No. 104

The problem child that nobody loves. The liberation of Han Solo is a bizarre set-piece really. Because of the time that has clearly elapsed but we haven’t seen, we’re met with a Luke that has powers we didn’t see him develop. The battle over Sarlacc’s Pit is exciting, with again some interesting new creatures and the cool sail barge, but feels a little rushed, and dare i say it easy? Jabba is a great character, but is killed off pretty quickly in the film,then we are immediately rushed off to the continuing battle with the Empire, leaving the whole exercise as a really odd feeling segue.

The second Death Star is a lazy idea. The presence of the Emperor at the vital time even more so. The whole battle to destroy it, and the impossible odds beaten in the process wrap up a well imagined story far too easily. The Rebels should have been annihilated, and the idea that such a small fleet of ships could survive dozens of Star Destroyers and an operational Death Star is ridiculous based on what we’ve seen over the course of the trilogy.

That a gang of teddy bears are the ones that facilitate it makes it all the more unforgivable. I don’t have the hatred for the Ewoks that some have, in principal at least. The idea that these primitive creatures can overcome the technology of the Imperial troops on Endor, and the almost slapstick way they go about it, is what really burns. James Cameron clearly bought that idea though…

It’s easy to deride Jedi,and some would say lazy. But it is two distinct stories glued together with more Dagobah tedium in the middle. The culmination of the Han-Leia lovestory is satisfying, and the revelation of Luke and Leia’s relationship is actually pretty cool, but on balance, Jedi is a complete misstep. A real shame, but i think the Star Wars series started going downhill a long time before The Phantom Menace hit our screens.

Saving Private Ryan (1998) – 8.5 No. 47

When it is discovered that a certain Mrs Ryan has lost three of her sons to World War II, the decision is made to send a team to try and bring her fourth and last remaining son back home from the front. Having survived the overwhelming odds of the Normandy beach landings, school teacher Captain John H Miller (Tom Hanks) is charged with leading that team through war-torn France.

Losing several team members along the way, Miller’s men search for the proverbial needle, experiencing the many horrors of war in the process. When they finally find the lost paratrooper, the soldiers are forced into a backs to the wall stand-off with a German patrol in a bid to keep Private Ryan alive long enough to escape to safety.

Steven Spielberg is accused of making movies that are too saccharine, often with a soppy happy ending. There is nothing sickly sweet about Saving Private Ryan. War is laid bare, with the effect it has both physically and emotionally fully explored, with very little respite. From the opening attack on Omaha beach, it is clear this is no fun romp. Spielberg leaves you in no doubt that the attack on the beaches of France was a suicide mission, with the Allied forces breaking through by sheer strength of numbers and blind commitment to the cause. There is no attempt to disguise the horrific casualties sustained, and the massacre is shot in a shockingly visceral style.

We’re given the chance to get to know Miller and his team as they journey across country, making the losses they enduring all the more affecting, and the savage behaviour they exhibit to their German captives all the more shocking.

I have seen Private Ryan before, and remembered the unflinching style of the opening scenes very clearly. I had somehow forgot how bleak and realistic the rest of the story had been. It was a brave movie for Spielberg to make, and a brave part for Hanks to take, as both are famous for sweet family movies with happy endings, and kudos to them both for using their profiles and drawing power bring the casual multiplex audience in and show them the true horrors of war. There are many war movies equally as effective as Saving Private Ryan at giving a flavour of what was endured by the brave soldiers that fought for our freedom, but Saving Private Ryan has probably reached the most diverse audience. For me, a pretty flawless film, and a must watch.

Strangers on a Train (1951) – 8.2 No. 121

Whilst on a train journey, tennis star Guy Haines meets a strange man by the name of Bruno Anthony. Anthony is both overfriendly and a little too interested in Haines’ personal life. He is aware that Haines wants to divorce his wife in order to build a life with his girlfriend, Senator’s daughter Anne Morton. Anthony reveals a plan he has concocted whereby he will kill Haines estranged wife, and Haines will murder Anthony’s father. Haines makes his excuses and leaves, somewhat bemused by the conversation, but Anthony mistakenly believes a deal has been struck.

Anthony carries through on his end of the bargain, but Haines is understandably shocked and scared when he is confronted with what has happened. Haines tries desperately to distance himself from Anthony, but the stranger begins to infiltrate Haines’ life, throwing threats and blackmail at Haines. Will Haines go to prison, or can he put together a plan to expose the deluded murderer and clear his own name?

The idea behind Strangers on a Train is pretty intense. It combines stalking as an art form, not such a common occurrence at the time, with a cold-blooded murder story. Anthony is deliciously unhinged, living in a complete fantasy land. You can’t help but feel for Haines. What would you do? It’s a hopeless situation to be thrust into, and you can genuinely feel his helplessness.

The reason the story is so disconcerting is the performance of Robert Walker as Anthony. His madness is portrayed perfectly, with a wonderful mix of mania and innocence. You can’t help but almost feel sorry for him for alot of the film. He is clearly unhinged,and that is conveyed brilliantly by Walker. This performance makes that of Farley Granger as Haines look pretty bland in contrast. His desperation is palpable, but Granger just isn’t the most charismatic of leads.

For me, Strangers on a Train has a very different feel to the other Hitchcock movies i’ve watched for the project. Whereas his other works have worked by either letting the tension build to boiling point, or using intelligently constructed plots to confound the viewer, Strangers on a Train affects you in a much different way. The situation is off-putting because it is both completely off-kilter, and theoretically plausible. Any one of us could meet the titular stranger on any train one night, and find our lives falling apart around us. A very compelling story to watch unfold.

Come back next Monday for update 32. You can follow our progress at www.twitter.com/baz_mann and www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

Last week, Inception broke the $500m worldwide gross milestone. A big success story, to be sure, but after The Dark Knight’s $1bn+ number, it perhaps isn’t really a major surprise. It was even less of a surprise when it was revealed that Nolan would be at the helm for Batman 3 once Inception was done and dusted, but as the Inception train begins slowing to a halt, i can’t help but ask myself, was Batman 3 the right decision for Nolan’s career?

Nolan made his name with clever, twisting drama, and it is only his last couple of movies that have led to his being considered an action movie director. Films like Memento and The Prestige used human interest and intricate plotting to make an impact, and there is a risk that with his new action movie sensibilities, he could begin to lose what made him great as a filmmaker in the first place. This is one major reason why i feel it would have been wise to step away from the Batman franchise, but there are several more…

It’s a no-win situation.

As i said at the outset, The Dark Knight made over $1b worldwide. This makes it one of the highest grossing films of all time, leaving any attempt to top it financially virtually impossible. There will be much expectation, however, from both fans and studio. If it makes considerably less than the Nolan’s second Batman movie, it could be considered a failure.

The Dark Knight is also considered by many to be one of the best movies ever made, currently holding 11th place in the IMDb250 list. Again, this leaves expectation impossibly high, and it is highly unlikely Nolan can match it with the third film. This, again, could result in the movie being considered a failure. The Dark Knight’s plot was very well constructed, and complemented by some fine acting performances. A lot of elements came together perfectly, and the chances of Nolan experiencing the same fortune again are slim.

On the other hand, if he does top The Dark Knight financially and critically, he could be pressurized into considering staying on once again for a Batman 4. Whilst he has made it fairly clear that he doesn’t want to make more than a trilogy of films, if Warner Bros lean on him, and the fans scream out for another one, it will put the director into a very difficult situation. He could well find himself accused of turning his back on the franchise that brought him to the masses if he has to publicly turn down another Batman movie.

The actor playing the villain will be compared to Heath Ledger.

It’s unfair, and it’s inevitable. Heath Ledger carved out one of the greatest villain performances in cinematic history, and his presence, and the circumstances around it, were a big part of The Dark Knight’s success. The pressure will be on for whoever plays the principal villain in Batman 3, whoever it turns out to be, and whichever character they play. The fact that Ledger would have most likely reprised the Joker role in Batman 3 if he hadn’t tragically died will only make the scrutiny that bit more intense. With that shadow looming, it will be an almost impossible part to write and cast.

We have already seen the speculation around the next Batman villain undermine the build-up to Inception’s release. Whilst on the promotional trail for his latest film, Nolan was subjected to just as many questions regarding casting rumours for Batman 3 as he was to Inception based ones. With Joseph Gordon-Levitt and other Inception cast members inevitably linked to the follow-up to The Dark Knight in recent months, it is clear that there is somewhat of an obsession with which foes Batman will face next time around, and who will be responsible for bringing them to life.

He’d reached a good stopping point.

At the end of Batman Begins, it was made clear that there would be more. When Gordon revealed the Joker card that was being left at crime scenes, it was a message to the audience that there was to be a continuation to the story. At the end of The Dark Knight, there was no such nod to a sequel. Whilst you could argue that there were plot strands left hanging, like Mr Reese’s knowledge of Batman’s real identity, and The Joker’s incarceration but not death, the final scenes, with Batman riding off into the night, did not beg a follow up.

Batman knew that the people of Gotham would never truly accept him as their hero, no matter how much good he did, and that he was destined to live life as an outcast. This could easily be left as the conclusion of his journey, doomed to protect Gotham from behind the anonymity of his mask, a figure of mistrust and fear. A third film just isn’t necessary.

The biggest problem with following on from a film with so few loose ends is that any attempts to extend the plot strands seem tenuous, and if you start with a whole new story there is a danger of shifting the film’s tone from the previous one, leaving it feeling disjointed from the series. This actually happened to an extent between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, with Gotham looking almost completely different the second time around, which means that in this case it may not prove so much of a problem.

The franchise is too restrictive.

With Inception, Nolan has been able to craft a story completely from scratch, making up his own world, characters and technology. Whilst he has been able to make his Batman series unique to his own sensibilities, he is very much constrained by the logic and history of the comic series.

I have no doubts Nolan and his writing team can put together another compelling Batman story, but it will always be within a range of restrictions, which must be quite draining, and even frustrating at times. By casting off the shackles of Batman’s world, the talented filmmaker would be free to create original stories, exploring the themes and ideas he really wants to without having to keep grounded to a particular set of rules.

Inception was almost pure sci-fi, and Nolan set out his Batman stall by grounding it as much as possible in reality. This makes it difficult to be too inventive with the plot, and makes any science fiction based cheat such as the one seen in The Prestige much harder to get away with. Incidentally, this also makes a lot of the comic book characters difficult to realise on screen in the Batman world that Nolan has created.

He won’t improve on his weakest areas as a filmmaker.

The biggest criticism levelled at all of Nolan’s work is an inability to put genuine emotion up on screen. All of the characters that lead Nolan’s work are motivated by the same thing. Obsession. It is clearly a reflection of his own obsession with filmmaking, but the problem is that this type of character is not conducive to telling emotional, human interest stories.

This is made worse by the restrictions of the Batman character. Even Inception, despite a story revolving around a father trying to be reunited with his children, and the casting of one of the finest actors plying their trade today, did not have the emotional depth that truly great filmmaking requires.

The problem with the action movies that Nolan is now making is that they leave little time for personal drama, three-dimensional characterisation and exploration of character motivations. In order to improve his ability to work with this side of film, i think Nolan needs to concentrate on lower budget, character-led storytelling. Until he can give us perfectly crafted human drama, i think he needs to stay away from big budget blockbusters that demand great thrills and high action to draw in an audience and recoup their budget.

I understand that the reason Nolan was able to get a green light for Inception, his passion project, was his commitment to the Batman series, and its continuing success. I’m sure that by making Batman 3 he is once again ensuring that he’ll get to make the movie he wants to make once it is finished with. However, Nolan is one of very few directors that i can genuinely say i like every one of his films. My fear is that if he leans more and more towards the thrill-heavy action genre, he may well lose his filmmaking identity.

It would be a great shame if the director of great movies like Memento and The Prestige started making big movies that fell more towards the Transformers 2 end of the scale. This probably won’t happen, but there is a risk of getting carried away with a genre, and by making sequels to successful blockbusters, there is always great pressure to top the last installment by going bigger. We don’t want this from Nolan. He has given us one of the best, and most original movies of the Summer, and that is what we want more of, not franchise based popcorn fodder. I’m looking forward to Batman 3, and i will probably love it, but for the next couple of years i’ll find myself wondering what might have been, if Christopher Nolan had chosen to detach himself from Batman and make another original masterpiece.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last week it was revealed that Michael Goldenberg (who adapted Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) had been hired to pen a sequel to the forthcoming Green Lantern movie. When i say forthcoming, of course, i mean not until 2011, meaning the follow-up has begun development almost a year before the initial film’s release. This was followed up this week by a rumour hitting the ‘net that an Expendables sequel was also being mooted, again before the first film had even hit cinemas.

On the one hand, this is great news. All the movie-goers who loved The Expendables this week could enjoy it in the knowledge that they will get to see more in the future. For Green Lantern and DC fans, it shows that DC and Warner Bros are serious about making use of their licensed franchises, and that the super hero movie boom will continue on indefinitely.

For me, however, it instead felt almost like a slap in the face. To be clear, I am a fan of the Green Lantern, and DC characters in general. I am also looking forward to enjoying the dumb fun of Sly and his fellow action heroes raining hot lead on an army of bad guys. The reason i felt insulted was not because i don’t want to see these sequels, or the initial movies they are following on from, but because the people involved assume that i do.

That may sound a bit silly on first read, but think about it for a second. Use Green Lantern as the example, as it is much more presumptuous. There have been no test screenings of the movie. Shooting only wrapped just over a week ago. The studio do not yet know if it will be any good, but they are taking for granted that because it is based on a popular franchise, with a recognisable lead attached, that it will make a lot of money. They are taking the attitude that it doesn’t matter what the review scores are, or if turns out to be a coherent movie, that people are going to mindlessly spend money on it regardless of its quality.

There are two reasons this angers me. The first is the obvious, as i have detailed it above. The average movie-goer is seen by the studio as a sheep, and they think that by putting enough marketing power behind any film, or using a licensed property that they know has an inbuilt fanbase, they can influence people into going to see a movie regardless of its quality. Now, I’m not saying that Green Lantern won’t be very good, I’m saying that the studio doesn’t know yet if it will be, and yet are still banking on it making a healthy profit.

The other reason this situation frustrates me is that they are right. There is a rich history of very poor big budget blockbusters making huge amounts of money despite not being very good. The Last Airbender is a recent example. Huge amounts of money were poured into both Airbender’s production budget and marketing campaigns. This was done because it was believed that it would make a ton of money, and with many of the sets and props built, as well as fx shots created, they could then go on to churn out sequels at a lower cost. They were right, it did make a lot of money, despite getting some of the worst review scores in recent memory. It has not made enough yet to cover costs, however, so it is representative of what could happen on a much greater scale when sequels are put into development before the profits are known for the preceding films.

There is a danger, if production companies get too ahead of themselves, that they could end up in serious financial straights by biting off more than they can chew. With Green Lantern, writing a screenplay for a sequel isn’t going to cost a great deal, and so far as i know the Expendables sequel is nothing more than the root of an idea. However, the natural extension of what is happening is for companies to put sequels into active production before the release of the parent movie. If this happens, there will invariably be movies that do not meet their expectations at the box office, resulting in finances wasted on a movie that nobody wants, hours of wasted man power, and in extreme cases abandoned productions.

There have been sequels made back to back, and so far, it hasn’t resulted in huge financial crisis. As far as Green Lantern goes, i am willing to accept that yes, it probably will make a bucket load of money. The comic book movie era has not yet passed, in fact there seem to be more comic based movies in production than ever. Whilst it may struggle to perform as well at the box office as the more established Batman series, the recent success of Iron Man, a Marvel character with no previous big screen pedigree, has shown that secondary superheroes can still draw crowds in as long as the movies are well made and, perhaps more importantly, well marketed.

I definitely feel, at a time when the film industry should be counting the pennies along with the rest of the economic world, that this is a dangerous route that could destroy anyone who treads too far along it. I am not strictly against sequels, and like all the other sheep I’ll probably be paying to see Green Lantern. I just think it is important to take a realistic view of the future. As The Last Airbender has shown, if a big budget movie is God-awful enough, even a large proportion of the casual audience will stay away.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

OK, i’ll wait a minute for you to stop laughing. It’s understandable. Stallone has been considered somewhat of a joke by many over the past couple of decades. He doesn’t have the best reputation for range, choice of roles or quality of output but, when it comes down to it, he has been consistently one of the most popular personalities in the industry.

Whether you love Sly or hate him, the evidence of the impact he has had on Hollywood is compelling to say the least. You see, the success of The Expendables at the weekend wasn’t just a return to the star power-led successes of the eighties, it was a huge landmark in the history of the Silver Screen.

The Expendables won the box office at the weekend. This is special because it is the fifth consecutive decade in which Sylvester Stallone has starred in a movie that topped the box office in its opening week. That’s right, dating back from the seventies, every decade a Sylvester Stallone vehicle has opened in the number one position in theatres. This is a massive achievement, and Sly is the only actor to have done it.

It began nearly 35 years ago with Rocky. Now, there don’t seem to be accurate records for Rocky’s opening gross, so we have to skip to Rocky II which won its opening weekend with $6.3m in 1979. In the eighties, it was a handful of box office wins with Rocky III and IV, and First Blood and Rambo II amongst others.

Sly followed this up in the nineties with success in Cliffhanger, the Specialist, etc… with Cliffhanger the biggest opening at $16.1M. It gets a bit thin in the noughties, when Driven, despite being an awful movie, won its opening weekend before fading into obscurity. The Expendables makes up the fifth decade, but at Sly’s age, it is difficult to see him making it six decades in a row – he’ll be 74 in 2020.

I realise, of course, that you’re screaming at me by now, that success can’t be measured purely in monetary terms. How can he be Hollywood’s biggest star when he has been nominated for more Razzies than you can shake a stick at? You’re not wrong, and his biggest award success, worst actor of the decade at said Razzies in 1990, is not indicative of a great actor.

It is somewhat difficult to defend Stallone’s quality of work, but i’ll certainly have a go. He was nominated for Best Actor in a Lead Role at the Academy Awards in 1977 for Rocky, as well as for Best Screenplay. It has gone downhill since then, but there have been some really good performances over the years as far as i am concerned, with Demolition Man, Assassins and Cop Land particularly standing out for me.

I don’t think the man gets a fair shot a lot of the time, he has been tarred with the brush of talentless action hero, and whilst he has made some stinkers, i don’t think he gets the benefit of the doubt because of who he is. I think there are times when he does a great job, but people don’t see it, because they just don’t like him.

There is no doubting that Stallone has not made a genuinely good film for a long time now, and if he continues to pursue sequels like Rambo and Rocky Balboa, not to mention ‘original’ action movies like The Expendables, he is not going to change that. I’m hoping that as a result of The Expendables’ success this Summer, he might get offered some more diverse parts again, and get one last crack at showing the world that he does have some chops, and is not solely suited to shooting scores of extras with dozens of squibs for a living.

I am not a massive fan of Sylvester Stallone, and i don’t find myself particularly anxious to go out and see his latest action blockbuster. I did like him in Rocky and the underrated Cop Land, however, and if he gets to play some more interesting parts i would be much more likely to give him a shot one more time.

Whatever your feelings on Stallone, there is no denying that financially he has been one of the industry’s most successful performers, and regardless of the quality of his output to date, and whatever his future holds, he will always be remembered as one of Hollywood’s biggest stars.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 27th update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

The Wrestler (2008) – 8.2 No. 126

Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler began as a docu-style film exploring the tragic world of the independent wrestling scene, and some of the washed up stars that end up there. What it became was Mickey Rourke’s triumphant return to the Hollywood spotlight, and a genuine Oscar contender.

Rourke is Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, a former headlining professional wrestling star whose day is far past. Once huge in the eighties, Randy is making pennies on the independent wrestling scene. He is behind on his rent, has lost contact with his estranged daughter, and in the lead-up to a big anniversary match with his former nemesis, suffers a heart attack following a particularly brutal match.

Robinson attempts to live a life away from the ring for the sake of his health. Trying to build relationships with both stripper ‘Cassidy’ and daughter Stephanie. When his new jobs, and his attempts at building human relationships fail, he risks it all to get back in the ring.

It is easy to see why The Wrestler was in contention at the Academy Awards. Rourke cuts a tragic figure as ‘The Ram’, almost the perfect mirror of his own fallen star. He brings an air of authenticity to the part, and the documentary style cinematography makes the story seem so real. It works because it IS real. Whilst the story of Robinson is fictional, anyone who has seen the brilliant Beyond the Mat documentary knows that everything put up on screen here is a mirror of real life events.

This, perhaps, is the biggest flaw. Having seen Beyond the Mat, The Wrestler comes across very much as a dramatized version of the events within the doc, cut together with the same character in each segment. There is a bit too much happening to the same guy, making it seem just a little too extreme. A fantastic film nonetheless, and a brave one to make and try to sell. A brilliant performance by Rourke, great direction from Aranofsky, and an all around very good film.

Snatch (2000) – 8.1 No. 138

After the well received and surprisingly successful Lock, Stock… Guy Ritchie followed-up with another mockneycrime caper. Witha bigger budget, and some American acting support, Ritchie hoped to build on the success of Lock, Stock… on both sides of the pond.

Boxing promoter Turkish (Jason Statham) manages to cross infamous gang boss Brick Top when his fighter, Gorgeous George, comes a cropper on a shopping trip to the local Pikeycampsite. With the imminent threat of pain looming over him, he must somehow convince Gipsy Mickey (Brad Pitt) to not only fight for him, but throw the match in the process.

Meanwhile, Frankie Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) has a diamond to sell following a successful heist in Antwerp, but his boss convinces London based Boris the Blade to steal the diamond before it can reach proposed buyer Doug the Head. Boris employs jewellers Sol and Vinnie to get the stone, not knowing that American Avi has entered the country, and enlisted the services of Bullet Tooth Tony (Vinnie Jones) to try and locate his missing stone.

There is a lot going on in Snatch, making it a difficult film to summarise. This is one of its strengths however, as the rapid nature of the twisting storyline keeps the pace flowing, and in turn holds the interest of the viewer. There is action, humour and some clever plot twists on show, making Snatch a very watchable film.

However, the two-dimensional characters and complete lack of emotional complexity make it a very shallow watch, and whilst the first time round this wasn’t really a big problem, on second watch it is left woefully obvious. There is added glamour thanks to the presence of Brad Pitt, but the reappearance of a large section of the Lock, Stock… cast leave Snatch feeling like a lazy sub-sequel, and for me, to call it one of the best 250 movies ever made is almost a joke too far.

The Great Escape (1963) – 8.3 No. 101

The Great Escape has become almost a yuletide joke. Along with The Wizard of Oz and The Sound of Music, it is commonly thought of as ‘that film they show at Christmas’. As a result, it is easy to forget how good a movie it really is in parts.

The location, time and characters have been condensed, but The Great Escape is the story of WWII POWs who havebeen secured in a ‘super prison’, a compound built and guarded especially because of the sheer volume of recorded escape attempts of its inhabitants. The group is very organised, with a forger (Donald Pleasance), a scrounger (James Garner), the tunnel king (Charles Bronson) and big X himself (Richard Attenborough) amongst others.

We follow the life of the prisoners, including newcomer Hilts (Steve McQueen) as they live a seemingly peaceful existence in the camp, whilst secretly working on three tunnels, in preparation for a mass escape attempt. The plan is to try and pull as many German soldiers as possible into searching for escapees, whilst the Allied Forces attempt to turn the tide with the Normandy beach landings.

The Great Escape has snappy dialogue, classy acting performances, and in the end some genuinely thrilling action. An important story is told about the contribution, and sacrifice, of POW’s towards D-Day, and the events that lead to Allied victory in Europe. The storyline is a serious one, and whilst there is much humour, it is always tactful and tastefully done. What could have come across as a boy’s own adventure tale (there are no female characters) actually works as an at times genuinely touching drama, of men making the best of a bad situation.

Entertaining, compelling, and perfectly constructed, The Great Escape never fails to surprise me, as with each watch i find myself just as entertained as the last. Probably one of the most well put together war films ever made, i’m glad it has found itself on the IMDb5250 list.

Sin City (2005) – 8.3 No. 93

Based on Frank Miller’s graphic novel of the same name, Sin City is a film noir that follows several of the town’s hard-boiled inhabitants. Directed by Miller himself alongside Robert Rodriguez, it had an at the time unique look, and unusual structure.

Over the hill cop Hartigan(Bruce Willis) saves a young girl from a serial child killer. Despite his success, he finds himself framed and incarcerated, as the child killer was the son of powerful Senator Rourke. Marv (Mickey Rourke) also finds he has been framed, this time for the death of a prostitute he awakes to find murdered in his bed. In an attempt to clear his name, Marv follows the trail to the Roarkfamily farm. After teaming up with the dead prostitute’s sister, Marv kills the real murderer Kevin, and his accomplice Senator Roark. He is then sentenced to death for these acts.

Dwight (CliveOwen) defends his girlfriend from her abusiveex Jackie Boy, pursuing him through Old Town. Whilst there, he becomes mixed up withthe town’s prostitute sorority when they kill Jackie Boy, only to discover he is a Sin City Detective. Dwight helps them escape mercenaries out to uncover their mistake. We rejoin Hartigan in prison. The young girl he saved has now grown up, and is a target for a mysterious yellow man. Can Hartigan save her once again?

Whether you like the movie or not, Robert Rodriguez’ Sin City is certainly a slick picture with a distinctive style. Based on Frank Miller’s cult graphic novel, the comic book visuals of the film were at the time unique. The whole thing was shot with the action in front of green screen, with backgrounds edited in later in post-production.

The movie was also shot with high definition cameras, making it an entirely digital movie. Willis’ hardboiled Hartiganis a real throwback to pulp detective stories, and his thread in the film is done the way that the videogame adaptation of Max Payne should have been done. The film-noirstyle narration by Willis seems like an easy thing to do, but listen to Clive Owen’s attempt in his thread, and you can hear the difference in quality.

Willis role as Hartigan does two things. It gently pokes fun at Willis’ action movie persona, and as the cop with the bum ticker in the twilight of his career, it’s his way of holding his hands up and accepting that age has caught him up. Willis now (mostly) takes on roles as the grizzled veteran, the old-school policeman in his retirement year. Sin City can also be credited for the beginning of Micky Rourke’s triumphant return to Hollywood, 3 years in advance of The Wrestler. His role as Marv is as perfect a portrayal of the graphic novel’s character as you could hope for, with extensive prosthetics used to achieve the perfect look.

A beautiful looking movie, with some unique ideas. Definitely worth a watch, but upon repeated viewing you may well find yourself yearning for something more, something a bit deeper.

Brief Encounter (1945) – 8.0 No. 204

Brief Encounter is the romantic tale of a housewife who falls for a handsome stranger, based on Noel Coward’s 1936 play Still Life, from a screenplay written by Coward himself.

Housewife Laura (Celia Johnson) leads an unexciting, suburban existence with husband Fred, and feels completely unappreciated. One afternoon, after a day in town, she meets dashing Doctor Alec (Trevor Howard), and the spark is immediately obvious. They run into each other again in town on another occasion, and arrange to to meet again.

After spending several days together, the initially innocent relationship inevitably becomes something more. As Laura’s feelings deepen, so do her lies to her husband, as she tries to keep her actions secret, and her feelings under control. With both parties married with children, it is a potentially explosive affair, and after several near misses, the guilt becomes too much. They finally say farewell to each other forever, both devastated by what might have been, but only too aware of what they stand to lose.

The developing relationship between the two protagonists is well written, perfectly paced, and is totally convincing. You can see how the affair started off innocently, but the whole situation has an air of inevitability about it from the beginning. The story attempts to paint both people in a sympathetic light, but it is difficult. Their actions are pretty unforgivable, and whilst you can understand how the situation could arise, and their dissatisfaction with their current relationships, the layers of deceit start to strip away your understanding.

The two lead performances are perfectly well measured, with a very natural air. The recurring theme of the train station, and the rush to make the last train keeps the tension level up, and the near misses they experience with those that know them are just coincidence enough, without resorting to extremes. That is what makes the story work, the gentle, true feel of the blossoming relationship. What Brief Encounter doesn’t succeed at is winning the characters your sympathy, which makes it hard to connect with the film.

Very well made, and brilliantly written, Brief Encounter is a successful portrait of an all too common extra-marital affair. Because of the time in which it was made, it avoids being too graphic, and its only real failing is its inability to connect you to the two protagonists, as both are guilty of reprehensible behaviour. If we were given more backstory, and a better insight into their respective relationships before the fateful day they met, it may have been easier to feel sympathetic. As it is, a very good film, with very few flaws.

Come back next Monday for update 28. You can follow our progress at www.twitter.com/baz_mann and www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

The news that Edward Norton had been ‘dumped’ as Bruce Banner/The Hulk for the forthcoming Avengers movie seemed to shock the media this past week. I have to ask, however, just how shocked can we reasonably be? This has been on the cards since the initial announcement of an Avengers project. If it is because of Norton’s apparent behaviour during production of The Incredible Hulk, that’s one thing, but if it is for financial reasons, then it is indicative of the way the Hollywood industry is currently headed.

I have to start by saying that i am possibly less shocked than others for the simple fact that, based on comments made by related parties several months ago around the Avengers announcement, it was my belief that Norton would not be reprising his role as the Hulk anyway. I don’t recall the exact nature of the comments, but i seem to remember Norton revealing that he was not contracted to play the character again, and that at present he had no idea if he would be asked. I also seem to remember Marvel, in some form or other, stating that it was unknown whether there would be another appearance by the Hulk in any of the Marvel adaptations.

Regardless of the impression i had gotten, i still think the news should be far less of a surprise. When Iron Man 2 was being cast, it was revealed that Jim Rhodes would be played by Don Cheadle rather than Terence Howard, after the original actor effectively priced himself out of the market. Subsequent Marvel casting has seen a still relatively unknown cast as Thor, in the shape of Australian actor Chris Hemsworth, and a list of TV actors auditioning for the Captain America movie. In the end, the studio bowed to fan pressure and plumped to go up a tier to capture Chris Evans, though again, they got him ‘on the cheap’.

‘On the cheap’ has been a philosophy of Marvel’s movie production arm from the beginning. The surprise choices of Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr as director and star of Iron Man 2 paid off, but must have been made with one eye on the personnel budget, as neither were considered particularly hot property at the time. Marvel are pretty new to the movie game, and are playing it carefully. They have a lot of stuff in development right now, which involves a considerable outlay, and in order to be able to keep costs achievable, they have to avoid blowing a lot of money on one movie. Assuming Thor and Captain America pay off, they could well have more working capital to put towards The Avengers, but production will have to start long before gross profits begin to roll in. Now that Downey has made a couple of very successful Iron Man movies, he won’t be a cheap prospect, and with numerous other characters that need to be cast, the studio cannot afford to blow too much on big name actors.

It is a great shame, because Edward Norton is one of the finest actors around, and would be an asset to any movie. However, when you take on a personality like Norton into a project, you do open yourselves up to certain risks. You see, Norton can, at times, be a little prickly. He allegedly threw his weight around on American History X, forcing more screen time for his character. Marvel themselves know only too well the influence the man can exert, after he reportedly took over the script for The Incredible Hulk, and made changes to his own satisfaction. This could well be the real reason for his departure from the Avengers project. With several big personalities involved, any dissention by one star would be amplified greatly.

The big news now is that Mark Ruffalo has been offered the role of Bruce Banner. Ruffalo has been around for a long time, and has built up a reputation for being a fine actor. More recently, he has risen to prominence with big roles in Rian Johnson’s The Brothers Bloom, and this year’s Shutter Island, directed by Martin Scorsese. I first paid attention Ruffalo when i was dragged to see the awful 13 Going On 30, and i was pretty impressed even then. He somehow managed to play his part brilliantly, and distance himself from the rest of the cast in the process.

Ruffalo fits the bill perfectly for Marvel. He is a very competent actor, but is still, to a point, an undiscovered talent. This will make him perfectly affordable, and it will be a great role for him, helping to further establish his place in the next tier.

The one thing that concerns me with the Avengers casting is that, with Norton now out, Robert Downey Jr is the ‘star’ of the show. With two successful Iron Man movies under his belt, he is the experienced Marvel man, and will be commanding a considerably larger fee than his colleagues. I’m not suggesting for a minute that he has a big ego, or that these circumstances will cause conflicts between the actors, but it does mean that the threat is there. Downey has a considerable amount of charisma and presence, and could potentially blow the other actors off the screen. Hopefully, the parts will be written with a good balance in mind, and i’m sure it won’t cause a major problem. I certainly hope not.

It is clear that Marvel are trying to make all their movies on a managable budget, and with so many irons currently in the fire, it could potentially be a house of cards situation. They now have Disney for support, however, whether that be technical or financial, so i imagine the ship will be steadied to a degree if problems do arise. I hope it does all go to plan, and if Ruffalo does take the part, i wish him luck. The whole Avengers project is certainly ambitious, and i find myself wishing that more studios would take these kind of risks on a more regular basis. Of course, if they did do that, they could well end up in a similar situation to MGM. And nobody wants that.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

It was reported last week that MGM may have finally given up on Bond 23, and it has now apparently been cancelled. MGM have been in turmoil for some time now, with financial problems slowing projects, and no sign of a buyer. This is sad news for many people for several reasons.

On the surface, it is clearly a shame for the Bond franchise. James Bond is one of very few enduring British characters in recent cinematic history. Bond movies have been made fairly consistently over the last 50 years, and have always allowed a place for British film in the North American film industry. Bond is not only the most iconic British movie character, he is one of the most recognisable action heroes in cinema.

The Bond movies have never really been considered  high art, and are more popcorn action mixed with elaborate stories of conspiracy and espionage than they are compelling drama and complex characterisation. There had been an improvement in this recently, with Casino Royale considered by many as the best of the Bond films, taking a very serious and gritty Bourne-like view of the gentleman spy.

The news that an Academy Award winner, in the shape of Sam Mendes, was going to take control of the next installment gave hope that Bond would take another step up. The promise of exciting action being linked up with Mendes’ characteristic emotional storytelling style certainly increased my interest in the next film, despite the fact that i really have never been a fan of the series. How much of a blow it is to Mendes himself is unknown. I have no idea whether he had definite ideas of where he wanted to take the character, or if he thought it would just be an interesting project to take on. It is probably more of a blow to Daniel Craig. He had appeared in films before Casino Royale, but his appointment as Bond is what has really elevated his status, and the parts he has taken on inbetween have not had a great deal of impact. With the Bond gig now out, i wonder if he’ll struggle to get big roles in the coming months to replace it.

As i said though, i am not really a Bond fan, and to me the greater issue here is seeing just how far MGM has fallen. Founded in 1924, MGM were the dominant Hollywood studio until the beginning of the 1950′s. Beginning with their first version of Ben Hur in 1925, the studio was responsible for many movies that are still considered classics today. Northwest Passage, The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind were all MGM releases.

The studio were famous for being one of the first to make use of Technicolour, in its different forms, and at its height was releasing up to 50 movies a year. It wasn’t until just after World War II that it started to go wrong. Demographics, sensibilities and popular genres were changing. MGM however continued to cling onto their past, producing elaborate, overly expensive musical productions, whilst rivals like Warner Bros were making more and more lower budget, dramatic films. This lead to the beginning of their financial problems. With debts beginning to mount up, production was forced to slow down, and no movies were released under the MGM brand between 1973 and 1980.

In 1981, as part of their attempt to turn around their fortunes, they began making movies again. As part of this plan, they purchased United Artists, and with it the Bond license. Over the next ten years or so, MGM was bought and sold many times, running into greater debts with each sale. With hits few and far between, they only managed to survive thanks to their extensive film library, combined of both MGM produced films, and properties acquired over the years. They produced less and less new pictures, however, and now the back catalogue isn’t proving enough to sustain them. Now, with only the Bond franchise, and a half share of the two Hobbit movies to their name, things are looking desperate.

With Bond all but cancelled, The Hobbit currently looks like their only possible in-house financial lifeline. It is fortuitous for the property that MGM are only hold a part stake, as it means production should still be able to go ahead as long as the other parties stay afloat…

MGM have gone from being the biggest player in Hollywood to a broken brand, in many ways a victim of their early success. By making their name with huge productions, they made a rod for their own back, and a reluctance to change led to the beginning of their financial woes over fifty years ago. Many movie studios come and go, but few with as rich a history as MGM. I personally hope they find a buyer to lead them out of their problems, and make a new beginning. It would be a desperate shame to lose such a big part of Hollywood history.

Bazmann- You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 25th update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

Spartacus (1960) – 7.9 No. 232

First off this time around, i watched Spartacus. No, i watched Spartacus. No, I watched Spartacus…

Kirk Douglas is Spartacus, who is sold into slavery to fight as a Gladiator, but refuses to fight. As the slaves around him train hard, and concentrate on the trials ahead, Spartacus dreams of freedom. When time comes for his first fight, he is defeated by Draba, a giant of a man. Draba refuses to kill him, and tries to attack the Roman spectators instead, getting killed by ambitious Senator Crassus in the process. Crassus (Laurence Olivier) purchases a slave woman, and is preparing to leave. Spartacus has fallen in love with the woman Varinia however, and convinces the slaves to rise up against their oppressors.

The newly formed army march across Italy, freeing slaves as they go, aiming to escape by sea from the port of Brundisium. As the army grows, the Roman armies sent to stop them are defeated in turn. Eventually, the slave army is trapped when they arrive at the coast, their plans to escape on pirate ships scuppered by Crassus, who has bribed their proposed saviours. Spartacus’ army, hopelessly outnumbered, is defeated. The end is nigh for the hero, but in his last moments he is allowed to find solace in the knowledge that his son may live free.

The story of Spartacus is fascinating, but save for a few moments, the first two thirds of the movie seem a bit plodding. One of the greater early moments, when Spartacus and Draba await their fight to the death, is brilliantly filmed. Instead of viewing the preceding battle between two of their fellow gladiators, we watch the two men sitting across from each other, contemplating what is about to happen, with the barest glimpse of the fight going on outside. It’s a shame such powerful moments are somewhat dampened by the sheer length of the movie.

When things do get going, and Spartacus discovers his army are marching into a trap, the plot elements come together, and the film becomes much more interesting. The defeat is handled well, Spartacus’ final confrontation with his friend Antoninus, played by Tony Curtis in one of his finest roles, is one of the most emotionally affecting moments of the film. Finally, Spartacus discovering the fate of his son as he dies slowly on the cross, despite feeling somewhat contrived, is also greatly touching.

The brilliance of Director Stanley Kubrick is definitely on display here. Some fantastic moments, great cinematography, and the cold and realistic ending are clear signs of his presence. That a director like Kubrick was handed the reigns of what is, on the surface, a popcorn action epic is incredible really. I hold it akin to Oliver Stone making Transformers , or Terry Gilliam being handed the reigns to Pirates of the Carribean. But it really works well in places, elevating what would otherwise be a pretty straightforward entertainment piece.

A film of brilliance, that unfortunatley just seems a little too stretched out for what is contained within. I find myself wondering if there was studio interference, however, as there are sections that don’t seem to bear Kubrick’s stamp. Definitely worth multiple viewings, however, as i’m sure there are some great moments that i’ve missed.

Gandhi (1982) – 8.1 No. 166

Ben Kingsley is a very well respected British actor. More recently, he has become known for poorly written, over the top villain roles, but at his height, he was one of the best. It was the role of Mahatma Gandhi that started it all off for him.

The film begins with Gandhi in 1893. A young lawyer travelling across South Africa by train, Gandhi is thrown off of for travelling in first class, despite having a ticket. Gandhi is outraged to discover this prejudice exists in the country, and his life is changed for ever. He begins a campaign for equal rights for Indians in South Africa. It is a peaceful campaign, and after enduring much hostility and threats of violence, he is eventually victorious.

Returning to India, Gandhi then takes up the fight for India’s independence from Britain. His once again peaceful campaign is treated with violence, hatred, and several spells behind bars. The events of World War II lead to Britain turning India over, but there then begins a battle between Hindu and Muslim people instead. Gandhi begins a hunger campaign, vowing to starve unless the fighting ends. Eventually, his plan works, and part of India becomes the new country of Pakistan. This is not what Gandhi wanted, and he spends his last days trying to end the continuing conflict between the two religions.

David Attenborough’s filmmaking is very accomplished, but to me, lacks a certain flair. Gandhi’s story is well told, and the important elements are present, with the right amount of condensing done to avoid any wasted screen-time.

It does feel, however, that the director, and or/the writer have busied themselves too much with following the history of the characters actions, and spent precious little time exploring the motivations of the character himself. Gandhi was clearly a very complex man. He had wonderful, selfless ideals, and these are certainly on display here, but there needs to be more exploration of how the events of history affected him emotionally, and there is scant depiction of the doubts he must surely have suffered at times.

Ben Kingsley’s transformation into the character is very convincing, and the film is full of fine performances. Unfortunately, i don’t feel that it works as a compelling movie, does not do enough to truly represent the spirit of the man himself. The story is told, and it is an important one, but i just don’t get the emotional connection with the character that his great actions deserve.

American History X (1998) – 8.5 No. 38

Edward Norton has forged a reputation as one of the best respected actors of a generation whilst, on the whole, making films that are accessible to the Vue multiplex crowd. American History X fits into that category, just, but does it suffer as a consequence of that accessibility?

Norton plays Derek, a white supremacist, whose beliefs and behaviours are causing unrest within his family unit. After a particularly violent encounter with some local black youths, he finds himself incarcerated, leaving his family to cope on their own.

Derek’s younger brother, Daniel, has followed in his brothers footsteps, resulting in clashes with black classmates, and disciplinary problems at school. His principal tasks him with writing an essay about his brothers experience, coinciding with Derek’s release. He is somewhat dismayed to find his older brother trying to shake off his previous life, which results in great conflict with the former supremacist’s past associates.

The story is told initially through the eyes of Derek’s younger brother, but (probably due to Norton’s reported interference) this seems to be discarded quite quickly. In the beginning, a serious and well drawn out story seems to be developing, but once Norton’s character is released, and we are treated to his backstory, a more straightforward, simple minded exploration of the issues occurs.

The issues at hand are serious ones, and definitely deserving of exploration. Unfortunately, American History X boils this down to a very two-dimensional, simplistic view. There are some hard hitting moments, and violent altercations that are almost difficult to watch. Unfortunately, the story and characters are underwritten. The obvious beats are there, but with no real attempt to tie them into a compelling, satisfying narrative.

A shame, because the performances are strong, particularly from Norton. His look and behaviour in full neo-nazi form is spot on, and it is only really his whiny sounding voice that, for whatever reason, doesn’t seem to fit the part. Edward Furlong as his brother Daniel is also very good, and it is a shame the narrative is seemingly taken away from his character, as it would be interesting to be allowed a greater insight into his inner conflict when he is met with his brother’s change of view.

A nice attempt, but far too shallow to do justice to a very serious, and continuing problem not just in America, but around the world. Like several films i have looked at, probably in the list more for the sentiment than the actual execution.

Star Trek (2009) – 8.1 No. 144

JJ Abrams’ 2009 movie was a highly anticipated reboot of the phenomenally popular original Star Trek series. There was much conjecture, and then debate over the casting of the iconic characters from the series. When the movie was finally released, it came with an avalanche of publicity, and met with hyperbolic reviews. Looking back now, over a year later, it is difficult to see why it received such unanimous praise.

Chris Pine is young James T Kirk. His father was a Star Fleet captain for less than 20 minutes, dying when Kirk was just entering the world. Some 20 years later, Kirk is a waster. Drinking, fighting, and grand theft auto are all he knows. When a friend of his fathers offers him a chance to make something of himself he eventually, reluctantly, agrees.

Kirk cheats at an infamous battle simulation exercise, and following clashes with the simulation’s programmer Mr Spock, he is on the verge of being flunked out of the Academy when all Hell breaks loose. A Romulan ship is causing havoc, and with a lack of expertly manned federation ships in the vicinity, it is up to the young cadets to stop them. Kirk stows aboard, is ejected, and then after an encounter with a new old friend, takes charge of the USS Enterprise and saves the day.

The re-casting of the popular sci-fi series is mostly successful, with Karl Urban as Bones and Heroes’ Zachary Quinto as Spock particularly impressive. Simon Pegg looks a bit out of place as Scotty, but this is as much a product of the way his character is written as it is with his bewildered look, and dodgy Scottish accent. His character is symbolic of my biggest problem with JJ Abram’s Star Trek. There is far too much silly. The circumstances around the elder Spock’s interjection is preposterous enough, but the slapstick style of much of the humour is just too much.

The action is, at times, thrilling, and there are some fun nods to the original sixties series and characters. The re-imagined settings and designs are fantastic, and that persistent lens flare is only slightly annoying. Overall, i was seriously underwhelmed though. If and when there is a sequel, i will give it a go in hopes of improvement, but as it stands, for me, Star Trek really has no place in the IMDb250 list.

The Hustler (1961) – 8.0 No. 189

Paul Newman has made many iconic roles his own over his long career, and 1961′s The Hustler, based on the novel of the same name, is one of the most enduring.

Newman is ‘Fast Eddie’ Felson, a small time pool hustler desperate to be known as the best. Eddie travels across country with his partner in a quest to take on Minnesota Fats, one of the greatest pool players in the country, and prove himself as number one. Unfortunately, despite playing well and winning a great deal of Minnesota’s money, alcohol and arrogance prove to be Felson’s downfall.

Defeat hits the hustler hard, and when he meets beautiful author Sarah, he starts up a relationship, leaving the pool game behind. Felson’s partner turns up, urging him to get back in the game. Felson turns him down, but his obsession with the game, and his strained relationship with Sarah lead him to going back on the road with her in tow.

When Felson starts to put the game before his relationship with Sarah, she realises he isn’t in love with her. Having left her home behind, she now has nothing left to live for, feeling alone and miserable. When this fragile state leads to her tragic parting with Felsom, he gambles every last penny on one more doomed crack at Minnesota Fats. Having lost the only person who ever loved him, and realising his personal demons will prevent him ever becoming a real success, Felson ends up a broken man.

Paul Newman has played a series of roguish, and often tragic characters throughout his career. These characters usually come with a certain charm, and like-ability. That isn’t allowed by the character of Felson here. A compulsive, self destructive personality, with a huge ego to boot, Felson has no real redeeming features. In the end, he barely even wins your pity. The tragic character here is really Sarah, brilliantly played by Piper Laurie. Her story arc is the most complete, and the most emotionally satisfying of the movie. You genuinely pity her, and share her sadness. Whilst pool is the name of the game, it is her journey, and the misery caused by the destructive relationship shared between her and Felson that is at the heart of the story.

A very dark tale, which whilst remembered as Newman’s film, belongs to Laurie’s tragic Sarah. The Hustler is well written, and in parts genuinely affecting. The tragic story, and downbeat ending are a surprise considering how the movie begins, which only serves to make it all the more affecting. One of the top 250 films ever made? Possibly, just don’t go in expecting a lot of laughs.

Come back next Monday for update 25. You can follow our progress at www.twitter.com/baz_mann and www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

23 years ago, a formulaic Arnold Schwarzenegger action vehicle was released. It enjoyed box office, if not necessarily critical success. A lacklustre follow-up ensured the franchise was, cinematically at least, silenced for many years. The series’ protagonists were given their big screen resurrection 6 years ago with shared billing, with a sequel 3 years later. Both films were very poorly received. How, then, has such a mishandled franchise not only endured up to this point in the public psyche, but led to this week’s big budget sequel, directed by Nimrod Antal, and starring Academy Award winner Adrien Brody?

It was the Eighties, and Arnold Schwarzenegger had become the Hollywood action hero of choice, thanks to his impressive physique, and a string of formulaic hits such as Commando and Raw Deal, and the ground breaking Terminator. Jim and John Thomas’ screenplay for Predator was, as the story goes, the result of a joke that Sylvester Stallone would have to fight an alien in the next Rocky installment, having been victorious over a series of increasingly invincible opponents over the course of Rocky’s I through V.

The first Predator film played out very much like a cross between Rambo and Alien (indeed, the recently mooted Rambo concept of Rambo and company facing off against an alien monster may have been both an offshoot of this original idea, and shut down because of its similarities). A team of soldiers, deep in the Guatemalan jungle on a rescue mission, find themselves picked off one by one by an invisible, otherworldly assailant. Eventually, Schwarzenegger’s Dutch is the only character left, resulting in a Mano a Mano showdown which inevitably ends in the Governator’s victory.

As i mentioned at the beginning, it was a very formulaic, recognisable plot. There was one big factor, however, that helped it stand out. It wasn’t the fact that the cast included two future State Governors (Jesse Ventura and Arnie himself) and excellent Lethal Weapon screenwriter Shane Black (who was apparently chosen in part so he could keep an eye on rookie director John McTiernan). What made Predator better than Schwarzenegger’s usual shtick was the presence of a truly compelling foe. Where mostly he was known for taking apart faceless goons one by one until he met up with the B-movie villain of the piece, here the situation was more or less reversed. If it hadn’t been for the presence of the Austrian actor, the Predator himself would have been the star of the movie. The alien warrior was new and unique. Whilst the creature in Alien and its sequels was driven seemingly by pure animalistic instinct, the Predator had evolved technology, such as the thermal imaging capabilities, and a clear hide and strike, hunter’s mentality. In many ways this made the enemy the more compelling character.

With a $60m gross, and good critical reception, Predator was potentially a fantastic starting point for an interesting series of movies. Unfortunately, Predator 2 was not the right follow up. The series lost star Schwarzenegger to Terminator 2: Judgement Day, replacing him with a Danny Glover who was visibly too old too old for this s^&$. It also lost director McTiernan, who had directed Die Hard in the interim and turned down Predator 2 for The Hunt For Red October.

This time around, the Predator becomes mixed up in an inner city gang war, and is hunted by both a city cop and a task-force tasked with hunting down the otherworldly being. We learn a bit more about the creature, seeing more of his ship, and see several of his kind at the conclusion. Relocating the action to an inner city environment wasn’t necessarily a bad decision, but a combination of poor story, low star power, and unfulfilled potential left Predator 2 as a financial and critical failure, effectively killing the franchise as we knew it.

Well, not exactly. Whilst the botched production of Predator 2 left no money, and therefore no viability for a continuation of the movie series, the Predator character had taken on a cult status, and led to the Alien versus Predator comic and video game series. Predator had clear similarities to the Alien series, and the combination of the two creatures was an obvious, and compelling mix. The differences between their styles, the seemingly mindless, feral nature of the Aliens versus the almost human-like tribal, hunter-gatherer instincts of the Predators meant that two completely different cultures could be explored. With no clear hero and villain, and a seemingly level playing field, fans were free to choose their favourites.

The standalone Alien movie series also continued to be healthy, which meant that this inextricable link between the two beings greatly helped the Predator to stay in the public consciousness. By that token, the Predators stood to gain far more from the relationship, almost riding on Alien’s coat-tails. It was this rivalry, and the cult popularity of the Alien Versus Predator brand that led to Predator’s big screen resurrection, in the first Alien Vs Predators movie.

However, despite the continued success and interest for the Alien movie franchise, AVP was made with a considerably lower budget than was really required to do the concept justice. Though the movie tried to remain faithful to both creatures mythology, with director Paul WS Anderson shoehorning in as many references to their previous outings as he could muster, the storyline was generally pretty weak. It did have interesting ideas about how they existed together in their shared universe. The idea that young Predator’s were sent out to kill their first Alien as a right of passage was a great jumping off point, but the movie as a whole was very poorly written, acted, and produced. Cheap costumes meant that action sequences were reduced to fast cut, dark shadow combat, rendering these battles unwatchable. Though audiences had turned out to see the two great foes do battle, most of the movie followed the human contingent of the story, and movie goers felt seriously short changed.

AVP: Requiem was arguably even worse, coming across as a straight to DVD quality production, with 24′s Michelle Dessler (actress Reiko Aylesworth) as its biggest ‘star’. No money, no ideas, no chance. It was only the AVP brand’s cult status that drew any audience in at all. Alien Vs Predator; Requiem can only be considered a total failure, and really should have killed off both franchises. However, the continued popularity of the two is a clear argument that truly compelling protagonists can survive inept filmmaking.

Whilst AVP was dragging the two combatants names through the mud, a plan was afoot to revive the Predators in their own new standalone movie. Robert Rodriguez had originally been drafted to craft a script for a Predator movie shortly after the first film’s release, and when it was decided to revive the franchise, he was the obvious choice. Dusting off his old screenplay, the director set about rewriting it for a new sequel. The Sin City helmer’s Predators script almost completely disregards the Predator 2 follow up, and both AVP films, and works as more of a Predators to Predator as Aliens was to Alien.

Relocating the action to the Predator home planet, Predators reverts back to the original jungle setting , but where the original movie had humans battling the hunter on their own turf, here the humans find themselves out of their depth as they clash with different Predator tribes, in their own environment. The casting of The Pianist’s Adrien Brody was a surprising move, sort of a halfway house between Predator’s Schwarzenegger and Predator 2′s Glover. As far as acting ability goes, however, it is one giant leap.

This is a promising move, and suggests a much less formulaic storyline may lie in store. He is backed up by the brilliant Danny Trejo, a Robert Rodriguez favourite (having starred in From Dusk Til Dawn, Desperado etc…) along with Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix trilogy), Alice Braga (I Am Legend), Topher Grave (Spiderman 3), and Walton Goggins (TV’s Justified). The relocation to the Predator home planet suggests we may well learn more about their culture, history, and the source of their technological advancement. Predators has the potential to provide a really interesting plot, and allow for a far more compelling series that truly explores the full potential of the franchise. Director Nimrod Antal is also a potentially great choice. His first picture, Hungarian film Control, gained great critical success. He has yet to replicate that success in Hollywood, however, with previous work including 2007′s Vacancy, and the so-so Armoured from last year.

Despite the prequel projects that are underway for the Alien series, whilst the Alien movies best is probably behind them, the Predator’s series has yet to reach its heights. The far more sentient nature of the protagonists, and therefore the increased potential for Predator/Human interaction means that the possibilities for future Predator films are almost endless, withmany different directions that can be explored. Hopefully Predators will perform well both critically and financially, and allow for a new set of movies that live up to the expectations of the fans, and lead to far greater stories than we have previously seen cinematically for the intergalactic hunters.

Predators was released yesterday, Thursday 8th July in the UK, and today, Friday 9th July in the US. You can read our review here.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 23rd update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

Letters From Iwo Jima (2006) – 8.0 No. 197

I’m really not a fan of Clint Eastwood’s work, despite the fact he is a darling of the academy, and has several films in this list. I enjoyed Unforgiven, the only Eastwood movie i’ve watched for the project so far, but only to a point. Letters was another of his Oscar contenders, but is it any better than his other work?

Letters follows several soldiers of different rank, including Ken Watanabe as General Kuribayashi, and Kazunari Ninomiya as Private Saigo, as they prepare for the inevitable Allied attack on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima. Conditions are poor, and the lower ranked soldiers are treated cruelly, until General Kuribayashi turns up, and tries to reorganise the sad looking army.

We all know what happened at Iwo Jima, but we certainly don’t know the fashion in which it occurred. We think of Japan as the enemy, and they were. That doesn’t make their soldiers evil however, and this is Eastwood’s attempt to show that.

And it works. You can’t help but feel for the Japanese soldiers, forced to leave their families to defend the indefensible, in the face of impossible odds. The outpost on the island of Iwo Jima was hung out to dry, despite being a valuable base of operation. Japan really should have done their utmost to defend the island, to stop the allied forces from being able to use it as a launching point. It was a huge tactical mistake.

It was also an inexcusable sacrifice of life. The soldiers charged with defending the island are left hungry, ill, and with no chance for victory. Eastwood’s film does a fantastic job of displaying this, with a genuinely sympathetic look at the final days of the Japanese soldiers. Where his flip-side movie Flags of our Fathers was saccharine and tedious, Letters from Iwo Jimo is touching and subtle. With beautiful cinematography, and measured acting performances, it is, for me, his best movie.

I have been surprised by how many of Eastwood’s movies are in the IMDb250, but for once i have been surprised in a good way. Letters From Iwo Jima is possibly his only movie that belongs in this list, and it was an absolute pleasure to watch. I hope to see more of Eastwood’s work constructed in such a compelling and stylish way.

Sunset Boulevard (1950) – 8.6 No. 32

The first of two movies in this update that deal with women who aren’t quite living in the real world, Sunset Boulevard is written and directed by Billy Wilder.

William Holden is Joe Gillis, a Hollywood writer in crisis. Once successful, with numerous credits to his name, he has become a hack. Knocking out screenplays in a desperate attempt to make some money, he is failing miserably. He is broke, and his car is about to be repossessed. It is whilst attempting to escape the repo men that he stumbles upon a big house. It is the home of Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). She was once a big star in the silent movie era, but now talkies have come along, and her star has fallen. She has written a screenplay, her attempt at resurrecting her own career. She presses Gillis into redrafting it for her, working with her in her home. With no other options on the horizon, he reluctantly agrees to it, but finds he is forced deeper and deeper into compromise, until he finds himself a kept man press-ganged into a romantic relationship with the aging starlet.

As he learns more about her past, and her fragile emotional state, he looks for a way out, and sets to work on another script secretly. As he falls for another woman, he finds he has no option but to bring his shambolic new life into the open, in order to escape his misery. This pushes the fragile Desmond over the edge however, and the doomed partnership ends in tragedy.

Sunset Boulevard is a fascinating insight into forties Hollywood, the studio system, and what happens to stars when their careers come to a standstill. After so many years in the limelight, beloved by millions, Desmond finds it impossible to let go. Enabled by her faithful servant Max, she has been allowed to retain delusions of superstar status, and uses her money and Holden’s desperation to try to cling on to a Hollywood dream.

Though the story is told from the point of view of Holden’s Gillis, this is Swanson’s movie. She is brilliant as the increasingly deranged Desmond, losing her dignity in the act of trying to retain it. Holden does a good job as the reluctant writer gradually dragged in to an unhealthy relationship, and his confusion over the choice between being Desmond’s plaything, or a returning to his struggles is well played out. He is shown to be somewhat of a coward in the end, only really taking steps to end the situation when he finds their are prospects for him after all, both romantically and in his career.

Sunset Boulevard is fantastic. Great characters, with frighteningly real traits and flaws, watching Desmond’s descent is like watching a car wreck. You don’t know whether to be repulsed by her, or feel sorry for her. With an absolutely chilling final scene, Sunset Boulevard is easily one of the best movies based around the industry, and thanks to some great writing and a wonderful performance by Swanson, it is deserving of its position in the list, and its reputation in general.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) – 8.0 No. 203

Another movie about a woman with a fragile emotional state, A Streetcar Named Desire stars Viven Leigh as ex-prostitute Blanche DuBois, Kim Hunter as her sister Stella, and Marlon Brando as her cruel brother-in-law Stanley Kowalski.

Blanche timidly enters a New Orleans bowling alley, and the life of her sister and her husband. Blanche acts like a southern lady, with airs and graces and a trunk of fine furs. Her personality and fraudulent aura of elegance clash immediately with the brutish Stanley, who resents her presence in his home from day one.

As Blanche’s time at her sister’s home lengthens, the cracks begin to appear in her facade. With a mysterious past, an obsession with her appearance, over-reliance on alcohol and desperation to find a man, her behaviour starts to grate on the nerves of her brother-in-law, and inevitably this causes problems between himself and wife Stella.

Eventually Blanche’s chequered past comes to light, and her emotional state starts to deteriorate quickly. With her chances at marriage dashed, and the relentless taunts from her brother-in-law turning into physical abuse driving her over the edge, Blanche eventually has to be carted off, resulting in the end of Stella and Stanley’s damaged relationship.

A Streetcar Named Desire is very atmospheric. Despite only taking place in a couple of different locations, the hot, grimy feel of New Orleans is palpable, as is the simmering temper and hatred of Stanley towards Blanche. Leigh is believably batty, as her grandiose act even in the beginning only weakly papers over her obvious emotional problems. The more she attempts to put on airs, the more desperate she looks. Brando is also brilliant, and you genuinely believe his malicious intent as he tries to drive the nail into the heart of his sister in law.

You can’t help but feel for Blanche, and worry for her emotional state, as every tic and character flaw is fully out on display. She is a genuinely troubled character, and Leigh portrays it brilliantly. At times difficult to watch, but brilliantly constructed, A Streetcar Named Desire can be accused of a plodding pace at times. It is however a very well written and acted picture, and though it will never be a personal favourite, i can appreciate why it is present in the list.

Sleuth (1972) – 8.0 No. 208

Yet another film based on a play this week, along with A Steetcar Named Desire. Starring two fantastic British actors in Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier, it is a wonder that i only really heard about Sleuth this year. I saw it on the list when we began the project, and in the last few months a couple of people have recommended it, so i was looking forward to watching it for the first time.

Olivier is well off crime writer Andrew Wyke, who invites the younger Milo Tindle, an Anglo-Italian hair dresser played by Caine to his country home. It seems that Tindle has been seeing Wyke’s wife Marguerite, and he has been summoned to hear a proposition. If he steals some of Wyke’s valuables, he can sell them and keep the profits, and Wyke’s wife, whilst he collects the insurance money.

Tindle is made to disguise himself and stage the burglary, but it turns out to be a trick, so that Wyke can take revenge on him. Wyke shoots Tindle, and disposes of the body. Two days later, a policeman arrives to question Wyke. Tindle is missing, and the trail leads here. After several attempts at cover up, Wyke finally relents, and admits Tindle was there. He claims, however, that it was a fake murder, and that Tindleis in fact alive. The evidence suggests otherwise however, and what started out as a cruel game starts to look like it may have some dire consequences.

Sleuth is all set in one location, performed by just two actors. Why, then, is it so brilliant? The storyline is deceptively simple. A deadly game of one-upmanship, the tricks employed, and the resulting twists aren’t necessarily groundbreaking. Really, it is the performances from two great actors that make Sleuth such a fantastically enjoyable watch. Both characters start off seemingly in fairly jovial moods, but as the tricks escalate so do tensions. Caine goes from being a fairly naive, timid man to a volcano of emotion by the end of the film. Olivier in turn is initially a larger than life, theatrical being. Slowly, as he is worn down and sees his ingenious plan come back to bite him, he grows more panicked, and thrown out of his bravado, until finally his spirit is crushed.

A fascinating look at mind games, and how cruel jokes can turn incredibly sour, Sleuth is a very watchable, and at times very compelling story. Whether it is one of the greatest movies of al time is open to debate, but i certainly would watch Sleuth again over many of the movies i have seen so far on the list.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) – 8.0 No. 191

I have seen one silent movie so far for the project, that being the brilliant Metropolis. A high bar set then, and one that Sunrise would struggle to leap.

A man, his wife and their young son live in a small village. Their life is far from idyllic however. a glamorous woman from the city is vacationing there, and has begun a tumultuous affair with the man. Whenever his wife’s attention is diverted, he takes the opportunity to slip away and spend time with his lover. His wife is understandably miserable, but worse is yet to come. The lover convinces the man that they could move to the city together, but that he must dispose of his wife first, by drowning her.

The man is unable to bring himself to do it, however, but she senses his intentions. In a state of shock, she tries to run away, and as he pursues her they end up in the city together themselves. With their relationship at rock bottom, woman miserable, man beside himself with remorse, they have the opportunity to start their life together again, and to fall in love for the second time.

Sunrise is a masterful example of silent film. The actions of the characters, the simplicity of the story, and the brilliant camera work and editing combine to tell a tale that leaves mere words redundant. In fact, the captions that are used are completely unnecessary, though they are admittedly few and far between. The lover looks suitably dangerous and seductive. The man suitably sullen and sheepish, and his wife genuinely looks miserable, at her wits end.

By use of good editing, flashbacks and imagined sequences, we can tell exactly what is happening, and what each character is feeling at any given moment. Though the man’s actions are reprehensible, your full sympathy is with his wife, and you can’t help but pull for them throughout. The events of the day depicted match perfectly the way their life has unfolded, and in both cases a terrible end is threatened. Sunrise is a fantastic example of both beautiful storytelling, and brilliant technical filmmaking. A worthy match for Metropolis, and a true pleasure to watch.

Come back next Monday for update 24. You can follow our progress at www.twitter.com/baz_mann and www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

The big news a few weeks ago was the departure of Megan Fox from the Transformers franchise. At first she was pushed, then her ‘people’ claimed she did, in fact, jump. So which is it? And what does it mean, if anything, for the success of Transformers 3?

Paramount’s official line was that Fox’s option for the third film simply hadn’t been picked up, that director Michael Bay wanted to look at a different choice for the love interest for Sam Whitwicky, as played by Shia LaBeouf. A spokesperson for Fox then came out and said Fox had walked due to ‘abusive and offensive behaviour’ aimed towards her by director Bay. I’m not really in a position to sort the wheat from the chafe as regards the true story, but my job does involve a little speculation.

Bay’s supposed attitude would be reason enough for either these options. He clearly used Fox as the ‘hot girl’ to draw in the teenage boy audience. Therefore, she would be seen as interchangeable with any other gorgeous female star. This was evidenced by the possible replacements that were immediately named. The first name mentioned was Gemma Arterton, who can be considered a natural beauty, and she has shown some talent for acting. After that, however, a parade of ‘actresses’ names were thrown around, many models with no previous experience. Then last week it was finally officially revealed that Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, a Victoria’s Secret model no less, had been given the role. This backs both arguments.

Firstly, it is clear that Bay’s first priority is looks over talent, which certainly supports the idea that he felt Fox was easily replaceable. It also speaks for his attitude towards female actresses in general. If he is happy to pick a model with no history of acting, then Fox’s claims of misogynistic treatment can also be believed. If he had so little regard for her abilities as an actress that she could be replaced by a catwalk model, it isn’t a stretch to believe he tried to push her around.

Thinking outside the box, i originally thought that it could be that neither of these explanations were true. A string of respected actors have been added to the cast of Transformers 3, including the likes of John Malkovich and Frances McDormand. I was considering the possibility that Michael Bay had had an epiphany, and decided that he wanted to fill his next movie with outstanding actors, resulting in the culling of one of the weaker performers from the franchise. This looked to be proven completely off the mark immediately, however, considering the list of names we heard linked to the part. If Bay had really been interested in great casting, someone like Carey Mulligan, or an equally talented young actress would have won the role.

Regardless of the reasons behind Fox’s departure, it leaves a bit of a gap in her schedule, and nothing has rushed to fill it so far. Jonah Hex is released this month, and all indications are that it is a disaster. Fox’s next movie to be released after that, Passion Play, stars Mickey Rourke and Bill Murray, and then there is a bit of a question mark. In an interview with MTV last week, Fox spoke a little bit about the Fathom adaptation she has been linked with, and though she didn’t say much, she intimated it might well go ahead without her presence. Aside from modelling for some Armani ads, it looks like Megan Fox may be fading from the spotlight.

Whatever the real story behind Fox’s departure, the big question is, does it make any difference to Transformers 3′s quality, or chances of box office success? I rather glibly pointed out in an article the other week that Megan Fox has shown no bankability in her career to date, with her only big film since joining the Transformers set-up, Jennifer’s Body, showing no real chops at the box office. I do stand by my statement, but at the same time, i think those that say the Transformers franchise made her career are being a little unfair. Fox was a huge selling point for both movies, they were sold to a large extent on her sex appeal, and i do think that she had some influence on Transformers’ huge gross, particularly the second film.

Having said that, i’m not sure that her absence will have a noticeable effect on the third movie’s numbers.She has a distinctive look and personality, and there is a generation of teenage boys that have fallen in love with her. But the boys that were teenagers when the first film was released have now reached an age where they are able to be a bit more discerning with respect to acting ability, and whilst that doesn’t necessarily bode well for their interest in her replacement, there is now a new batch of horny teenage boys ready to be entranced by whoever does end up filling her boots. I’m not a fan of Fox, and having paid full price to see the atrocity that was Transformers 2, at the Imax no less, i have very little interest in the next installment. Part of me however would like to think that there are fans of Fox, and her character, that will not go to see the next film because of her absence. It’ll be impossible to really measure this, though, as i can’t help but think the poor quality of Revenge of the Fallen will itself have an adverse impact on the success of the third film.

I think ultimately, filmmaking is both the winner and loser here. Megan Fox has yet to show a great talent in any of the parts she has played so far, so from an acting standpoint it doesn’t look to be any great loss. Hopefully, as a result of this she will get the opportunity to prove me wrong my taking on a much better part in a much better movie. A third stint as Mikaela Banes was never going to do her credibility as a serious actress any favours, and being cut free of the franchise, whatever the reason, may allow her to show that she can do a whole lot better.

Whoever had been chosen to replace her was not going to bring the Transformers series down any lower in stature, and with the greatest will in the world, even someone with the great acting ability of a Kate Winslet would be hard pressed to elevate Michael Bay’s movies to any great emotional or intellectual level. The Transformers films are popcorn, action heavy effects movies at best, and to expect any more than that is to hold yourself up to nothing but disappointment. To be honest, that casting rumours for Transformers 3 are the biggest news story of any week is a sad affair indeed, and here i am adding fuel to the fire. Ho hum.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last weekend’s big movies made money, with The Karate Kid doing particularly well against its production budget. However, compared to some of the numbers seen over the Spring, the Summer box office appears to be declining, with the A-Team particularly falling far short of expectations. Usually, Summer is the big seller, and there has been no shortage of big budget blockbusters. Last year saw big budget movies making the lions share of the cash, with the biggest wins at the box office scored by the movies that spent the most, both in terms of production costs and marketing budget.

So why does the trend appear to be slowing? For the last twelve months, we’ve seen movies adapted from popular licenses outgrossing star vehicles and innovative filmmaking. Star Trek, GI: Joe, Terminator: Salvation, Transformers 2, the list is endless. Some ‘original’ movies made a lot of money. But 2012 and Avatar both had huge budgets and weak storylines. Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man 2 and Clash of the Titans have made the big money in the first third of this year, but all suffered poor review scores, and left audiences disappointed. The only film that has made a lot of money, whilst also attaining critical success has been How To Train Your Dragon.

So far this summer, we have seen Prince of Persia, The A-Team, Sex and the City and even Shrek Forever After fall below projections. Persia was a big budget family Disney film, and the other three were based on popular franchises. But audiences have stayed away. Are movie-goers finally growing tired of being disappointed? Are they now paying more attention to movie review scores, in light of recent ticket price hikes? Or are they just sick of going to see poorly conceived, rehashed stories?

I don’t particularly think that people are bored of big popcorn movies, i just think there have been too many. There have been some big releases this past spring, and when you think how much the cost of a typical family trip to the movies has increased recently, you can see why the pace has slowed. With the cost of 3D movies rising considerably, for two adults and their 2.4 children to go see a 3D movie, they could almost have gone to see two regular movies for the same cost last year. We’d all love original, interesting stories with great movies attached, but there will always be a big percentage of the mainstream audience that will only journey out to the cinema to see something immediately recognisable, mistakenly thinking an adaptation of an existing property will be a guarantee of quality.

As far as the current economy goes, the boom that box office takings received last year were linked by many to the global recession. A couple of trips to the cinema were seen as a cheap entertainment, compared with some other options. It may just be that now the economy has settled, and people have grown bored of living on a budget, that they have decided to go on that holiday this year, or spend a bit of money on that new car, or home extension. The factors that caused last year’s record attendances may now be working against the industry.

It may instead just be that they are saving their money for Toy Story 3. The Toy Story series is hugely popular, and with the critical acclaim that Pixar’s interim movies Wall-E and Up have received, their latest movie is one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. The outlook is good, with currently a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 100% fresh. Make no mistake, Buzz and Woody are well placed to make huge amounts of money, and the third Toy Story movie could easily become the highest grossing movie of the year so far.

If, however, the reason that movies like Prince of Persia and Sex and the City have failed is because audiences are starting to crave something more, a story with far more substance, Christopher Nolan’s Inception may be the big beneficiary. No-one knows how the director’s follow-up to The Dark Knight will fare financially. Common sense dictates that it will enjoy only modest box office success. A cerebral storyline, actors rather than stars, and the lack of an already established brand identity all suggest that big audiences will not be drawn in. But if they really are looking for something different, a story and plot that are a bit more compelling, maybe Inception will surprise when numbers come in. The Dark Knight made record amounts at the time, and whilst there were many factors, including the popularity of the character, and the quality of the preceding Batman Begins, it may be that the words ‘from the director of The Dark Knight’ on the poster will be enough to carry that momentum through.

With business slow so far, aside from Toy Story 3 it is difficult to see where the big money is going to roll in at cinemas for the rest of the year. The big budget blockbusters have already arrived, and movies like Predators and The Expendables look to struggle based on the performance of similar movies like The A-Team and The Losers. This year has seen the family market contributing the most money, with Alice in Wonderland and How to Train Your Dragon as the biggest success stories so far. There aren’t too many big family films on the horizon, and it is entirely possible that this year’s final numbers will be down on last year’s record takings.

It’ll be interesting to see in the coming months which movies will win each weekend. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse looks to be the only certainty for big money, and following the critical mauling of the last installment, maybe even that isn’t guaranteed. There are a few months of Summer left, the time when the big money is made, then we go into the traditional quieter Autumn period, when the Oscar contenders tend to filter out. If it is really the case that audiences are on the verge of becoming more discerning, maybe that’s when the money will start to come in again.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 21st update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

 Gladiator (2000) - 8.3 No. 105

In my last update, i looked at the film that brought a young Russell Crowe to Hollywood’s attention. Fitting then that this time around, particularly with the release of Robin Hood a few weeks ago, i look at the movie that made him a household name, Ridley Scott’s Gladiator.

Crowe is Maximus Decimus Meridius, a supreme General in the Roman army, and close friend to the Emperor. So close, in fact, that the Emperor reveals to his son Commodus that he plans to name Merdius instead of him as his successor. His ambitious progeny however does not take this news well, and following the death of his father, he arranges for Meridius to be accused of the Emperor’s murder, and for him and his family to be executed.

As the young Commodus begins his reign, the former General finds himself badly wounded, and sold into life as a Gladiator, a warrior forced to fight to the death for entertainment. His battle prowess and experience prove invaluable as he battles his way through arenas and back into Rome. Once there, he obtains power to rival that of the young ruler by winning the support of the baying crowd. Simultaneously winning support within the Senate, a plan is afoot to usurp the young Emperor. Commodus becomes suspicious however, and puts into action a plan to silence the fearsome warrior once and for all.

Opening with a dramatic battle scene, and mixing personal and political drama with excellent cinematography and well chorographed fight sequences, it is easy to see why Gladiator made such a big splash upon its release, winning several Oscars. Crowe is excellent in the part, handling both the physical and emotional elements of the role well, giving probably a much more well rounded performance than he managed in LA Confidential.

Gladiator has that truly epic feel, but at times, the swelling music, the grandiosity, and the slimy performance of Joaquin Phoenix veer frighteningly close to cheesiness. It is a hard balance to maintain, and it does work, but with repeated viewing the great doesn’t work so well, and you notice more of the not so great. The political story is shoehorned in, and you can’t help but feel it slows the plot down a little too much.

I can see why Gladiator is in the top 250 list, and it is a thrilling and occasionally affecting film. But i think one watch a decade is enough for me, having not seen it since its release, and i think it may be some time before i feel compelled to watch it again.

The African Queen (1951) - 8.0 No. 210

This is one of the few Humphrey Bogart films i had seen before the project started, having watched it for a previous top movies project. I didn’t enjoy it all that much the first time, but the problem with watching movies in this way is that you are apt to feel somewhat rushed, not always watching a movie under the right circumstances.

Based on the novel of the same name, The African Queen is directed by John Huston. Bogart plays Charlie Allnut, the Captain of The African Queen, a mail boat delivering along the Congo river. Whilst stopping at a particular outpost, he discusses the current war going on in Europe with a British lady and gentleman, who are brother and sister missionaries. Living in such a remote location, they haven’t heard about the events of World War I, but the realities are brought home to them when the German army show up and burn down the village. The gentleman is killed, and Bogart aides the lady, Rose Sayer, using his boat to attempt to take her to safety.

The rough and ready boat captain, and his regal and ladylike passenger are chalk and cheese at first, but when she draws up a plan to use the small boat to destroy the German’s warship, fear and mutual respect bring the two comrades closer together.

As they struggle to survive their journey along the river, facing rapids and alligators, and the boat becomes more damaged and unreliable from the difficulties they face, they are forced to work together to keep the boat running, and reach safety in one piece. When it appears they may finally be safe, they come within sight of the German gunship. Can they escape? Or is their blossoming relationship doomed to a sticky end?

Having only seen Bogart playing suave and confident private detectives, to see him as the dishevelled postman is refreshing. It is refreshing not because it plays more to his general appearance, but because it actually gives him a chance to act. The part requires range, and a much more natural of humanity than in his earlier films. He really delivers, showing a surprising amount of acting ability, winning an Academy Award in the process. Katherine Hepburn as the English lady is equally wonderful, and the blossoming relationship between them works beautifully. It does not feel overly contrived, and the manner in which it is built, upon mutual respect as well as extraordinary circumstances, give it a truly authentic feel.

The plot is well constructed, the pace is calm, though never drags. Ultimately, The African Queen is a touching story of opposites attracting, and ordinary people prevailing in the most extreme of circumstances. The end is perhaps a little silly, but aside from that, a worthy entry in my opinion.

Psycho (1960) - 8.7 No. 22

The first of a Hitchcock double bill in this update, Psycho is the title probably most synonymous with the master of suspense. But is it deserving of its infamy?

A young secretary’s greed is triggered when her boss asks her to deposit a large amount of a customer’s money into the bank. Marion Crane takes the chance to steal it, and buying a new car, goes off on the run. Checking in to a small, run down motel, she doesn’t realise the fate that is about to befall her. She talks to the young man running the motel for a while, then retires to her room to show. The young man, Norman Bates, is clearly attracted by the young lady. This upsets his domineering mother, however, who reacts angrily and violently.

A private detective turns up looking for the lady, on the search for the stolen cash. He asks a few too many questions, however, and promptly disappears too. The young lady’s sister and boyfriend team up to search for her, but are unprepared for what they will find at the remote Bates Motel.

The popular story around Psycho is that its biggest star, Janet Leigh, is only in it for a short period of time, which came as a big surprise to audiences. The opening of the film, where she steals the money and goes on the run, is a fantastic Macguffin, and the sudden shift from heist to horror throws you off balance for the rest of the movie. All bets are off, and it’s very effective.

The sort sharp shock of the violence, quite graphic for the time, are a jarring interruption to the slow, measured pace of the suspenseful moments. You are led to believe that Bates is a pervert, spying on his guests, but the truth is so much more complex. The big reveal at the end is stunning, but the reallly compelling scene is the final one. As Bates sits in his jail cell, his thoughts not his own, you get a glimpse of a genuinely disturbed mind, and can’t help but feel that you want to see more. A film that delves deep into this diseased psyche seems even more interesting than the inventive horror movie you’ve just experienced, and leaves you the way it should, wanting more.

Psycho is a true classic, in my opinion the best of Hitchcock’s work that i have seen so far, and despite its deceptively simple nature, it holds the most complex of ideas. A must watch, and easily a top 100 film.

Anatomy of a Murder (1959) - 7.9 No. 243

A film i have never heard of, let alone seen, Anatomy of a Murder stars James Stewart and Lee Remick, and is directed by Otto Preminger.

Stewart plays Paul Biegler, a small town lawyer called upon to defend a soldier accused of murder. His guilt isn’t in question, the case for his defence instead rests upon proving him unaccountable for his actions. The man who stands accused, Frederick Manion was in a fit of rage when he shot a bar owner, Barney Quill, at a holiday camp, having been told by his wife of a rape ordeal at the barman’s hands.

The case is made difficult by the appearance and demeanor of his wife Laura, who is presumed to be promiscuous based on her flirty behaviour and revealing outfits. Biegler advises her to refine her appearance and behaviour for the duration of the trial, after finding her out having too much fun.

The court case then proceeds. There are lots of swings during the trial, with sympathy and suspicion for the defendant alternating in equal measure. Several plot devices are used, as new evidence and witnesses are produced, and the momentum in the case is exchanged several times.

The pace of Anatomy of a Murder starts off leisurely, and continues that way into the courtroom scenes. Despite the slow unravelling, however, every moment is somehow thrilling. The performance by Stewart is masterful, and the evidence and testimony are well constructed, leading to a beautifully written trial. This stands to reason, as it was adapted from a novel, written by a Supreme Court Justice, and based on a real case. You are fully aware that what the defendant did was wrong, but Stewart’s charm and courtroom theatrics almost convince you otherwise.

The final verdict is somehow both inevitable and unpredictable. Without being lightning fast or extremely intense, the trial is brilliant and compelling. One of the best courtroom films i’ve seen, Anatomy of a Murder unexpectedly manages to enthrall you as a viewer, and quietly justifies its inclusion in the top 250 list.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) - 8.0 No. 199

The second Hitchcock film of this update, and the 6th i have seen overall. It has been a somewhat mixed bag of Hitchcock’s work so far for me, but Shadow of a Doubt brings his work back to the style i enjoyed in week one’s Rebecca.

We meet an ‘ordianry’ family, as they are quietly living their lives, until Uncle Charlie comes to stay. He has been travelling around for many years, and they haven’t seen him for quite some time. He has apparently been very successful, and says he is looking to maybe settle down, and build a domestic life somewhere. Uncle Carlie is rather mysterious, however, and it soon becomes apparent to the viewer, and then his teenage niece Charlotte that he is trying to hide something.

At first his motivations just appear to be rather mysterious, but soon become rather sinister. As Charlotte pieces the clues together, and gets closer to the truth, he becomes ever more evasive, and then threatening. Charlotte dare not raise her suspicions to the rest of her family, and begs her Uncle just to leave. Once she learns the full truth, however, she becomes terrified, both for her family and her own well being.

The brilliance of Shadow of a Doubt is the slow burn nature of the storyline. It is apparent fairly quickly that something isn’t right with the secretive visitor. Sweetness and light on the outside, it is obvious he is hiding something, but you have no idea just what. As the movie progresses, the horrifying thought of someone close to you, living in your own house, with malicious intent becomes ever more frightening. You genuinely worry for the young girl, and what might happen to your family. Joseph Coteen as the Uncle is incredibly impressive. His charm and charisma are clear on screen, but when he lets his facade drop in front of his niece it is truly chilling.

It was always going to be difficult to end this type of story effectively, as it was in Rebecca. The quick shock of the unexpected conclusion, and your uncertainty in the lead up, just about manage to pay off what has come before. A very well paced thriller, it is one of the best of the Hitchcock films i have seen to date.

Come back next Monday for update 22. You can follow our progress at www.twitter.com/baz_mann and www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann