And the Oscar for numbest bum goes to....

With the Oscars just around the corner, there are a lot of very good films hitting the cinemas.  Most of my free time has been spent watching these films, and I've found it difficult to find time to blog my thoughts on them.  There's little surprise why, here's the last four films that I've watched and their running times:

Lincoln - 2hrs 30mins (150 mins)

Django Unchained - 2hrs 45mins (165 mins)

Flight - 2hrs 18mins (138 mins)

Zero Dark Thirty - 2hrs 37mins (157 mins)












The average running time of the four films above is 152.5 minutes, so even if we generously don't round that up to 153, that's a 2 hour 32 minute average running time.  I can't imagine that cinemas vary greatly in the amount of advertisement they show before the start of the film.  At my local franchise, we are made to endure at least 30 minutes.  The only exception to this being when we went to see Total Recall in IMAX, when for some unbeknown reason the film started immediately with no advertisement before hand meaning we missed the first five minutes whilst enjoying a burger.  This means that my last 4 visits to the cinema have seen me spend on average over 3 hours in front of the screen.  As I'm sure any Father will be able to testify, that's a lot of time!

So, sat as I am, filtering through the swirling thoughts, emotions, and questions posed by the films above I thought 'does a films length, determine it's Oscar worthiness?'.

Rule 2 of the Oscars states that a film must me more than 40 minutes in length to qualify as a feature film, thereby qualify for the Oscar for Best Picture.

It would be amazing and hugely interesting if a 41 minute film had won Best Picture, however, the film with the shortest running time ever to have won is Marty (1955) at 94 minutes.  In a write up for the film during the time, it was said,
"Don't expect that record to be broken anytime soon, either.  Oscar winners are gettin' longer, not shorter."
After doing a little digging, I came across a great piece of work on collider.com (http://collider.com/oscar-best-picture-statistics/) which gives a breakdown of running times for the Best Picture winner.  The graph plotting the initial data makes it look as though the running time varies a lot, showing that a long running time doesn't always mean Best Picture winner.  Further study from this site shows that for the individual concerned, the average running time of films they have watched (which is a lot) is between 90 and 120 minutes.  It also shows that 80% of Best Picture winners after 1960 are longer than 2 hours.

So if you're planning on a trip to the cinema at the moment, beware of a numb bum.  There are a lot of potential Oscar winners out there at the moment, and as I've found, that means you'll be in for the long haul.

If you haven't bought a copy of Dredd...

The theatrical release of Dredd was met with a lukewarm reception at the box office.  It didn't recoup it's $45 million budget, making only $36.4 million.  Many who have seen it were left scratching their heads.  How could such a good film pull in such poor box office numbers?  Many speculated that it was the hard boiled, unyielding nature of it's action.  Gruesome, ultra violent, in an age where more and more films water down to achieve box office acceptance (Taken 2 is the most recent, and notable example of this), Dredd took off the gloves and swung away with knuckles bared.

Mistake?...

Most certainly not.  Doing anything but what they did would have been a disservice to the source material.  What Pete Travis and Alex Garland (with the help of many others) have created is, in my opinion, the most faithful, and downright best, comic adaptation of recent memory.  Although the film is greatly self contained, with no annoying 'wait until the next film' loose ends, I would dearly love to see more of this world and the characters within it, we know there are plenty more to introduce.  Little touches like the 'Chopper' graffiti tag, and an interview here with Alex Garland http://whatculture.com/film/alex-garland-interview-dredd-3d-slo-mo-sequel-ideas-more.php gave me hope that this would happen.

Then came the box office numbers...

Shortly followed by the reviews and articles saying that a sequel now would not happen.  Dredd had one more card to play, the DVD/Blu-Ray release.  We've come a long way since the days of Shawshank Redemption and VHS.  A film that also had a disappointing box office run, only to receive several Oscar nods and become the top rental film of 1995.  I can't see Dredd getting any Oscar nominations, and piracy is rife, but I've got everything crossed that home sales can elevate Dredd from box office disappointment to cult classic, and if the stars align a sequel.

So far so good?...

In the first week of sales, Dredd has shifted over 650,000 physical copies alone.  As well as topping the digital sales chart.  If this trend continues, and doesn't prove a flash in the pan, who knows?  So if you haven't bought a copy already, what are you waiting for?!

I'll even put the links here for you...

Physical:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dredd-Blu-ray-3D-Karl-Urban/dp/B008OGHUFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359059898&sr=8-1

Digital:  https://itunes.apple.com/gb/movie/dredd/id588738013

DO IT!!

Hold off on the Nolan box set....

If you, like me, think that Christopher Nolan has the midas touch when it comes to the big screen, then this could be good news.

In the void following the release of the last of the Dark Knight Trilogy, all eyes (ears, and digital equivalent) have been on what direction Nolan will take next.  And it looks like we might not have to wait long to find out.

Interstellar, a time travelling, sic-fi epic penned by his brother Jonathan may well be next on his list.  Originally tipped to have Spielberg at the helm, rumours are rife that the recent 'indefinite' postponement of Robopocalypse may have caused Nolan to make a move on this project before Spielberg officially put his name to it.

Let's hope there's more to follow on this soon.

Ringing in the New Year....

....the wrong way!

During the latter part of 2012, I had the opportunity to watch a reasonable amount of good films including Seven Psychopaths, The Hobbit, Argo, and even Jack Reacher.  Overall, 2012 was a great year for film in my opinion, so towards the end I got a little frustrated that I didn't have more chance to blog about the films I was watching.  It was during time spent reviewing the films that I had been to see most recently, that the picture above becomes relevant.  I was idly scanning the movies listings to see if there was anything on worth watching.  Now you might argue that Underworld: Awakening (don't forget the colon), is not worth watching, but I have to admit a soft spot for the first two films of the franchise.  I'm also entertained by the way Len Wiseman parades his wife Kate Beckinsale around in his films, and fair play to the guy, who wouldn't?

So last night, I found myself watching this fourth instalment to the franchise, and I was disappointed.  With the return of Beckinsale, and the potential for Charles Dance to add a Bill Nighy style gravitas to proceedings, I was hoping for more.  I felt nothing for any of the characters, the story was throw away, and came to no real conclusion.  The final shot, panning out from the roof top where the characters are standing, with Kate spewing forth a monologue about the war not being over, was cringe worthy.  I'm sure that the intention was to leave the door open for future Underworld films, if they decide the horse hasn't been flogged enough later down the line.

Imagine my shock then, to find out that it was the most successful Underworld at the box office.  I appreciate that the first film was poorly received, and relied on a slow burning cult following to open the door for a second.  But for it to be pulling in bigger crowds 4 films down the line, I do find a surprise.  Even as an unlimited cinema card holder, this would be at the bottom of any potential watch list I might have.  It opened alongside Red Tails, Haywire, and Coriolanus, all of which I would have rather seen at the cinema, and it took more at the box office than the 3 of them combined!

I suppose the silver lining to this cloud is that there's always the chance that we'll see Kate don that infamous skin tight outfit once more.

Welcome home, James Bond...

Skyfall is currently breaking UK Box Office records left, right and centre, and after watching the latest release commemorating 50 years of Bond (starting with Dr. No in 1962), I think it's easy to see why.

Shortly after watching the film, I went around asking people, "Which James Bond did you grow up with?".  I was shocked at the realisation that I now found myself in an older generation who answered Roger Moore, or even Sean Connery.  The majority now answer Pierce Brosnan, some will noe even answer Daniel Craig.  I believe your answer to this question will have an effect on how you view and appreciate the film, unless you are a big Bond fan who has gone back to watch all the previous films.

Pierce Brosnan's Bond had the charm, the swagger, and the gadgets.  Everything from laser watches, to exploding pens.  The one thing he lacked was any sense of peril.  No matter what the situation, Pierce Brosnan's Bond never had us concerned, just impatient to get to the bit where he mounted his escape and stuff started to explode.  This was the end of a progression that saw Bond use his quick wit and whatever was to hand less (a strand of hair across a door in Dr. No), and flashy gadgets that seemed tailor made for a situation that he seemingly accidentally found himself in, more (think laser watch escape from train in GoldenEye).

Then in steps Daniel Craig as Bond in Casino Royale, and the cycle is broken.  Bond is the more physical and violent character that we read about in the books, complete with brutal fight scenes and, the then in vogue, free running.  But more importantly Craig's Bond is only human, we see him fall in love and have his heart broken, as well as tortured and hospitalised.  An on screen process that makes you feel that you're there for the creation of the ice cool veneer that is synonymous with James Bond.  The only element that was missing from Casino Royale was the bad guy.  Mads Mikkelsen plays an excellent part, but he isn't the classic Bond villain.  There's a bigger shadowy element moving behind the scenes, a corporation of evil that runs through both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.  A great idea given the economic and political landscape of the times, but not very Bond.

That brings us to Skyfall (and some SPOILERS).  Here we have a classic return of the Bond villain in Javier Bardem's Silva.  He gives a stand out performance, with a character who is camp but dangerous, tongue in cheek but can still be taken seriously.  Most importantly, he has the smarts to stand toe to toe with the good guys (and they don't give a white cat to cradle in his arms during his opening monologue).

The most important, and for me, best aspect of Skyfall is the breaking and rebuilding of Bond throughout the course of the film.  Those responsible for Die Another Day, watch carefully, and take note.  If Casino Royale exposed Bond's underbelly, Skyfall creates a genuine doubt as to whether Bond can recover fully.  This is helped throughout by references to Bond being an old school player in a new age where technology trumps fieldcraft.  Whether it's the direct question posed by Mallory, or the scene between Q and Bond in the gallery.  The rebuilding is successful however, due to Bond's successful capture of the more tech savvy Silva using nothing but a radio, and the later set piece in Skyfall house.  Here we see Bond fend of Silva and his goons using low tech booby traps using whatever is at hand.  Giving us a new take on the light bulb that you're unlikely to see on 60 Minute Makeover any time soon.

Whilst the ending sees the passing of Judi Dench's M, the credits roll with a new M in the shape of Mallory, the return of Q and Miss Moneypenny, and everything set for Bond to return in a completely new adventure (no sign of a Quantum of Solace-esque follow on.... phew).  It's only when the credits roll, however, that I understood the majesty of what had been achieved by Skyfall.  A 50 year old character, played by 8 different actors, has been successfully relaunched into a new age, with a band new generation as it's audience.

Bring on number 24....

5 Live Octoberfest

Last week, between the 11th and 13th October, BBC Radio 5 Live put on a number of live shows in Sheffield.  Until a week before, I knew nothing about it, when a friend from work announced he had a spare ticket and would I like to go.  The ticket in question was for Kermode and Mayo's Film Review show, it was like Christmas had come early.

The event took place at the Crucible Theatre, of which I had only seen during televised footage of the snooker.  It was a simple set up, and whilst I don't know what I expected to happen, it quickly became apparent that they were doing their usual radio spot live in front of us.  Part of that included the Top 10 Review, so to make use of the live audience they asked for volunteers to provide their thoughts on any of the Top 10 they had seen.  Some did their contribution as part of a pair, and I felt very sorry for the gentleman who followed the first lady to speak reviewing Looper.  It was a fantastic one line review, that I personally wouldn't have tried to follow.

I was really taken aback by the relaxed approach to the whole event.  I never imagined live radio broadcasting to be the most stressful of activities, but Kermode and Mayo were amiable and talkative between segments, with Kermode even taking the time to sign autographs and pose for photographs.

The best part of the event had to be the interview with Mark Herbert of Warp Films.  Ever since watching Dead Man's Shoes, I have been a fan of Paddy Considine and Shane Meadows.  Only later to find that Warp Films played a huge part in a great many projects involving the two.  For those unfamiliar with the work of any of the above, check out:

www.warpfilms10.com

It gives a great overview of what these guys have achieved and created, as well as details of Warp Films 10th anniversary celebratory event.  They are screening Dead Man's Shoes at the Magna Centre in Rotherham, with those involved in the original score, and guests, re-imagining the soundtrack live whilst the screening takes place.  Along with a host of other screenings and music events, £20 is a steal.  It's an early bird price, and with the event taking place on November 17th they probably won't be around much longer.

Check out the podcast of Kermode and Mayo's live event here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode

Looper packs a punch...

Heading in to see Looper, I had made an effort to not look further than the theatrical trailers for information about what was in store for me.  Undoubtedly there was not much more to find out at that point, but I had a good feeling about Looper being something special, so I didn't want to take any chances.

One thing I was aware of, was the talk surrounding Joseph Gordon Levitt's prosthetics and attempt to mimic Bruce Willis.  The talk seemed to turn to ridicule in some instances.  I fully believe it enhances JGL's performance, and really adds that 'younger Bruce Willis' element.  JGL does a great job of his expressions and speech patterns as well.

Whilst they have great material to go on with the story, Bruce, JGL, and Emily play brilliant parts (Emily's character Sara has a fabulously dirty mouth).  But the performance that had me on the edge of my seat was that of Pierce Gagnon, the child playing Cid, Son of Emily's character Sara.  He has great comedy timing, is freakishly natural in front of the camera, and really nails some emotionally charged scenes.

The film starts, sets the scene, introducing the Loopers in a near future world, who act on behalf of those in a future 30 years further on.  There are some great touches to this not so distant future, solar powered cars (where cars are used and battered with solar panels crudely attached to them), and over crowding from increased population to name a few.  But the best thing it does here is not dwell on, or over think, time travel.  You know the bare minimum, even during dialogue between the 2 Joes (JGL and Bruce), this way it doesn't become a thread to pick at, distracting you from the main story.  It's illegal, and used only by criminals for the purposes of getting rid of people, this is then where the Loopers come in.

Then, once the stage is set, and the film gets in to it's rhythm, I thought for a brief moment that it was going to end by the numbers and predictable.  All this Twitter hype for the few days previous would have been just that...hype.

Then something quite remarkable happened, and it was like being punched in the face by the fist of awesomeness.

To start with, I thought the film had come to a rather abrupt and premature end.  Then, I realised that I'd been hit with the twist.  But even after that, after the credits, walking out of the cinema, and even on the drive home, the sheer brilliance of what I'd just seen was still sinking in.  So many different aspects of the relationships between people are examined during the course of the film, not least between the different incarnations of Joe, and it's only with the final twist that it all gets brought together.

A great tonic to the fast paced, explosion fest, blockbusters of the summer, Looper is a film that I will enjoy watching the second time just as much as I did the first.