Number 13

 "Well, I'm sure I don't intend to disappear..."

So we here we have the second of the BBC's 2000s revival of their Ghost Stories for Christmas. For the second year in a row it's an M.R. James adaptation, and for the second year in a row it features Watson himself, David Burke, in a major role.

It's a very CGI'd Victorian cathedral town, and an Oxford don, a Professor Anderson, sets out to study some recently discovered manuscripts for the cathedral authorities. Hilariously, there's a lot of lampshading the fact that he seems doomed early on. He's just that little bit arrogant and aloof. He seeks for knowledge. He pooh poohs superstition. He scoffs at the mention that his predecessors have suddenly disappeared (without paying!) and utters the above quote.

And... as with many hotels, his place of abode has no Room 13, except... sometimes it does. And there are voices at night of confessions from the witch trials of 1647. It's all very ominous...

SPOILERS!

And yes, a twist... Professor Anderson's fate is (just!) averted, and the evil creature from the dark past seemingly destroyed by means of a humble axe. We have, for most of the story, a very textbook M.R. James structure, but subverted at the end.

All in all, then, a quality production, and all the more for the low budget and no-star cast.

Casino Royale (2006)

 "That last hand nearly killed me..."

I'm doing lots of different film marathons where I blog each film in order, in some cases veeeeery slowly, something I'm actually quite proud of. Because my blogging of the Bond films is gleefully slow, at a snail's pace, having started in 2015. Yet it proceeds inexorably on. 

Casino Royale, though... yes, it'a little too long and bloated, as blockbuster films from the present century inevitably are, but objectively it's very good indeed. I enjoiyed it. I'll be honest, though: while there's much to admire I found it dragged at times on this viewing, but perhaps for reasons which are not entirely the film's fault.

Daniel Craig is superlatively good as a more nuanced Bond, one with much more interiority, but still absolutely the Bond we know. And, of course, he gets a real character arc here, more so than since On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Importantly, though- and the word is much overused, but it's literally so here, although the continuing presence of Judi Dench as M does make one wonder. Bond begins the film earning his promotion to 00 status, in delightfully artily shot scenes. The Bond theme is not heard until the end. Bond has yet to think of a name for his dry martini, shaken, not stirred.... (crikey, spirits are complicated. I stick to real ale and wine) and,of course, there's the last line of the film.

Yet much of the film is a very well done tromance between Bond and Vesper, starting out sparring and eventually falling in love with her, resigning and proposing to spend her life with her. Of course, we know what happened to Trace well back then:Vresper's death is no shock. But the manner and circumstances of her death are truly heartbreaking. No wonder Bond, I assume, will harden his heart and be wary of attachments from now on.

There's lots of action, loads of set pieces, and all with a more realistic tone, devoid of the slight excess of gadgets we've seen in the recent past... although, that scene...? Ouch.

So yes, the film is a little overlong, but very, very good. And yet, so much screen time is devoted to playing poker and... well, this is just me, but I find gambling so very boring. Not that I'm in any way puritanical... it's just dull.

I accept, though, that this is just a matter of taste. Overall, this is a highly effective and affecting relaunch.

The Last Sect (2006)

"Once you join us you'll see this isn't a Heaven you have to suffer to enter..."

I don't mind a good bad film. Bad films can be enormous fum, as all right-thinking people know. No: there is no sin but being boring. And crikey, this films- about good looking, vaguely kinky female vampires, for Pete's sake is oh, so desperately and soul crushingly dull.

So what went wrong? No one sets out to make a bad film, after all. And it is, at least, interesting, to see the very 2006 attitudes to the internet and to online dating, by no means an accepted thing at that point, as well as mild social commentary about the dating experience for women and for men. The cinematography is good, despite the vaguely washed out look which has dated somewhat but I remember at the time being a tiresome trend... but it's done well. The cast, is good by and large. I mean, yes, David Carradine phones in his performance a bit, a wise decision with this script, but he oozes charisma nonetheless. And the soundtrack by the Duke Spirit, something else that's very 2006, is utterly wonderful.

But it's soooo slooow. At first the talkiness is ok. But the characters, who are dull anyway, just talk and talk and nothing ever happens. Yes, the film looks good, but that's because the set oieces are kept to a minimum, there doesn't seem to be any location filming, and it's ninety minutes of exposition and talking and talking and talking and oh my god hw much longer do I have to try to concentrate. We're talking possibly the dullest lesbian kiss in cinematic history here.

I can't think of any reason whatsoever why anybody would want to put themselves through tfhis ilm. I beseech you: don't suffer as I did.

See No Evil (2006)

“The eyes are the windows of the soul...”

This is a somewhat obscure little horror film, somewhat gory, starring a wrestler as the baddies and with no stars; the most famous member of the cast is arguably character actress Rachael Taylor. But the direction is superb and suspenseful, and this short little claustrophobic thriller doesn’t outstay it’s welcome.

There are superficial similarities to Psycho- the action takes place in a hotel and the baddie is under the strong influence of his creepy and deeply abusive mother. But the more direct influence is perhaps Friday the 13th, although this is a far superior slasher to anything I’ve seen so far in that wretched franchise.

A bunch of convicts are barely introduced (although I like the captions of what they’re in for) before they start being picked off, but surprisingly the character development is pretty good in spite of this. The camera is constantly teasing us, and the levels of gore are just about right, and exist alongside the suspense and not instead of it.

The main distinguishing feature of this film, of course, is that Jacob the baddie has a thing for gouging people’s eyes out with his thumbs and keeping them in jars. Lovely. There’s also a fair bit of dragging women by their hair and using a carrier bear trap to inflict graphic injuries that remind me of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Perhaps best of all are the dogs who gleefully eat the wounds of the injured and provide the film with an amusing coda. I knew there was a good reason I’m a cat person.

A pretty good thriller, then, and a much better watch than many which are more well-known.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

"Oh, my stars and garters!"

You know how a film gets critically acclaimed, you're aware of this, and so when you come to see said film, however good it may be, it inevitably disappoints next to the Platonic ideal of cinematic perfection you were expecting? And you know how, when everybody tells you a film is pants, you can be pleasurably surprised? I call that Howard the Duck syndrome, and it definitely applies here.

Syndrome or not, I found this film to be far from pants. It's entertaining, well-acted and deals with the characters well. Yes, Vinnie Jones is Vinnie Jones, but the use of the character of Juggernaut I found to be fine. Yes, the direction is unshowy, but it does the job. Yes, the Phoenix saga is squashed into a film that's really about a mutant "cure" that works as a semi-metaphor for those awful gay conversion therapies that are still legal in certain barbaric areas of the world. But it's an action-filled film, if a simple one, and the characters ring true, even if Wolverine inevitably dominates. Some characters die (Scott is a shock, but the cinema version was always quite dull), but we get a cool, recast Kitty Pryde; Colossus doing the good old fastball special with Wolverine; Angel with daddy issues; Rogue getting cured and, let's face it, getting banged by Bobby after the credits roll; the genuine grief when Charles Xavier dies; the post-credit scene; the Beast as a successful politician; Madrox.

All this, and we also get an early cameo from both Stan Lee and Chris Claremont. Ignore the critics; this film is much-maligned.

Severance (2006)

"Foursome?"

My, this is brilliant. A superb script from James Moran and excellent direction from Christopher Smith of Creep fame give us a hugely entertaining comedy slasher- which is, of course, always the best kind of slasher.

Danny Dyer is, well, Danny Dyer. But it's a shock for this fairly regular EastEnders viewer to see him looking so bloody young. The film is really carried, though, by character actor stalwarts such as Andy Nyman and the superb Tim McInnerny.

The film oozes confidence and fun, beginning in media res with some unfortunate Hungarian employees of the same weapons company  employing our mainly British cast getting a foretaste of what we will soon be seeing. We also get enough time to get to know our engaging and well-scripted characters before the carnage begins, and I mean it entirely in a good way when I note that this film dates from a time when The Office was firmly part of the zeitgeist. Noughties office humour and the slasher genre mix very well indeed. This is a bloody good film and more people should see it.

The best bit, of course, involves a decapitation and the few seconds thereafter...

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

"The world is a cruel place."

Let's begin by acknowledging not only that this is the best fantasy film I have ever seen, perhaps of all time, and that it transcends its genre to deserve consideration among the very best films ever made.

It's well directed, of course, by Guillermo Del Toro. The fantasy sequences are imaginative and superbly realised. The largely Spanish cast is superb. But the script, the characters and the themes are what give this film its greatness. It's 1944, and General Franco is consolidating his iron grip on Spain.  For those who oppose him there is little hope and much cruelty. Life is hard. And for little Ofelia things seem particularly bleak. Her pregnant mother, Carmen, has had a hard life and has been forced, through desperation, to marry the thoroughly unpleasant Captain Vidal- sadistic, chauvinistic, uncaring and serving as a narrative symbol of Franco's Spain with all its violence, stupidity, inhumanity and lack of any imagination whatsoever.

So it's no surprise that Ofelia seeks escape in fantasy and fairy tales, which offer her a much better world than the one she inhabits. Immediately we have the value of escapism, but we also have the rich possibility of metaphor which, gloriously, is left ambiguous enough throughout the film to be interesting. And most central of all is the question, also gloriously ambiguous, of whether the fantasy sequences are real or just in poor Ofelia's head; does she end up dead, murdered by her cruel stepfather, or a princess with her real parents? Either way, the film cleverly leavens some very dark scenes and themes- involving torture and worse- in the real world with some truly wonderful fairytale concepts.

Patriarchy is a theme, and explicitly linked with fascism and inhumanity. Vidal cares only for his unborn son- and it must be a son- and not for the comfort of his wife, whose death leaves him unmoved. Love as an emotion seems alien to him (his regard for his dead father is not love but worship of masculine tropes) and he regards women with contempt. All that matters is his family name being passed on so it is a just punishment when, just before he is shot, Mercedes tells him that his son "won't even know your name."

There is hope, though, in the integrity of people like Mercedes, a strong woman who defies the tyranny of patriarch, and Doctor Ferreiro, who died a gentleman's death after an act of brave mercy. And we are allowed a reminder that, as these events are taking place, the beaches of Normandy are being stormed. Fascism is decadent, empty, and ultimately weak. Decency will outlive it.

The title of the film in English is odd, though- there's no suggestion that the faun (another patriarch demanding obedience, just to add another layer) is supposed to be the Greek god pan. But the labyrinth... I wonder if this is a reference to Borges? There are so many layers to this beautiful film, and it is one that everyone should see. If you don't usually watch subtitled foreign films then please make an exception for this one.

Date Movie (2006)

"In fact, growing up on a farm, I once milked a cat."

Here we have one of Aaron Seltzer's many spoof movies, this time spoofing romantic comedies such as Meet the Parents. Like most of them, it's humour isn't particularly witty but it's amusing enough and Alyson Hannigan, always brilliant at comedy, is outstanding. Possibly more so than the material deserves.

Still, it's an amusing way to spend a couple of hours, much as I was never going to get many of the references. It's the signature Scary Movie style of humour, and at least this time it isn't doing a dumb spoof of what was already a comedy of a much wittier kind, as that film was.

Oh, and it may not have been as geek-friendly as, say, Superhero Movie, but I loved the honeymoon on Kong Island...

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)

"Because it's a legend, you numbskull!"

I must have read Patrick Suskind's novel back in the late '90s, so my memories are hazy. I remember liking it, but little else. Huge Nirvana fan that I am, though, I'm well aware that "Scentless Apprentice" on In Utero is entirely about the novel, the only novel that Kurt Cobain ever wrote a song about.

But what of the film? Well, they did the best they could- it's well-shot, well-acted, well-made- but there's no getting around the fact that the book is unfilmable. The visuals are sumptuous, yes, especially of Provence, but it is the olfactory, not the visual, that is the point. A film cannot convey smell in the way that words on a page can. This is a valiant attempt at the impossible.

Still, as I said, it's a well-made film. Ben Whishaw is very good, John Hurt's narration is excellent, Dustin Hoffman gets a fun little part, and the harshness of eighteenth century France is conveyed well. But the very oddness and creepiness of Jean-Baptiste Grenooulle as a character leads to a lack of charisma at the centre of the film, something that matters less to the novel. However gorgeous this film looks it is, ultimately, a failure.

Kidulthood (2006)

"You can put it in my arse as well. It hurts, but I don't mind."

This is an extraordinary debut from Noel Clarke as a writer and, which is sort of the point, a bloody good film. Doesn't half make me feel old, though, and I'm only 38.

Are teenagers really like this in London, with the bullying, the drugs, the incomprehensible slang, the relentlessly hard gang mentality, and the horrifying level of bullying? I'm 38, and I feel old. I don't live in London, fortunately, but I'm still terrified about the bullying my daughter could experience when she starts school.

It's a brilliantly directed film, with some wonderful touches, and a superb script is brought to life by a largely unknown cast, although Cornell John and Alison Newman are both familiar faces from Eastenders. It deals with bullying, gang culture, teen suicide, teen pregnancy, and, in a subtle way, racism, although this seems to be one issue which is actually shown to be less of a problem than one might expect. Most depressing, perhaps, is the universally subservient attitude the girls have towards the boys: it's as if feminism never happened.

All this builds towards a tragic and dramatic ending which leaves us wanting more. This isn't necessarily the sort of film is usually watch, and I only watched it because it was written by Noel Clarke of off of that Doctor Who, but I enjoyed it immensely.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

"This is a jar of dirt."

Sometimes conventional wisdom is correct and sequels are a bit rubbish. This isn't the worst film ever made (that would be There's Something About Mary), but it's a bit pants. 

It's too damn long, for a start. But this film, unlike the last, is utterly devoid of charm, relying on special effects and spectacle at the expense of charismatic characters or a decently structured script. The previous film had all of these faults to an extent, but this time they are all much worse. So much so, in fact, that even Johnny Depp can't save the film.

So, is there anything interesting to say about a film that offers very little but the worst of Jerry Bruckheimer bangs and noises? I suppose the vaguely racist scenes with the tribe on Tortuga are slightly entertaining. And we have a mythology fleshed out for Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman, albeit one with very little basis in actual folklore. At least the kraken scenes look good.

But nothing can save this film; even Jack's death is muted in its impact due to the general rubbishness. Worse still, the film ends by threatening a sequel. God help us...

Saw III (2006)

“Live or die, Jeff. Make our choice.”

Suddenly, after defending the first two Saw films, I begin to see a justification for the term “torture porn”. This is a much, much nastier film than its two predecessors, and the scene with Timothy Young and the “rack”, in particular, is extremely difficult to watch. This film is as good, as intricate, and as entertaining as its predecessors but the nastiness is starting to become excessive.

There’s a very strong connection to the first two films, as we see what happens to Matthews and the gruesome death of Kerry; the police procedural element has certainly not lessened. But the film centres around Amanda who, lacking Jigsaw’s “ethics”, does not give her victims a chance of escape. I certainly wouldn’t say there’s any moral distinction between them (they’re both sadistic serial killers who get off on power far more than being inspired by their claimed motives), but Jigsaw would. And he, of course, has set the whole thing up to see whether Amanda is worthy to be his successor. She isn’t, of course, but the means by which we discover this are the point.

So, yes, it’s good, as far as plot and intrigue go, and those are the selling points here, not subtext, character or moral profundity. But even in comparison to its predecessors it’s very dark. And the gore has definitely stepped up. We have a trepanning, with a power drill and no anaesthetic. We have, early on, the most sadistic scenarios yet, and that horrible “rack” scene, seen in bloody slow motion. To me this crosses some sort of undefined line. I’m a little nervous about proceeding with the series.

Still- John Kramer dies at the end. How can more films possibly happen?

Silent Hill (2006)

“ God is not here…”

It’s a little odd to be reviewing a film based on a computer game I’ve never played, but there we are. I used to play computer a lot until the early ‘90s, but then my teenage self discovered Nirvana, Metallica, and all sorts of other bands. Immediately the purchases of computer games ceased to make way for CD’s, and that’s how things have remained ever since. I’m not saying I haven’t played any games at all in the last eighteen years or so: I have an on-again-off-again Civilization III habit, and obviously there’s Angry Birds. But I’m essentially not a gamer. So let’s just say I’m aware this film is based on a game, right down to things like camera angles, but leave it at that. I’ll just treat this as a film and ignore its origins.

Oh, and I’m back, incidentally. I’m now settled into a new flat with the very lovely Gem, who is wonderful enough to tolerate my blogging. I won’t be blogging quite as often- I want to spend time with my gorgeous lady, after all- but expect multiple posts a week and we’ll see how it goes. Also, the proportion of films to television is likely to change. Anyway…

This is a very well directed and rather odd film full of weird and cool CGI monsters (I luuurve Pyramid Head! and a positively frightening attempt at an American accent by Sean Bean. But it’s fundamentally about a weird and very American religious cult straight out of seventeenth century Puritan New England, will a bit of Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man thrown in; this often feels half horror flick, half The Crucible. It’s a fascinating peek into how the dark, small town prejudices that lead to the Salem witch trials so pervade the American imagination and seep into popular culture. The true monster in this film is religious conformity and theocracy; there’s a very secular message in which reason is opposed gto superstition and revealed truth.

All that said, though, most of the coolness revolves around the monsters trying to get people in deliciously disgusting ways. The monsters with gas masks, though… possibly influenced by a certain Doctor Who story, methinks! There are also nice plot twists, most obviously the whole changeling thing, but also the uber-cool ending: her husband can’t see her because she’s dead.

Perhaps the CGI could be criticised for being unrealistic, but realism isn’t the be all and end all, and it’s not inappropriate to have a kind of computer graphics feel in the circumstances. Besides, lack of realism means the gore can be pushed further, especially at the end, with the gloriously sick crucifixions and barbed wire tortures.

I rather enjoyed this, which is a good thing as I’ll be watching an awful lot of horrors in the near future, courtesy of the DVD’s from my lovely girlfriend.

V for Vendetta (2006)

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

Well, it’s the Fifth of November. What other film was I going to review, eh?

It’s a bit of a surprise to realise that it’s taken me until my seventeenth movie review to get to a film from the present century. And, well, it’s not all that good, which I suppose is to be expected. With older films, by definition, the ones which have remained prominent are going to be the better ones, while the same weeding-out process hasn’t happened for newer films. And this one is no classic.

It’s just far too long and badly paced, for a start, and full of pointless, meaningless visual flourishes- why do we have to see V playing Domino Rally, for example, or those embarrassing scenes of V in the fires of Larkhill contrasted with Evie in the rain? Natalie Portman is incredibly wooden, too, and completely lacks the charisma needed to carry the film. The dialogue is not exactly naturalistic, and unnecessarily Americanised- I rather suspect that 99.9% of Americans are smart enough to guess what a “lift” is, and don’t need the word changing to “elevator”. Yes, there are lots of great speeches from V, and moving evocations of the human yearning for freedom, but most of this (possibly all) is lifted from the original, superlative graphic novel. (Well, strip in Warrior and then limited series by DC, strictly speaking. And yes, the fact that I used the term “limited series” does indeed mark me out as a Marvel kid!)

In fact, I’m somewhat surprised that watching this today has made me rather more sympathetic to Alan Moore for famously and dramatically taking his name off the film, and not only because we long-haired men from the East Midlands must stick together. The original graphic novel, barring the obvious references to Section 28, was about the abstract themes of fascism v. anarchy, not current events. Yet the film dilutes this message with lots of blatant and inappropriate contemporary references which have already dated horribly. The tipping point for Dietrich, which causes him to be executed rather than imprisoned, is his illegal possession of an antique Koran. There’s discussion of sinister contemporary euphemisms such as “rendition” and “collateral”. V wears a suicide bomb vest. Worst of all, the St Mary's virus being revealed as a government plot evokes all of those contemptible conspiracy theories about September 11^th, 2001.

Hugo Weaving is fantastic, but he’s not so much playing a character as an actor playing an actor. Although V is brilliant, he’s a spectacle, or more appropriately an idea, not a person. He can’t be the “star” of the film and the audience can’t identify with him. None of this is to imply the character lacks depth, but he lacks a psychology as such, and is far too distanced from the audience for us to identify with him. He isn’t an unambiguous hero, either- whatever his reasons, he tortures Evie, and this torture includes waterboarding, a fairly blatant and unfortunate comparison with the fatuously named “War on Terror”. There’s a clear moral equivalence here, but it’s a shame that such a broad and interesting point should be diluted with an already-dated contemporary reference.

There’s a lot of good world-building here, which only fails to come off because of the Wachowski Brothers’ insistence on such a slow pace. Like many recent films, the film could have done with a lot more editing. And yet, the 1984-style Britain works well. John Hurt (who once played Winston Smith, of course!) is great as “Chancellor” Adam Sutler, and Tim-Pigott Smith is superb as Creedy, head of the new Gestapo. I’m not sure the title “Chancellor” is realistic, mind: it’s far too propaganda-defeatingly close to Hitler, and the title in Britain refers to the Finance Minister and would be an unlikely title for a head of government.

Still, the many sequences where Sutler’s face looms large on a big screen as he berates his underlings work well in reminding us that we’re looking at a totalitarian state. This is a man who casually bans the 1812 Overture and speaks of old buildings with contempt, in contrast to the highly cultured V. Naturally, he started out as a Tory. The Fox News sequences with Prothero are also fun.

The structure of the film- sequences of V, from Evie’s perspective, intercut with the investigation of the murders and the Larkhill backstory, from Inspector Finch’s perspective, would work very well indeed if the pace wasn’t so damn slow. It’s fun to note that Rupert Graves, here playing Finch’s Detective Sergeant, has recently been promoted to Inspector in the BBC’s recent Sherlock.

There’s one particularly chilling moment surrounding V’s murder of the paedophile bishop; the bishop is under surveillance, but his disgusting proclivities are tolerated to the extent that there are jokes about “children’s hour at the abbey”. This demonstrates another horrifying fact about totalitarianism; it asks people to trade their freedom for security yet fails to provide that security. Someone like the bishop would never be tolerated in an open society. Interesting, by the way, that the paedophile should be a Catholic priest (he talks of “mass”). That’s one bit that hasn’t dated.

Stephen Fry is quite sweet as Dietrich, even though he’s pretty much playing Stephen Fry. It’s completely unrealistic, of course, that his little satirical skit would be allowed to reach the screen, but it’s fun, and the brutal reaction by the State is suitably horrifying. I’m not sure we need this character, though; he certainly wasn’t in the original and he’s basically V without the coolness. Yes, he illustrates the horrors of state homophobia, but the story of Valerie does that far more eloquently and effectively (I cried. And I usually have a heart of stone when watching films.), but that, of course, is lifted entirely from Moore’s original.

The whole thing is wrapped up quite nicely, I suppose, with V accepting he has to die for his moral failings but not before he kills both Sutler and Creedy in a fit of coolness. It’s also nice that part of Moore’s anarchist message is retained; V intends to destroy the old order but has no intention of dictating what should come next. I’m no anarchist, but this is a nice moment. Also satisfying is that Finch does in fact find Evie and the explosives, but allows the bombing to go ahead. But V’s dying confession of love for Evie falls fairly flat, given Portman’s wooden performance and the fact that V isn’t really a character at all. And it’s unfortunate that crowds of people dressed in V masks now makes me think of the Anonymous movement.