Requiem for a Dream

#58 at time of writing.

This film made a massive impact on me. It haunted me for days afterwards. It's about four likeable, ambitious people whose addictions eventually get the better of them and ruin their lives. Gradually. Insidiously. Tragically. Brutally.

I was blown away by the pace and style of this film - and left stunned by its forceful message. I find myself craving to watch it again.

Darren Aronofsky's previous film, Pi, was just as menacing and mysterious, but more of a fantasy, a fairytale.

Requiem for a Dream is no fairytale.

Ellen Burstyn in particular deserved an Oscar for her role as elderly telly addict Sara Goldfarb, but unfortunately she lost out to Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich.

During Burstyn's impassioned monologue about how it feels to be old, the cinematographer Matthew Libatique accidentally let the camera drift off-target. When the director called "cut" and confronted him about it, he realized the reason Libatique had let the camera drift was because he had been crying during the take and fogged up the camera's eyepiece. That's how sad and brilliant this film is.

Sin City

#68 at time of writing.

This film received very mixed reviews when it was released, so I didn't bother watching it at the cinema. Later, I was surprised to see it in a lofty position on IMDb's Top 250 list. Well, that piqued my curiosity, so I rented it out.

It's the most extreme example of style over substance that I've ever seen in a film. It looks awesome, it feels pitch dark, and it's absolutely rubbish.

I've always struggled with graphic novels. I love the idea of them, I love how much work and imagination obviously goes into the best of them, but I've always found them too disconnected - they don't flow. Too many interruptions and loose ends. This film felt exactly the same. So I understand why graphic novel fans might laud it, but it totally didn't work for me.

As if to emphasise the disconnects, some of the cast members did not even meet each other until after the film was made - for example in the scenes between Marv (Mickey Rourke), Cardinal Roark (Rutger Hauer) and Kevin (Elijah Wood), Hauer and Wood were added in post-production - they weren't even cast when Rourke shot his scenes.

Dial M for Murder

#243 at time of writing.

This film was like an Agatha Christie novel - very clever, and quite satisfying, but not particularly deep, and populated with fairly stereotypical characters.

Hitchcock manages to keep the suspense and intrigue going throughout, as is his wont, but I disgree with all the people that say he is a master of the medium. He doesn't use the versatility of film to its full extent at all - he produces films that feel like stage plays (at least the ones I've seen).

That style doesn't sit easily with me, it makes me restless. So although this is a perfectly good film, with some surprising twists, I wouldn't rank it among my favourites.

Bizarrely, this was originally filmed in 3D, which explains the prevalence of low-angle shots with lamps and other objects in the foreground. There was only a brief original release in 3D, followed by a conventional "flat" release; the 3D version was reissued in 1980.

Rashomon

#67 at time of writing.

By all accounts, this represented a revolution in filmmaking at the time of its release. In fact, it is often credited as the reason the Academy created the "Best Foreign Film" category.

It certainly has a lot of unusual elements to its structure - a non-linear story with unreliable narrators, and a thoroughly ambiguous conclusion. I enjoyed it for the most part, but I think you definitely have to be in the right mood to watch it.

It's slow and artful, which I think are typical features of Kurosawa films. The overblown, grubby Japanese characters make for amusing viewing. And the concept of re-telling the same story from different perspectives keeps the suspense poised.

It didn't blow me away, but I would definitely give it a second chance.

Basic Instinct 2

Nowhere near the top 10,000 at time of writing.

I have never enjoyed a bad film as much as when I watched this. Not because it's so bad it's funny, no - I assure you that it is irredemably bad. But because I watched it with the "Bad Films Club," which is such a great concept that I thought I'd share it with you.

My local cinema is the Ritzy in Brixton, London. It's a wonderful cinema, with friendly staff and a kind of indie feel. You can bring your drinks from the bar into the screen, and when you're done watching the film you can retreat to the balcony café for some stone baked pizza.

The best part about it is that they often stray from the mainstream. The Bad Films Club was an example. The idea is that three comedians sit in the front row and take the piss out of an awful film. They encourage the audience to throw out cinema etiquette and get involved too. It's a combination of cinema and stand-up comedy, with the feeling of being with a bunch of mates in your front room.

And what a great film to have chosen! Wooden acting, idiot dialogue, wrinkly nudity, all directed with an enthusiastic lack of panache. I couldn't have enjoyed it more.

Full Metal Jacket

#94 at time of writing.

The opening sequence of this film shoves its fist so far down your throat it's tickling your balls. The whole first half rides an exhilarating torrent of comically over-the-top verbal abuse and brutal dehumanisation, teases you with the promise of a shred of compassion, then smacks you in the skull for a finalé.

And this is definitely a film of two halves. The first time I watched it I was so revved up by the first part that I think the second part washed over me a little, but on repeat viewings I appreciate that the second part is just as worthy.

Kubrick blends the darkest of black humour with a none-too-subtle message of the madness of war to produce the most rollercoaster Vietnam War movie out there. You will enjoy it, laugh at it, and then be shocked and disgusted by it in equal measure.

"These are great days we're living, bros. We are jolly green giants, walking the Earth with guns. These people we wasted here today are the finest human beings we will ever know. After we rotate back to the world, we're gonna miss not having anyone around that's worth shooting."

Hotel Rwanda

#59 at time of writing.

This film has all the impact of Schindler's List, yet without the trademark Spielberg sentimentality.

The Rwandan genocide is told through the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, a heroic hotel manager who risked everything to prevent Tutsi refugees from being wiped out by the Hutu militia.

This film left me ashamed. Ashamed because there was so much I didn't know (and should have known) about such a recent and horrific conflict. Ashamed that I and my government ignored this genocide at the time and let it happen. Ashamed by the human instinct to discriminate and persecute. And a little ashamed that I actually enjoyed watching the film! The fact that this works so well as a thriller makes the truth - when it finally hits you - land much harder.

One throwaway scene haunted my memory for a long time afterwards. Before the militia mobilise, two girls chatting in café are asked by a journalist if they are Hutu or Tutsi. One is Hutu, one is Tutsi, and it seems to bother them not one bit. I don't think we ever see the girls again, but the scene echoed in my mind as an almost metaphorical illustration of how pointless the whole conflict was and how tragically so many friendships and families were divided.

The Wizard of Oz

#94 at time of writing.

This film is 68 years old. That's twelve years older than the first colour television broadcast. My grandfather probably saw this film at the cinema as a child. Yet it has stood the test of time fantastically well.

I was brought up with this film on Betamax and VHS, and I'm still happy to watch it now on the spectacularly digitally remastered DVD. It's such a perfect fantasy, replete with catchy songs (including "Over the Rainbow") and indulgently vibrant colour.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, considering it was made at a time where colour was relatively rare on film, The Wizard of Oz revels in colour at every opportunity. The Yellow Brick Road, Emerald City, ruby slippers, even the "horse of a different colour."

But behind the scenes, the production of this film was not such a fairytale. The Tin Man's toxic make-up nearly killed Buddy Ebsen (he was replaced by Jack Haley), the Wicked Witch of the West and her body double were both severely burned in the process of disappearing in a puff of smoke, and Judy Garland was constantly hepped up on goofballs (the studio fed her amphetamines and barbiturates to help her cope with the hectic schedule). The turbulent production also got through a fair number of directors, including two of the directors of Gone With the Wind, another Hollywood golden age classic from 1939.

Lions and tigers and bears! Oh, my!

Seven Samurai

#10 at time of writing.

The trouble with watching classic films is that they were often so influential that you feel like you've seen it all before. So when I sat down to watch this three-hour epic I expected to see a predictable story about brave, powerful and noble samurai warriors conquering all.

Wrong.

I was very surprised to see the samurai portrayed as poor, cowardly, desperate mercenaries. There are no heroes in this film.

In sixteenth century Japan a villager overhears a notorious gang of bandits plotting to ransack the village and steal all their grain. The village elder decides that they must try to hire samurai to defend themselves, but they have no money. It turns out that most of the samurai are so pathetic and desperate that they will work for three square meals a day - although the villagers can barely even afford that.

All this gives rise to personal battles of hope and pride and guilt, not to mention many wonderfully comic exchanges, while the villagers and the samurai prepare for the final showdown.

Many of Akira Kurosawa's films were remade into classic Westerns - in this case, The Magnificent Seven. I don't much like Westerns as a rule, but I liked this.

Finding Nemo

#112 at time of writing.

A better children's film has never been made. Well, except for maybe Toy Story. And The Incredibles. And, well, you get the idea. Pixar rock.

I have been lucky enough to go scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef. It was fantastic, the stuff of dreams. Coral so colourful it could have been designed by Walt Disney. Clams so big you could believe that they'd swallow you whole. The occasional troop of reef sharks minding their own business. Big tubular things straight out of an H. R. Giger nightmare.

Pixar captured it all, and made it larger than life. But that's entirely incidental. The story and the characters are what make this film unforgettable - even to the extent that every now and then my girlfriend still flits around the house singing in Dory's voice, "Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming, swimming, swimming. What do we do? We swim, swim. Ha ha ha ha ho ho..."

And what fun this must have been to research! The production crew were apparently all treated to visits to aquariums, and diving trips to Monterey, Hawaii and Australia.

As you can see, Finding Nemo doesn't just appeal to kids. And it definitely appeals to me.

Mine!

Cinemap 2006

You may have read my post from a few months ago showing a series of emails between me and the Head of Intellectual Property Rights at Transport for London. I was asking him for permission to adapt the London Underground map and sell the result to the general public.

He said no.

But I adapted the map anyway, for my own personal satisfaction. I allocated film genres to each of the Underground lines, and replaced all the station names with films. Each film fits into the genres represented by the lines it's on, and the films are grouped together in lots of other clever ways as well.

I've printed the finished artwork out poster-size, laminated it and stuck it up on my wall. I like it there. Lots of people who come and visit enjoy it too, and comment on it. It sparks off interesting discussions.

I thought I'd give you the opportunity to do the same thing. Here it is!

The Prestige

#187 at time of writing.

I was extremely excited when I heard that this movie was coming out. It's about magic. I love magic. It's directed by Chris Nolan. Memento and Batman Begins are two of the best films I've ever seen. And it was getting rave reviews. Surely a winning formula?

When I finally got around to watching it, I was treated to an involving story about rivalry, risk and obsession in the golden age of magic, when a combination of Victorian sensibilities, boundless imagination and showmanship, and new technology that actually seemed magical, led to the most fascinating and inspiring conjuring there has ever been.

My appreciation of this film has grown further since reading Hiding the Elephant, which is a wonderfully told history of modern magic. Nothing to do with the film, but recommended all the same, especially if you have even a passing interest in prestidigitorial trickery.

The one complaint I have about this film is that I was slightly disappointed that the story resorted to a supernatural twist at the end after being so proudly realistic, or at least verisimilar, for most of its length. Having said that, the twist was deliciously dark, and absolutely fitting.

And hey, it's got David Bowie in it. That gets any film extra points.

Walk the Line

#200 at time of writing.

Hmm... maybe I wasn't in the right mood when I watched this - I'm starting to realise that the mood you're in makes a huge difference to your perception of a film - but this film didn't set me alight. It felt somehow derivative. Maybe I've just been spoiled with the spate of formulaic American biopics recently, but this one just didn't seem to have anything that stood it out among the rest.

It's a great story, with great actors, I just felt that the filmmakers knew they had those two things going for them so they didn't bother putting any extra effort into it. I guess I'm measuring this film by a high standard, but I suspect no-one's life was ever changed by making it or watching it.

Mind you, reading into the background of the film a bit more makes me think I might be judging it harshly. It's impressive that Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon performed all of the songs themselves, and learned to play their instruments from scratch. It's impressive that Johnny and June Carter Cash themselves picked the actors who played them (although they died before the film was made). Maybe one day I'll give this film a second chance. But I have a few hundred other films to watch first.

Kill Bill (1 & 2)

#90 and #116 at time of writing.

If you think you might have been desensitised to screen violence, Kill Bill will test your boundaries. Some of it makes uncomfortable viewing. But then you can't help getting swept along as the camera worships Uma Thurman's deadly character; her vendetta is so pure that you have to root for her as she racks up the body count.

Unstoppably cool set pieces, dialogue, and over-the-top comic book violence - with splendid gashes of colour and toe-tappingly funky music - propel this revenge epic as it rampages through your brain at a record rate of homages-per-minute towards its tense and satisfying ending.

It's films like this that convince me that Quentin Tarantino and his actor buddies have the best jobs in the world. He offered Uma Thurman the script to Kill Bill, and her role as "The Bride", as a 30th birthday present. How do I get me one of those?

Chinatown

#44 at time of writing.

This late take on the film noir genre is renowned as having one of the best scripts of all time. The story is indeed clever, if a little complicated at first. Even if you do feel a bit lost at the beginning, it is definitely worth sticking it out while the scale of the conspiracy is discovered and the sense of menace grows.

The characters are wonderful, with Jack Nicholson playing private eye Jake Gittes, who manages never to be out of his depth simply because he has so much of it; and Faye Dunaway playing femme fatale Evelyn Mulwray, cloaked in mystery, and eventually tragedy.

Amusingly, the role of Evelyn Mulwray was originally intended for the producer's wife, Ali MacGraw, but she lost the role when she divorced him for Steve McQueen.

This film manages to be an evocative noir despite being in full colour - the only darkness is provided by the characters themselves. And the atmosphere is underpinned beautifully by haunting trumpet solos throughout.

The bitter taste of injustice that you are left with at the end is all the more poignant because the scandals that inspired the story are based on truth.

The African Queen

#136 at time of writing.

This film starts off slow, and shows its age, but give it twenty minutes and you're strangely hooked. The bulk of the story is taken up with the witty banter between Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart's characters while they meander down an African river to avoid - and then pursue - German soldiers during World War I.

There are many wonderful exchanges while Rose Sayer, the high-minded missionary, is brought gently down to earth by Charlie Allnut, the gin-swilling water-rat. A fine balance is achieved between comedy, realism and romance. This role deservedly won Humphrey Bogart the only Oscar of his career.

Behind the scenes, to show her disgust with the amount of alcohol that John Huston (the director) and Humphrey Bogart consumed during filming on location in the Congo, Katharine Hepburn drank only water. As a result, she suffered a severe bout of dysentery.

Duck Soup

#147 at time of writing.

Wow, I've never seen so many cringeworthy jokes reeled off without taking a breath. The whole film is one long stream-of-consciousness comedy routine from the Marx Brothers, particularly Groucho, with a vague bit of film weaved around it. By the time you get around to laughing at one joke, you've already missed five more.

Yes, this is not a serious film. The man has grease paint for a moustache for goodness' sake. The action moves from set piece to set piece without worrying too much about gelling it all together, delivering so many hideous puns and ridiculous slapstick that it is probably illegal in Utah.

There's no reason I can fathom for this film being called "Duck Soup". One rumour has it that Groucho Marx offered the following explanation: "Take two turkeys, one goose, four cabbages, but no duck, and mix them together. After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life." That rumour fits in perfectly with the film - irreverent, irrelevant and punnier than a punnet of pundits.

Rear Window

#14 at time of writing.

I recently realised that I have read and watched hundreds of Hitchcock snippets, but - shamefully - never have I sat through an entire film. And there are no less than nine of his films in the IMDb top 250 list.

So I allowed myself a minor indulgence and bought a Hitchcock box set. OK, it was more than a minor indulgence - it's a large box set. 34 films.

This film is the highest rated Hitchcock on IMDb, and often considered his best and most thrilling picture. So I am told.

It strikes me as the ultimate movie for studying in film school. It could be analysed to death. It's a fascinating idea, light-heartedly executed, but many-layered. But it feels like a film student film. At best, it's intriguing. At worst, it plods.

James Stewart's character is amusing, Grace Kelly's is luminous, and the insurance company nurse is hilarious. The idea is wonderful. The 1950's filmmaking is nostalgic, gentle and naive. I enjoyed it, but I don't think this movie would have made it into my own personal top 250.

Yet IMDb users rate it as the fourteenth best film of all time! I must be missing something...

V for Vendetta

#180 at time of writing.

We went to see this film at the IMAX at Waterloo last week. What a great film for the IMAX screen: a grandiose comic book melodrama of the highest order. Dark and satisfying.

The strength of vision behind this dystopian fantasy of a totalitarian Britain sweeps you along, so that you whole-heartedly believe in the ambiguous hero. His antics are gloriously theatrical, occasionally histrionic, but always entertaining. It's Nineteen Eighty-Four meets Zorro.

This is a welcome return to form for the Wachowski brothers after the woeful Matrix sequels. OK, V for Vendetta didn't blow me away as much as The Matrix on first viewing, but I have a creeping feeling that I will want to watch V again, and again.

It's a shame that the genius author of the graphic novel behind this film did not approve of this adaptation of his masterwork. Mind you, he hasn't yet approved of any adaptations of his comic inventions.

"A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!"

Cinemap 2006: REJECTED!

From: Charlie Fish [mailto:charlie@fictionontheweb.co.uk]
Sent: 27 April 2006 14:36
To: Ellis David (Head of IPR Development)
Subject: Request for permission to adapt London Underground map

Dear Mr. Ellis,

I spoke to you briefly earlier - thank you very much for your help.

I have created the attached image, which is an adaptation of the London Underground map. This image has not been released into the public domain so please treat it as confidential.

I would like to apply for permission to publish this image on my website (www.fictionontheweb.co.uk/top250films), and potentially to sell this image (or a close approximation). If I was to sell it, the likely market would be a mainstream film magazine.

My telephone number is XXXXX XXXXXX, should you wish to contact me directly. Please let me know if you require any further information.

Thanks,
Charlie Fish



From: "Ellis David (Head of IPR Development)"
To: [charlie@fictionontheweb.co.uk]
Subject: RE: Request for permission to adapt London Underground map
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:29:29 +0100

Dear Mr Fish

Thank you for your e-mail requesting permission to re-produce the Tube map with names of stations presented as films.

We receive numerous requests to re-produce alternative versions of the Tube map and we have to judge each on its merits and after considering your request we are unable to grant you permission to reproduce the Tube map.

We have to be very careful when granting permission to change or adapt our famous Underground map as we have to avoid the risk of such activity possibly leading to a dilution of our rights, as well as ultimately devaluing its worth and integrity.

As guardans of an iconic design we hope you understand our position in this matter.

Yours sincerely

David Ellis

---

From: Charlie Fish [mailto:charlie@fictionontheweb.co.uk]
Sent: 27 April 2006 23:22
To: Ellis David (Head of IPR Development)
Subject: RE: Request for permission to adapt London Underground map

Dear David,

Thank you for your prompt response.

May I enquire as to the criteria you apply when judging whether to grant permission for adaptations of the Underground map?

I would be willing to work with Transport for London if you would like to use the image or the idea yourselves as well, for example to promote your Film Office.

If you cannot give me permission to use the image for commercial purposes, may I have permission to publish it on my non-commercial personal website at www.fictionontheweb.co.uk/top250films ?

Thanks,
Charlie

---

From: Ellis David (Head of IPR Development)
Sent: 28 April 2006 08:17:51
To: [charlie@fictionontheweb.co.uk]
Subject: RE: Request for permission to adapt London Underground map

The one basic rule we have is that the Tube map cannot be altered in anyway. However, we will always look at the ideas people have and review them, but because of the possible risk in diluting the rights in our valuable map we are very cautious about granting permission to any new adaptations on our classic design.

We have had numerous ideas sent to us over the years based around changing station names and out of these only two have been granted permission in the last 30 years and longer and the first of these was Simon Paterson's Great Bear, which was short listed for the Turner prize around 10 years ago.

It is not therefore a matter of working with TfL or TfL wishing to use the your idea it is just that we are extremely cautious in granting permission for any adaptations of the Tube map.

:(

The Incredibles

#80 at time of writing.

Pixar are a phenomenon. They blasted into the box office with Toy Story, redefining what could be done with computer animation. They followed it up with A Bug's Life, which was far better than DreamWorks' contemporary computer-animated ant movie (what are the odds?), Antz. Then, against all odds, they outdid the first Toy Story film with its sequel. For an encore, they produced Monsters, Inc. - a triumph of imaginative comedy.

That's when they pulled out the big guns. Finding Nemo was mind-blowing. Beautiful, touching, hilarious, epic... and absolutely impossible to follow.

The trailers for The Incredibles aroused excitement and cynicism in equal measure. Yay! Another Pixar film! But superheroes? Surely they've lost their touch after a lucky run. Surely after their first five near-perfect films they'll slip up, or lose momentum.

Couldn't be more wrong. The Incredibles is just that. Incredible.

The sheer number and variety of characters, scenes and textures raises the bar sky-high for computer animated films. The idea is simple enough: a family of undercover superheroes, while trying to live the quiet suburban life, are forced into action to save the world. But the result is sublime. A supremely comic and stunningly imaginative blend of the mundane and the fantastic. It makes me want to get up from my seat and dance. Or double over laughing. Or shed a gooey sentimental tear.

This summer, Pixar's seventh feature film will be released, Cars. Yay! Another Pixar film! But cars? Surely they've lost their touch after a lucky run...

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

#241 at time of writing.

This film swashes every single buckle out there. You might think you've seen a hundred pirate films before, but when you actually try and recall them you will realize you haven't. Peter Pan pretty much fixed the genre in our heads, and nothing since has really captured the full potential of swashbuckling buccaneers on the high seas.

Right from the off, this film makes you want to use words like "rollicking" and "rip-roaring". Becorseted breasts, roguish heroes and flamboyant villains abound, me hearties. Johnny Depp's wonderfully comic performance and Geoffrey Rush's extravagant gravitas steal the show. You can watch this again and again (indeed, I have) and you'll enjoy it every time.

It has to be the first film ever based on a theme park ride. It captures the atmosphere of the Disneyland ride, and even homages entire segments: the skeletal pirates, the jail scenes with the key-dog, the burning town with the red-headed prostitute (who slaps Captain Jack), and of course the song "(Yo Ho, Yo Ho) A Pirate's Life for Me" - among many others.

It was brought to life by screenwriting duo Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio. Terry Rossio is a bit of a hero of mine, thanks to the inspirational columns on his website, Wordplay. He admits that this is the first live-action film where everyone involved seemed to believe in what he and his writing partner were doing, right from the start - which was a truly great experience. And all it took was "10 produced features, three #1 films of the summer, $4 billion in overall worldwide sales, and an Academy Award® nomination."

Forgive the cheesy ending, and bring on the sequels! Arrrr...

Worst films of all time

I recently subjected myself to a second viewing of Batman & Robin. I have got drunk and set off a whole reel of film while the camera was still in my pocket before, and I enjoyed those photos more than I enjoyed this film.

It is not just an insult to the Batman franchise; it is not just an insult to the film industry; it is an insult to humanity. Why - how - do films like this get made?

It got me to thinking - what are the worst films of all time? I don't mean films that are so bad they're good (there was a film I saw on late-night TV in the early 90's called Eat and Run that I would put in that category - it was a no-budget film about an alien that descended to New York City and ate Italian people, leaving only their buttons behind). I mean terrible, agonising films.

It turns out that IMDb have a Bottom 100 list. Here are some of the highlights:

• #3 - From Justin to Kelly, starring the winners of American Idol. Fans of such shows deserve films like this.


• #7 - Anus Magillicutty - enough said.


• #15 - Son of the Mask, which goes to show you shouldn't make sloppy cash-in sequels of excellent 90's films.


• #23 - Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace, which goes to show you shouldn't make sloppy cash-in sequels of awful 90's films.


• #28 - Gigli - alongside films like Anaconda, Maid in Manhattan, and The Cell you'd think J-Lo would get the idea and STOP ACTING. Mercy killing, anyone?


• #34 - Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, the Scientology manifesto that John Travolta lost millions of dollars on. Hee hee.



• #82 - Spice World and #89 Crossroads, further proof that musical performers should stick to music.


• #91 - Mortal Kombat: Annihilation - the producers obviously hadn't seen Street Fighter or Super Mario Bros., or they would have known that you shouldn't make a film based on a computer game.

Personally though, Batman & Robin takes the biscuit for me. That's $125,000,000 that would have been better spent even if it was used to paint the moon red. Holy marathon, Batman! F*** off!

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

#36 at time of writing.

"How happy is the blameless Vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd"

Every time I watch this film I fall in love with it more, to the point where I can't help welling up with tears as soon as Beck starts crooning "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime" to the opening credits.

This is my kind of film. If I had to choose a personal top 250 films, it would be full of films like this. Except that there aren't any films like this.

Kate Winslet and Jim Carrey are cast completely against type, and they turn in perfect performances. Michel Gondry is a visionary director, who comes up with the densest mosaic of artful scenes that has ever existed in a plot-driven movie.



There's no denying that this film is the combined result of a rare unity of vision between a group of extremely talented people, but the champion for me is Charlie Kaufman, the screenwriter.

I deeply admire Kaufman's style - turning genres on their heads by introducing a fantastical element, and then playing out that fantastical concept to breaking point. His collaborations with Spike Jonze, Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, were genius - the most original and subversive films for years.

Eternal Sunshine shows the same spark, but it has matured. The themes of love and loss are indeed eternal, and this film will certainly last forever.

Some links:

• "Eloisa to Abelard" by Alexander Pope, where the quote comes from.


• Charlie Kaufman's original script


• The soundtrack

Taxi Driver

#37 at time of writing.

This film is extremely high up IMDb's Top 250 list. I was expecting to be blown away - not by CGI and melodrama, but by being forced to think and to reassess the world I live in - that's what makes a great film for me. But I didn't get what I expected.

Instead I got an understated, slow-burning, sinister film. A good film, but it probably would not have made my personal top 250. Then again, now that I am making more of an effort to watch the so-called classics, maybe I need to rethink my opinion on what makes a good film.

I also recently watched the classic films that made Jack Nicholson an A-lister: Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces. They too were slow-burning, cynical, unexpected films that were undeniably very good, but perhaps not to my taste. But, a week or two later, I remember them. I remember the crucial scenes. They have made an impression on me. They linger. So maybe they are making me reassess the world I live in, in a subtler, deeper way. Maybe these nuanced films will blindside me, and by the time I get round to watching them again, I won't understand why I didn't always love them.

Robert De Niro has been rightly lauded for his infinitely sensitive portrayal of Travis Bickle, the insomniac Vietnam vet of limited intelligence whose job as a cabbie hides him from all but the seediest sides of society until it's all he knows. De Niro worked twelve-hour days for a month driving cabs as preparation for the role. And he was clearly under the character's skin - his most famous line from the film was improvised. I had always assumed "You talkin' to me?" would be scary and menacing, but it was dripping with sadness and isolation.

Cinemap 2006

Look what I'm working on at the moment...



Each line represents a different genre, and there are a few extras thrown in.

I'll probably post the finished product here soon!

Fight Club

#32 at time of writing.

I think I am in an overly emotional mood.

I've just watched this film again and I'm hysterical. More than once, and especially at the end, I was laughing uncontrollably and even crying. Not in a funny way. In a nihilistic, abandoned, insane way.

This isn't a film, it's a kick up the ass.

Fight Club brings a dirty, aggressive dignity to the dark side of the male soul. The primal side that sometimes feels like biting someone's ear off just because you've had a bad day. The side that feels like life is just too much effort because everyone takes it so damn seriously. The side that fucking hates frilly cushions.

Chuck Palahniuk has created a Dice Man for the jaded Nineties. If you're not careful, it will make you reassess your priorities in life. And David Fincher has created a film that feels more like a manifesto for the revolution.

There's evidence that the actors and crew got into the spirit of the film while making it. According to the (unusually intelligent) DVD commentary, in the short scene when Brad Pitt and Edward Norton are drunk and hitting golf balls, they really are drunk, and the golf balls are sailing directly into the side of the catering truck.

Hero

#143 at time of writing.

This is a phenomenally beautiful film. Yimou Zhang's use of colour and scale paints a masterpiece visualisation of Oriental legend. It is an ambitious epic, with all the melodrama, over-the-top chivalry and infinitely meticulous action scenes that you could hope for from the wuxia genre.

It is the most expensive Chinese film ever made, using an impressive 18000 extras and 300 horses, but it is never gratuitous. It uses special effects in innovative and restrained ways, creating strong visual interest from such mundane things as a falling raindrop or a slight breeze.

The fight scenes and set pieces are grand and poetic, more than making up for the occasional borderline cheesiness. And the story wraps up with a tantalisingly ambiguous moral message.

Watch this film on the largest possible screen, and prepare to be awed.

How much does it cost to make a film?

$218. That's how much it costs to make a film.

At least, that's how much it cost Jonathan Caouette to make Tarnation, released in 2003. And it grossed well over half a million at the worldwide box office, making it the film with the second highest return on investment ever (the highest being The Blair Witch Project with a 354,614% return on investment - eat that William Hill).

Ironically, IMDb users rate Tarnation as a better film than Titanic, which is one of the costliest films ever made.


The whole Mars Pathfinder mission cost
millions less than the film Titanic


A quick glance over The Numbers list of Movie Budget Records reveals what a terrifying risk studios take when they agree to spend a 9 digit sum to make a film. God knows how Warner Bros. is still solvent after losing some $96million on The Adventures of Pluto Nash. That's the same amount that Bush Senior and Clinton managed to raise for their entire Hurricane Katrina Fund.

And yet it's Warner Bros. that are about to release the most expensive movie ever made. The budget for Superman Returns is $250,000,000. A quarter of a billion simoleons. That's the Queen of England's whole fortune. No pressure, then, folks.

Personally, I quite like the idea of spending the $218 I have in my bank account on making a film.

Match Point

Unranked at time of writing.

Woody Allen has a talent for capturing those awkward moments that make up the bulk of real life and real relationships. He understands what makes people hate the people they most love.

And he does not shy away from allowing people to talk over each other, which creates a conversational atmosphere that makes you feel right at home - makes it personal.

This film has some moments of true genius. It is a very simple concept (a love triangle), with simple characters, but it's so artfully put together. At least until about the halfway point.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film. But the act of desparation that the protagonist resorts to midway through the film felt so out of character that I was left feeling skeptical. It may have worked if the character's past had been infused with a bit more mystery, or if there had been some other clues, but it fell short.

There was also an unnecessary indulgence towards the end; a violation of point of view that made the final story point seem contrived. I suppose I can forgive that, though, especially for Woody Allen who makes a virtue of breaking the rules.

Opera is used as a theme in this film, and the story excels as opera. However, as a film, I found the unexpected behaviour of the main character irreconcilable.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

#241 at time of writing.

Yes, the CGI is a little too slick for its own good. Yes, there are scenes that make you want to punch the screen and yell "NOOOOOOOO!" But it would be unfair to deny that this film wraps us the Star Wars story fantastically well.

I'm going to be controversial now and say I enjoyed this at least as much as Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back, and much more than the original Star Wars (Episode IV). And it goes without saying that it's in a different league to the first two prequels.

Anakin's descent into betrayal is persuasive, the fall of the Jedis is affecting, and the light sabre duels kick ass. My favourite has to be Darth Sidious literally tearing down democracy by throwing bits of the Senate chamber at Yoda.

Trivia for the day: which two actors have appeared in all six Star Wars films?

Box office musings

I've just been browsing through IMDb's list of films that grossed the most money in worldwide box offices. It makes for interesting reading.

The big three are represented right at the top, as you would expect: Star Wars: Episode I comes in at number four with $922,379,000 of box office receipts. That in itself is incredible - it's 15 cents for every single person alive.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone enjoys the number three spot with $968,600,000 - which approaches the GDP of Belize. Number two goes to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King with an astronomical $1,129,219,252. That's more than all three Indiana Jones films put together.

And guess how much the number one grossed. Nope, guess again. A little more... You're getting warmer...

Titanic stands alone with $1,835,300,000.

That's incredible. There are fewer than 40 films that have ever grossed more than half a billion, and then there's Titanic, which grossed nearly two billion. Look, I've put it on a graph so you can see how ridiculous it is:



A Titanic spike indeed.

Adjust for inflation, however, and there's a different story. Titanic drops to sixth, according to Box Office Mojo's list. The number one, thanks to 67 years of inflation and a re-release or two, is Gone with the Wind.

Interestingly, there is almost no correlation between the films with that grossed the highest at the box office and the films that were ranked as best by IMDb users. In other words, no correlation between popularity and quality:

Batman Begins

#111 at time of writing.

This is what a Batman film should be. In fact, this film outdoes all other serious superhero films, ever.

Christopher Nolan hasn't made a lot of films yet, but he already proved his capacity for genius with Memento, and now he's risen to the challenge of a big-budget blockbuster.

I have to admit I was skeptical after the last two Batman films, particularly Batman & Robin, which easily makes it into my Worst 10 Films of All Time. But this film is something special. Based on the darkest and most grounded of the graphic novels, and infused with a compelling realism, this film gets a ten out of ten from me.

The film rewrites the history of the Dark Knight, giving us glimpses into Bruce Wayne's childhood, and his reasons for becoming Batman, without ever being schmaltzy. The resulting epic makes the possibility of a Batman more believable than ever before. And it makes for a thrilling ride.

And the thing that seals the deal is that every single supporting character could stand alone. A monumental achievement considering the first draft of the script was written in less than two months. And helped along by the all-star line-up cast, of course.

It makes me proud as well that a lot of this film was done with British actors and a British studio. Gotham City is largely a full-size indoor city built in a hangar in Bedford (which was previously used for building Zeppelin-sized airships). And the Batmobile is not CGI, it is a £500,000 monster built by Brits at Shepperton Studios.

Hope is reborn for the Batman franchise.

Almost Famous

#212 at time of writing.

"The only true currency in this bankrupt world... is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."

For me, this film is about what we do and what we say when our defences are down. And this film is about those rare wonderful times when we're surrounded by friends and there's nothing to do but have fun. Those times that you want to last forever - but they don't. However hard you try, real life gets in the way. Jealousy, guilt, responsibility.

Actually, this film isn't really about either of those things, it's about ROCK AND ROLL.

Nobody can fail to fall in love with Penny Lane (pictured, played by Kate Hudson); the scene that did it for me was after William Miller tells her that the band leader sold her for 50 bucks and a crate of beer. She smiles as she cries, and asks "What kind of beer?" Such beautiful vulnerability! Such optimistic willingness to fly in the face of real life! Such sadness!

The film is semi-autobiographical for Cameron Crowe, who started off as a reporter for Rolling Stone. That adds a level of the most genuine kind of sentimentality, in a way that makes you want to have been a teenager in 1973. And the film is littered with in-jokes and nods to bands.

It has a tear-jerkingly uplifting twist at the end, and the whole film is so optimistic and full of great music that you can't help but fall in love with it.

I almost forgot - one brilliant scene deserves a mention: the band leader being cowed by William Miller's mum (mom, I guess, as we're in America) speaking on the phone. I laughed so hard! "Your mom kinda freaked me out."

Oh - and the groupie running into the wall! Yes, this is a great film.

The mission

I love films.

Nothing beats the feeling of watching a great film. The credits roll and you feel a surge of adrenalin - as if reality itself has risen and changed to meet your wildest fanatasies. It can change your life.

For the most part I take an unashamedly populist attitude towards movies. I'll go and see whatever catches my eye at the cinema, rather than digging through the archives of an art house rental shop. I am not a film geek (although I am a geek in so many other ways), but I know what I like.

So I have decided to turn this hobby into an ambition.

There are hundreds of Top 10/100/250 Films lists. So why choose IMDb's?

Why the hell not?

So let the fun begin. Bring on the widescreen, technicolour, Dolby Surround glory!