Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (1999)

“I have a bad feeling about this...”

This is the first time I’ve seen this since I saw it at a now long-gone cinema in 1999, and went for a wee during the pod race scene. My twenty-two year old self was not impressed, but this time I was determined to watch with an open mind. So, is this film’s poor reputation deserved?

Well, on a second viewing two decades later the film is perhaps maligned a little more than it should be: it’s not that bad, and has its good points. But the fact remains that, aside from the effortlessly cool Liam Neeson as Qui-Hon Jinn, none of the main characters are particularly memorable, or at least not for the right reasons. Ewan McGregor is a charismatic actor in other stuff, but hopelessly miscast (or misdirected) here as Obi-Wan; in channelling Alec Guineas he fails to just be the character. Jake Lloyd was never going to win any Oscars for this, but he's a child actor. However... Jar Jar Binks? Just no.

The film starts in an uplifting manner with those opening titles, but then the blurb refers to “the taxation of trade routes”. The film has a decent plot- the Republic is declining so Palpatine uses a dispute with his pawns in the Trade Federation to start seizing power by manipulating all and sundry- but it’s just so damn slow. And George Lucas is as awful at dialogue as he ever was, although there are a few genuinely witty lines.

Still, it's not all bad- although this is clearly set in the Star Wars universe it's notable, having watched this straight after The Mandalorian that there are notable fewer Easter Eggs and fan-pleasing moments. Star Wars is still trying to do new stuff here. Also, the effects are awesome. Coruscant is cool as a kind of Trantor-like city planet. The CGI- especially with the sea monsters- is excellent and groundbreaking for 1999. I like Anakin's role at the end, paralleling Luke in Star Wars- although it's perhaps a little convenient for him to have designed C-3PO.

Oh, and the virgin birth is a terrible and pretentious idea. So is that of the Midichlorians, although on reflection this isn't quite as awful; the microbial nature of the Force doesn't make it any less magic. Still, the film isn't all that awful, and aside from the pod race and the ending it doesn't drag that much. But "not all that awful" is as far as I'm prepared to go.

Schindler's List (1993)

"The party's over, Oskar. They're shutting us down. Sending everything to Auschwitz."

This is, to put it mildly, not an enjoyable film. But it is a necessary one, and one of the greatest and most devastating films ever made.

It's fitting that a film about the Holocaust should not feature Hitler, that dull, bigoted, pathetic man whose place in popular culture as the embodiment of evil troubles me. Because unloading the unspeakable evils of the Nazis on to one lazy, useless, banal man is a cop out. The Holocaust is the worst thing the human race has ever done, and to emphasise the man in charge is to downplay the evil of the many soldiers, bureaucrats, functionaries and accountants who murdered six million Jewish people- individuals, with lives, hopes and fears- and so many others.

Worse, I can't blame it on anything intrinsically German (much as such racism would entirely miss the point) as I am an Englishman, with partly Anglo-Saxon and so ethnically German blood flowing through my veins. No; it is a profound human darkness that must never be repeated, and it is a profound worry that, as these events fade from living memory, the inoculation is fading. We already see the symptoms: people who use such stupid terms as "SJW" and "snowflake"... both my grandads used to shoot people like you, and I'm proud of them for that.

Schindler is no saint. He's a dodgy businessman, an adulterer, fond of the good life, not a good Catholic. But put him next to a psycho like Goeth, perhaps the most evil character in all of cinema. The contrasting scenes of both of them with Helen Hirsch show that. Liam Neeson is amazing, of course, and Ralph Fiennes is the most evil presence in all of cinema. But the real revelation is Steven Spielberg, whose usual didactic filmmaking gives way to a devastating, monochrome, handheld documentary style that clearly portrays the horrors of the Holocaust. Scenes are etched into your mind, which is a good thing: never forget.

A cathartic and profound work of art which dwarfs anything else that Spielberg has ever done, and a film which has made the world a better place by hopefully preserving the memory of the Holocaust for another generation.

Batman Begins (2005)

"What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Yes, it's odd to see Ra's al-Ghul used in this way, conflated with Henri Ducard from the Blind Justice arc back in '89 and bearing absolutely no relation to the character we know and love to the point that he doesn't even seem to be an Arab; Ken Watanabe's decoy character seems to hail from much farther east. Still, there are hints as to the Lazarus Pit, perhaps. And, more to the point, this is a brilliant film tacking Batman's origins and a triumph for both the fan and the general audience.

Essentially this is because of both David Goyer's perfectly judged script and the always impressive direction of Christopher Nolan; Christian Bale is a perfectly good Batman, although no more than that, and the film is very well cast indeed, with Michael Caine being a particular master stroke. Still, were I an American I'd probably raise an eyebrow at the suspiciously high number of Brits in this film based on an iconic American character and directed by a Brit; I'm surprised this isn't more often commented on. It would be a reasonable objection in my British eyes. Still, Gary Oldman is the perfect Jim Gordon.

I can't fault the film though. Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow is chilling and brilliant, with that mask and some splendidly trippy direction making a hugely effective villain. And the time and thought given to Batman's origins is clear; it is both faithful and innovative, with a focus on Bruce's relationship with his philanthropist father and his childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes, a new character. This, as well as the more jovially sarcastic edge to Alfred, works very well indeed. The theme of fear is developed throughout, with the figures of Ra's, the Scarecrow and Batman reflecting different uses of it, for good or ill. And I like the way Batman's moral scruples against killing are contrasted against the gang 'em flog 'em stupidity of Ra's and his gang, the Daily Express of terrorist organisations.

Yes, there's also a fair bit from Batman: Year One, but that's no bad thing; it's nice to see Colin McFarlane as Commissioner Loeb. And, on the subject of actors, we even get an appearance by the great Shane Rimmer! This is a long film, yes, but a dense one, with a lot going on from the evolving relationship between Bruce and Rachel to Bruce's takeover of Wayne Enterprises. It's one of the finest superhero film ever and almost (but not quite) makes me rethink my opinion that superhero films should eschew origin stories.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014)

"Our old school marm got her throat cut by a fast-moving tumbleweed."

Yes, this may be exactly what you expect from Seth MacFarlane, with his signature style humour, and pretty much Ted in the Wild West. But you say that like it's a bad thing.

This is great; a standard-ish Western plot gives the framework for MacFarlane to have fun and do what he does, including a prostitute who will do anything for her clients but won't have pre-marital sex with her boyfriend, plenty of observational humour and even a cameo from Christopher Lloyd as Dr. Emmett Brown, three years before Marty arrives in 1885.

The music, direction and style are done like a proper Western, which works brilliantly as a contrast to the humour, and MacFarlane himself succeeds magnificently as a leading man, even if he basically is Brian from Family Guy whenever he opens his mouth.

All this and we get a cameo from Ryan Reynolds too!

The Lego Movie (2014)

"Wiping your bum with a hook for a hand is really hard.."

This is the perfect Lego movie. Not only does the all-Lego animation look great (even the water in Emmett's shower is Lego!) but the message is perfect and splendidly anti-conformist: don't just follow the instructions- build whatever the hell you like. But preferably spaceships.

This being a Warner Bros films we get cameos from Star Wars characters (the Millennium Falcon gets gobbled up by that asteroid beast from The Empire Strikes Back) and DC characters are available for a bit of mickey taking, especially Green Lantern whose film recently flopped.

The baddie, President Business, as well as being improperly linked to business for a politician (ooh, but of politics there), has a secret agenda to glue everyone together as per the instructions for all eternity, a fate worse than death. Against him are a random assortment of "master builders" including Batman(!), a very sensible spaceman who wants to build spaceships, quite sensibly, and whose family has the crack at the bottom that Lego spacemen always have.

There's also Vetruvius, half Gandalf and half Obi Wan Kenovi who, in the funniest scene, comes back as a ghost for some very serious advice for Emmett and then flies away with a "woo-oo"!

I loved this film, and I don't even like Will Ferrell. It's probably my favourite animated movie of recent years and definitely a must-see.

Krull (1983)

"Death and power are close cousins."

"I don't think I like your relatives, old man."

I know I'm not coming up with a startlingly new insight here, but Star Wars was a rather influential film. Yes, it gave space opera a bit of a shot in the arm, but all the science fiction surface stuff took place within a framework based on quest narrative and myth. It had good wizards, bad wizards and magic in the form of the Force, fantasy element dressed up in sci-fi clothes, and skimpy ones at that. Star Wars may not be the only reason there was such an explosion of fantasy movies in the early '80s, but it's an important one.

Krull is more blatant an example than most, though, and not just because it has a princess in it and a rather Luke Skywalker-ish hero. Ynyr (interesting name from Norse mythology there) is a sort of cross between Obi-Wan and Yoda. Torquil is a slightly dodgy Han Solo figure. Ergo is C-3PO. It's using the same structure as Star Wars, but not bothering to disguise the mythical origins. This isn't sci-fi, give or take the odd ray gun and talk of the protagonists' son ruling "the Galaxy", it's outright fantasy.

Not that I'm accusing the film of being a simple rip-off, mind.  There's something honest about how it acknowledges its mythical sources. The film is a quest based around a series of more-or-less contained set pieces, and feels very similar to The Odyssey. Rell the Cyclops seems to be in the film partly to acknowledge this, but with a new and tragic addition: Cyclops are doomed with the melancholy knowledge of the time of their own deaths. This isn't just ripping off old myths, it's treating them creatively. Similarly, the large party of adventurers traversing huge distances and different environments evokes The Lord of the Rings and, again, the film acknowledges this debt with the character of the Widow, a sort of less nasty Shelob. The scene between her and Ynyr owes just as much to Merlin's demise in the Arthurian myths, though.

That's an awful lot of mythological allusions, but that's one of the reasons why this film is so much fun. It's creative. Even the characters aren't the usual fantasy archetypes that would fit neatly into D&D character classes. Instead we get a diminutive comedy wizard and a wise old man who is refreshingly un-wizardy.

There are a couple of eyebrow-raising things around the plot, certainly. Lyssa and Colwyn have barely met and hardly know each other, yet they seem to be head over heels in love. Theirs is a political marriage, so the script has to carefully emphasise that the bride is very willing. But we can overlook this sort of thing; it's what happens in myth. These characters are larger than life, and we shouldn't expect too much in the way of character motivation. Similarly, a glaive is actually a polearm with a sharp pointy blade (yes, I've played D&D), but I reckon we can overlook that too.

This is a fantastically entertaining film, with some brilliant and gloriously imaginative set pieces, and some pleasingly unexpected actors in minor roles. No less a figure than Todd Carty is in it, and there are early roles for the likes of Liam Neeson and Robbie Coltrane. It's not quite up there with the best, but this is a solid piece of fantasy cinema.

Excalibur (1981)

“The one God comes to drive out the many gods. The spirits of wood and stream grow silent.”

There’s just so much to talk about with this film. Just so much juicy subtext. I love it when that happens.

The whole Arthurian legend is a bit of an odd one, isn’t it? Everybody tends to think of it as the quintessentially English body of myths, yet it isn’t really English at all. The earliest texts tend to indicate that Arthur, if he existed at all, was a native Briton who fought the invading Anglo-Saxons whose culture would become English culture. And once those rather unpleasant Norman chaps invade England then we get Normans like Geoffrey of Monmouth (part-Welsh, part-Norman) using the Arthurian legends as a sort of propaganda vehicle, to remind the English that they’re invaders too. Personally, I’m just Cornish enough to be on the fence when it comes to all that stuff.

But come the 12^th century we get the Troubadours, Chrétien de Troyes and all that stuff, including a rather large amount of new stuff (the Grail, Lancelot, etc) and removing the rather awkward Celt vs. Saxon ethnic conflict, to the point that the stories which form this film belong more to French literature than to English or Welsh.

This film is loosely based on the Morte d’Arthur, a selection of certain Arthurian myths by Sir Thomas Mallory in the 1470’s. How loosely I can’t say; I’ve not read the book since uni and that was a good while ago. But it’s interesting that the armour and general look of the thing seems to reflect the time of the book rather than the actual 5^th or 6^th century setting of the original legends. Then again, the historical basis of Arthurian myth is so vague that there’s no point in attempting anything like historical accuracy. It’s also interesting to note that Mallory was a highly dodgy sort and a convicted rapist. It’s interesting to bear this in mind when we consider how the film deals with sex, which we’ll come to in a bit.  

This movie is so postmodern and metatextual that I had a massive grin on my face through most of it. The characters aren’t one-dimensional by any means (the whole Guinevere / Lancelot adultery subplot proves that) but they’re very much characters from myth, larger-than-life people who belong in epics, and necessarily so. Otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to have such a fast pace and cram so much in. There’s a bit of fun to be had within this, though. Uther, for example, is as thick as two planks in exactly the way that many characters from myths would be if fleshed out. He makes a great contrast with Merlin, who is the only character with a modern sensibility and clearly an audience identification figure, right up to the point that he's conspiring with the audience in seeing these mediseval  personalities as a little absurd. Nicol Williamson portrays his wit, cynicism and delicious irony perfectly. He’s a slippery, postmodern individual who seems completely out of place in this genre and this, of course, makes him perfect as a wizard.

The nature of his “magic” is interesting, too, quite aside from the fact that he’s shown to be a druid-like figure, one of the last of an older, pagan age. All this talk of “The Dragon” seems very similar to the Force, and that strange dream sequence with Arthur and Merlin in the forest glade seems suspiciously like a slight mickey take of the similar scene with Luke and Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back. In fact, the whole take on mythology here seems to owe quite a lot to Star Wars, although always with a slight hint of the tongue-in-cheek.

Everything looks great, with lots of fog, stone circles, Cornish landscapes, and an interesting mix between Mediaeval grottiness and a more romantic take, with the knights all having very shiny armour indeed until it symbolically all seems to dull after the funny business starts between Lancelot and Guinevere. There are some nice scene juxtapositions, too. Uther rapes Ygraine at the exact moment that her husband dies (by being impaled by a massive phallic symbol!), and we constantly switch between scenes. Both events are extremely violent, and the Duke dies at the exact moment that Uther orgasms, and Arthur is conceived.

Different Arthurian tales almost trip over each other in this bizarre portmanteau of a film, so fast is the pace, but things take a turn for the dark once Lancelot and Guinevere get naked and Merlin is trapped by Morgana (Helen Mirren looks disturbingly young). Without Merlin, things start getting very, very surreal, and the Holy Grail stuff is extraordinarily weird. Percival’s being asked questions about the grail, and his temptation in the castle, have got to be a deliberate nod to the then-recent Monty Python and the Holy Grail, while the sight of a knight surrounded by peasants with plague can only be a nod to The Seventh Seal. This film may play it straight on the surface, but you don’t have to probe deep to find lots of metatextual fun.

Of course, the main point of all the subtext at this point is to demonstrate that Mordred is a right little shit.

Oh, and we were talking about sex earlier. Well, it’s rather interesting to look at the character of Morgana from a feminist perspective. We first encounter her as a little girl, watching her own mother being raped. Merlin is clearly an accomplice to the rape- in fact, arranging it seems to be the biggest and most draining act of magic he’s ever performed! Oh, and Uther (with Merlin’s help) has arranged a civil war in which loads of people die purely so that this can happen. All in all, it’s rather difficult not to see Morgana’s character as the revenge of the feminine against all this male violence. She entraps Merlin by asserting her feminine sexuality. She shuns the male world of fighting and turns to magic. She symbolically deceives Arthur and has sex with him to produce Mordred a rather symbolic act of revenge of Arthur who, as king, is the ultimate symbol of patriarchy. Oh, and if magic is feminine, what does this say about Merlin? He certainly seems to show no interest in women! I’d better stop there. I do have a y chromosome, after all. I wonder how much of this, if any, is intended as a commentary on Mallory’s own history as a rapist?

Oh, and all this stuff with the lady of the lake is fascinating. It seems to hark back to old Iron Age habits of leaving bits of treasure in lakes and rivers as offerings to the gods, something which possibly continues in Britain today with coins and fountains. Is this “lady” a goddess, part of Merlin’s world, and soon to vanish, just as Arthur vanishes, across the sea to the west just like the end of Lord of the Rings?