The Greatest Trick

This blog has moved to http://thegreatesttrick.wordpress.com/. For further movie reviews from a Christian perspective from us, go there please. Reviews from before January 2009 are staying here.

To celebrate the release of the brilliant Coraline (go and see it), here are ten films aimed at a children’s and/or family audience that have well and truly pushed the envelope in terms of how dark, scary, upsetting or disturbing they are. Regular readers of my reviews know I am not one for patronising children and that I firmly believe traumatic moments in films like The Wizard of Oz or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang are important for them to experience, primarily because the courageous protagonists of these films are not cowered by evil but overcome it. That is why books by Roald Dahl and the Brothers Grimm (and their cinematic counterparts) are embraced by children whilst their parents find them horrifying.

So without any further ado, here are ten other films those who enjoy Coraline may wish to consider. All films listed either have a U or PG certificate in the UK (Gremlins – a film aimed squarely at children but slapped with a 15 certificate by spoilsport censors – is therefore ineligible):

King Kong (1933 original, PG) – Arguably the greatest monster movie of all time, and probably my four year old son’s favourite film, the original Kong packs in dinosaur after dinosaur, some of whom eat the humans (even the vegetarian ones – paleontological accuracy be damned), and some of whom fight Kong. As for Kong himself, he’s not above merrily munching on people, casually throwing them off skyscrapers, and stamping them into oblivion in graphic close ups. Yet despite all this gratuitous (but hugely entertaining) violence, (SPOILER WARNING) my son cries when Kong meets his end during the iconic Empire State Building scene where he is gunned down by aeroplanes, the mechanised monsters he could not defeat. In spite of all his savagery, my son is on Kong’s side because, in his own words, “They should have left him on his island!”

The Wizard of Oz (U) – Although children are (debatably) more desensitised these days, the Wicked Witch of the West and her evil flying monkeys still have the power to scare the daylights out of children. There is something about the terrifying simplicity of green make-up and a totally one dimensional character that makes her remain one of the greatest cinematic villains of all time. Because Dorothy simply wants to go home, her plight is all the more poignant and her accidental defeat of the witch is nevertheless a vitally empowering moment.

Bambi (U) – Generations of children have been traumatised by the death of Bambi’s mother at the hands of a human hunter. It has probably caused more grief than every other film on this list combined. At the same time, I would imagine it has provided catharsis and comfort for children who have lost parents at a young age. It was exceptionally brave of Disney to include such a scene, and for this among many other reasons, it remains one of the greatest animated films of all time.

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (U) – For the most part, this is a fun romp with Harryhausen’s brilliant special effects bringing to life a myriad of exciting monsters. However, the Cyclops sequence is really quite vicious, especially when said Cyclops plucks one of Sinbad’s men, ties him to a stick and starts merrily roasting him over a slow flame.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (U) – The terrifying child catcher in this film has scared generations of kiddies, but these days it’s the parents who really find this aspect of the film unsettling. With the frenzy whipped up in the media about paedophiles and child abductions, it’s hardly surprising. The film itself is too long (especially in the first half) but it remains an entertaining watch.

The Empire Strikes Back (U) – The greatest of the Star Wars film is also the darkest of the Star Wars films. Darth Vader is at his most menacing and villainous here, especially in his torment of Han Solo and the casual killing of officers who fail him. Scenes such as Luke’s frightening vision of his own head beneath Darth Vader’s mask and his struggle with the dark side in general add the to uneasiness, all of which comes to a disturbing finale in the greatest plot twist of all time (I’m not going to spoil it here, in case you are one of the two people who haven’t seen it).

Time Bandits (PG) – Without question, the darkest, cruellest children’s film of all time. The ending – SPOILER WARNING – where Kevin’s parents ignore his warning not to touch the evil fragment and pay the ultimate price, is astonishingly harsh. Yet when you think about it, it is absolutely the right ending. Parents need to listen to their children. Again, this makes perfect sense to children, but is very uncomfortable viewing for adults.

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (U) – From Christ allegories to the traumatic way divorce affects children, ET provides a treasure trove of narrative analysis. However, for the purposes of this article I shall refer to one scene only: the death of ET. When he expires and the scientists try to resuscitate him, Elliot yells “You’re killing him!” The psychology of this scene is brilliant. Even though the scientists are trying to save him, to the children the adults are intruding in their world and are actually making things worse. What follows is one of the most upsetting sequences in a children’s film in the history of cinema, second only to the death of Bambi’s mother.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (PG) – Temple of Doom is the darkest and meanest (not to mention the least good) of the Indiana Jones films even in it’s severely cut UK version. Yet ironically, in its own way it is also the most kiddie-friendly in the series, since Indy’s sidekick Short Round is a child who then goes on to free a bunch of kids trapped by the Thuggee villains. Indy has none of the darker obsessive qualities that made him such a fascinating and flawed character in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Instead, in Temple of Doom he is a straightforward hero who helps the children defeat the forces of evil. This is perhaps why the film did not bother me in the slightest as a child, but as an adult I find it horrifying (eyeball soup, human sacrifice, and so on). When an even more severely cut version appeared on Christmas Day one year, the BBC attracted several complaints, and a cartoon appeared in the Radio Times showing children watching the film whilst parents cowered behind the sofa. The caption read: “It’s terrifying for the children!”

A Series of Unfortunate Events (PG) – The most underrated children’s film of the last ten years, this is a darkly comic masterpiece designed as a fable to help children overcome the death of a loved one. The very first scene, where the children are told their parents have been killed, is brilliantly handled so the gravity of what has happened is not ignored, but at no point does it descend into mawkishness or sentimentality. Throughout all the unfortunate events (and they are many and cruel) the indomitable optimism and resourcefulness of the children shines through.

Drat! I’ve left out The Goonies…

Simon Dillon, May 2009.

OK, so it’s not quite the end of the year yet, but unless Baz Luhrmann pulls a rabbit out of the hat and stuns me with Australia, these are the ten best films I have seen this year, in no particular order of merit. To qualify, films need to have been released in UK cinemas between the 1st of January and the 31st of December 2008.

Its usually customary for me at this point to make honourable mentions of those that narrowly missed out on a place in this hallowed list, but I shall forgo that practise this year, partly because I can’t be bothered, and partly because such a practise tends to pacify the amusing hate mail and death threats I receive after said list has been sent. (“You didn’t include The Dark Knight?!” etc etc)

And so, in roughly chronological order:

No Country for Old Men.

Summary: The Coen Brothers return to Blood Simple territory and lose their faith in humanity.

What I said at the time: “An unremittingly bleak, nihilistic experience, tempered by a rich vein of dark humour…If you can take the bloody violence and are prepared for a very dark view of human existence, this couldn’t be more highly recommended.”

Afterthought: On a second viewing, the pitch black humour seemed even more prominent.

There will be Blood:

Summary: Daniel Day Lewis is horrible to everyone as he tries to get rich. A corrupt preacher is almost as horrible to him in return.

What I said at the time: “Daniel Day Lewis’ portrayal of oil prospector Daniel Plainview is an absolute triumph, even by his impossibly high standards…He practically eats up the screen, chewing the scenery to within an inch of its life.”

Afterthought: You’ll either love it or hate it, but even if you hate it you’ll never forget it. Although less impressive on a small screen, its still a modern masterpiece.

Juno:

Summary: Pregnant sixteen year old decides not to have an abortion because her baby already has fingernails.

What I said at the time: “An extraordinarily entertaining and persausive pro-life statement by default.”

Afterthought: An uplifting, often hilarious gem of a film that is, I believe, prophetically significant in reflecting how views on abortion have shifted, albeit just a little, amongst young people.

Persepolis:

Summary: An Iranian girl’s journey through her country’s recent turbulent history once again proves animation isn’t just for kids.

What I said at the time: “Essential viewing for anyone with a serious interest in cinema, and given the humour, drama and sadness contained herein, it is difficult to imagine any sensible person coming away unaffected.”

Afterthought: Despite presenting secular humanism as an answer to the world’s problems, this remains a fascinating and genuinely moving film.

Son of Rambow:

Summary: In the early 1980’s, two boys, one of them a member of the uber-strict Plymouth Brethren church, decided to make their own version of the Sylvester Stallone classic.

What I said at the time: “A wistful reminder of a bygone era where children were allowed to play outside, use their imaginations, and create amazing adventures for themselves…So entertaining, it’s impossible not to recommend, especially to people who remember tear-off ring pull cans of Coke, hilarious 80’s fashions, and expressions like “skill”.

Afterthought: This is a flawed, messy tale, but its hilarious and painful subplot exploring oppresive religious legalism struck such a chord with me personally that I cannot leave it off the list.

Gone Baby Gone:

Summary: Ben Affleck proves he is a far better director than actor, but overly cautious exhibitors postponed the release of his film until this year as they were concerned about plot similarities to the Madeleine McCann case.

What I said at the time: “For those who like strong, serious, uncompromised cinema which grapples with difficult issues, this is emotive, gripping, thought provoking stuff.”

Afterthought: Perhaps not unflawed, but still strong enough to make it impossible to ignore for this list.

Wall-E:

Summary: Pixar excel themselves yet again in this tale of a lovesick robot who inadvertently saves the human race.

What I said at the time: “One lovely, lovely sequence where Wall-E and Eve dance through space using a fire extinguisher to propel them, will go down in cinema history as one fo the greatest visualisations of pure joy ever seen in the big screen.”

Afterthought: Please, please don’t listen to the naysayers who say this is an animated Inconvenient Truth. The environmental messages are understated, and do not bash the viewer over the head in a preachy way. The best film I’ve seen this year, and those steeped in sci-fi lore will love it even more.

The Mist:

Summary: An allegory of Bush’s American in minature as a spooky mist containing some truly horrific monsters lays siege to a supermarket. Matters get worse when the people inside the supermarket go bonkers in suitable Lord of the Flies style.

What I said at the time: “One of the most disturbing, bleak, feel-bad, punch-in-the-guts horror finales I have seen for some time.”

Afterthought: That ending really could not be any bleaker. Those brave enough to watch will not have a single iota of good feeling afterwards, and that of course is why The Mist is so impressive to those like me who are inclined to find such films cathartic.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas:

Summary: A death camp commandant’s son forms an unlikely friendship with a Jewish boy his own age.

What I said at the time: “Depending on your temperament, it is either horribly bleak or a stunningly powerful affirmation of loyalty, friendship and bravery. Personally I think its both.”

Afterthought: Admittedly, this is hugely improbable, not to mention historically inaccurate, but it works brilliantly as a fable that teaches children about the monumental evil that was the Holocaust.

Changeling:

Summary: In 1920’s LA, an abducted boy is returned to his mother. But his mother insists the boy is not her son, despite all evidence to the contrary.

What I said at the time: “Eastwood’s assured, deceptively simple directing proves yet again that he is one of the great masters of American cinema.”

Afterthought: One of those true stories so crazy, you wouldn’t believe it if it was made up. Another classic from Clint.

Merry Christmas!

Every so often, concerned parents argue that children watch too many scary films. I am going to fly in the face of conventional wisdom and suggest, these days at least, children generally don’t watch enough scary films.

Before everyone shouts me down, please don’t misunderstand. Obvious adult material should be restricted to adult viewing, and I am not suggesting that children should watch loads of television and play endless violent computer games. What I am saying is that these days, there is a real tendency to wrap children in cotton wool, patronise them and pass our fears on to them. This is obviously a wider social issue, and covers many factors from paranoid parents who no longer allow their kids out to play for fear of them being abducted by paedophiles, to the health and safety legislation that has put many children’s activities out of bounds.

To the point at hand however – has anyone else who grew up in the 1980’s noticed how PG rated films have lost their edge? For example, how can Jaws possibly have the same certificate as Cars? The PG certificate, meaning parental guidance, was originally a rating which wisely understood that whilst Jaws might not be suitable for some eight year olds, it would be suitable for other eight year olds. Parents knew their children best, hence Parental Guidance. Sensible, simple and effective.

Then somewhere in the late 1990’s, it all seemed to go pear-shaped. For some reason, parents started thinking PG ought to mean the same as U. This resulted in gradual tightening of BBFC classification guidelines at the lower levels, whilst the upper categories have been increasingly relaxed. To quote the good book, the BBFC have “strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel”.

I will not discuss the camels in this article, but the gnats are of interest to me. A recent gnat that I thought particularly petty took the form of a one second barely noticeable head-butt in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Said head-butt was delivered during a fight scene by Jango Fett to Obi-Wan Kenobi. This one second was sanctimoniously trimmed from the UK release, because the BBFC were apparently worried about copycat incidents. OK, so children copy what they see. So why not cut all lightsabre fights too, because impressionable youngsters will probably grab sticks and start fighting (growing up with Star Wars, I know I did). Conversely, in an apparent case of double standards, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring contained not one but two head-butts, and both were passed at PG. When questioned, the BBFC said the reason the head-butts were allowed in that case were because of the clear fantasy context. What context was Star Wars? Gritty realism?

Another absolutely insane example of this kind of nanny censorship came a couple of years ago when an episode of Doctor Who was rated 12 instead of the usual PG, which was doubly pointless as many children would have seen the episode when it was originally broadcast. The story in question featured a brief scene where a man has a Dalek captured and begins to drill into the casing. Apparently, the BBFC were concerned that this kind of torture could be copied in the playground (it would appear they believe children have power tools to play with and several Daleks to bully).

In fairness, it’s not so much the BBFC who are to blame for this, as they are not really a censorship board. They simply respond to what they perceive to be the will of the public, who for some reason want to keep their kids indoors playing computer games and watching CBeebies. Well, if they must be kept indoors, I suggest showing them some edgier stories with good and evil clearly defined. As a father of a not-quite four year old whose favourite films include King Kong (the 1933 original) and several Ray Harryhausen pictures, I can see how these movies are proving a vital part of his imaginative development. Obviously all children are different, but if we didn’t try to protect them quite so much I think we would end up with less neurotic adults.

People consistently underestimate children. In the same way the Grimm fairytales make perfect sense to children but horrify parents, many of the films and TV programmes I loved in my childhood earned the ire of concerned adults as I was growing up in the 1980’s. Examples include the afore-mentioned Jaws (too scary), The A-Team (too violent), Gremlins (too gory) and the first two Indiana Jones films (too scary, too violent and too gory). Actually, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which had already been cut by over a minute by the BBFC, was further cut for an afternoon showing on Christmas Day by the BBC in 1987, and still managed to draw loads of complaints. Amusingly, a cartoon appeared in the Radio Times shortly afterwards showing two children sitting on a sofa and smiling as they watched Indiana Jones, whilst two adults cowered behind the sofa. The caption read: “It’s terrifying for the children!”

That cartoon pretty much sums up this article. Viewed as a child, Jaws, Indiana Jones and Gremlins didn’t bother me in the slightest. As an adult I now think Jaws is terrifying, Indiana Jones is unbelievably violent and gruesome, and Gremlins is at least two-thirds of the way to a full-on horror film. I didn’t notice the dark sexual undertones in Flash Gordon, but I do now. I didn’t realise quite how violent the James Bond films were (all rated PG up to The Living Daylights in 1987), but I do now. I also grasp how dark and cruel the ending of Time Bandits is, but as a child it made perfect sense. And was there really that much swearing in The Goonies? Was that someone’s hand the crocodile just bit off in Romancing the Stone? How many Nazis did Clint Eastwood gun down in Where Eagles Dare? Did Ghostbusters really have that many rude jokes? Wait a minute, these films are all PG!

The BBFC’s way to deal with this problem has been to make the 12 certificate advisory, largely due to the outcry that occurred when Spider-man was crazily rated 12 instead of PG. The side effect of this is that many films legitimately rated 12 can be seen by under-12s, and parent’s simply think of 12A the way they used to view PG. How long before they begin to complain that 12A should be like a U?

Therefore, in the interests of confused and traumatised adults, I propose the reintroduction of the original mandatory 12 certificate plus a new certificate to act as a reverse of 12A specifically for films like Jaws or Indiana Jones: suitable only for persons under 12. Over 12’s require the presence of a responsible child guardian.

Simon Dillon, March 2008.

It’s that time of year again – my selection of the ten best films of 2007. Before I jump in with the final choices, here are some of the films that fell regrettably by the wayside:

Unexpectedly delightful musical indie-gem Once was too slight to make the selection. On the subject of musicals, Hairspray was a superb reinvention of John Waters’ 1988 film, but again competition for space was too strong. Enchanted was a pleasing Disney blockbuster, but there was only room for a certain other family film.

Westerns did well this year with the excellent and massively underrated 3:10 to Yuma – a rare remake the surpassed the original, and Seraphim Falls, a brilliant revenge western with a pleasingly bonkers supernatural finale. But the shadow of a certain other western loomed over these, causing them to be relegated to honourable mentions only.

Atonement might have been good from an acting/directing perspective, but the narrative problems with the screenplay (possibly inherited from the novel which I’ve not read) meant this was probably my greatest disappointment of the year, especially since I am partial to romantic dramas. The majority of reviewers disagree with me. Perhaps you do too.

Strong dramas such as Notes on a Scandal got the push, as did Mel Gibson’s action-bloodbath-dressed-as-arthouse-film Apocalypto. Zodiac was an intriguing fact-based thriller, and 28 Weeks Later an enjoyable zombie sequel, but neither were shortlisted in the end. Amazing Grace was very good, but from a filmmaking perspective it wasn’t amazing, so no place for it here. The Illusionist was also good, but last years similarly themed The Prestige was miles better. On the sci-fi front, Sunshine did an admirable job, but relied too much on referencing earlier better films to be outstanding in its own right.

There were some fine comedies this year, including Hot Fuzz which was good but not as funny as Shaun of the Dead, hence it too was denied a place. The Kite Runner, which I saw last night (review to follow when I get round to writing it) has also been left out, not because it isn’t a good film but because it wasn’t outstanding, and as anyone who has read this extraordinary book will know, anything less than an outstanding adaptation is a disappointment.

The most excruciating omission was Blood Diamond which I liked more than any of the above.

So, the final list (more or less in the order they came out in the UK):

The Last King of Scotland – A superb, terrifyingly intense Oscar-winning performance from Forest Whitaker dominates this first rate political thriller about Idi Amin’s friendship with a Scottish doctor Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy). Brilliantly directed by Kevin MacDonald, especially in the latter half where things get very nasty indeed. I watched the last scenes from between my fingers.

Letters from Iwo Jima – Clint Eastwood’s Oscar nominated companion piece to Flags of our Fathers is so good that it could potentially end up as a war classic. The plight of the Japanese army on Iwo Jima is poignantly explored, with characters that move well beyond the hara-kiri stereotype so often depicted in films of this nature. A brilliant, dramatically satisfying and quietly devastating piece of work.

Becoming Jane – As someone who admires rather than likes Jane Austen, I was pleasantly surprised by this factually dubious but hugely engaging biopic.
There is genuine romantic chemistry between Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy in the lead roles, and excellent support from the likes of James Cromwell and Maggie Smith. Director Julian Jarrod successfully oversees the screenplay’s transition from comedy to melodrama, resulting in an entertaining and moving work.

Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) – Brilliant, slow-burning surveillance thriller pointedly set in 1984 in which an East German secret policeman has a crisis of conscience. A scathing condemnation of the “if-you’ve-done-nothing-wrong-you’ve-got-nothing-to-fear” argument, this should be compulsory viewing for Gordon Brown, all Labour MPs and anyone else insane enough to think compulsory identity cards are a good idea. The best film of the year by far and a triumph on every artistic level – gripping, blackly comic, tragic, redemptive and profoundly moving with a plethora of moral and spiritual food for thought.

The Bourne Ultimatum – This third entry in the Bourne franchise may not be as good as the first, but it’s still the best action thriller of the year. Matt Damon is on cracking form, and director Paul Greengrass keeps things moving at a relentless pace (though I wish he’d use a tripod occasionally). Standout scenes include the nerve shredding Waterloo station sequence and the brilliantly tense rooftop chase in Tangier.

Knocked Up – This foul-mouthed, smutty but warm-hearted comedy about a couple’s unplanned pregnancy following a one-night stand is what one might term excruciatingly amusing. Some lovely performances, not just from the leads Seth Rogan and Katherine Heigl, but also Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann as a couple whose marriage is on a post-children downward spiral. In spite of the “gross-out” humour, this is likely to strike a chord with any couple who have had a baby; it’s funny because it’s true.

Control – Celebrated photographer Anton Corbijn’s feature film debut is a monochrome gem charting the rise and fall of Joy Division front man Ian Curtis, who committed suicide in 1980 on the eve of their first American tour. The film resolutely ignores any of the glamour associated with the music business and instead revolves around Sam Riley’s superb, tormented performance (both musically and offstage). The terrific supporting cast includes Samantha Morton as Curtis’ put-upon wife who manages to elevate her potentially thankless role beyond the usual stereotypes. Bleak but brilliant.

Ratatouille – Pixar strikes gold again, in director Brad Bird’s tale of a rat that wants to be a gourmet chef. Terrific vocal work from the entire cast, especially Peter O’Toole’s acid-penned food critic Anton Ego. It’s become completely redundant to describe Pixar films as visually stunning, but the animation here evokes wonder beyond any of their previous works. For that and many other reasons, this gets my vote as the best family film of the year.

American Gangster – Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe both contribute excellent performances in this tale of 70’s heroin kingpin Frank Lucas and the man who brought him down. A good solid return to form for director Ridley Scott.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – Brad Pitt gives a career-best performance as legendary outlaw Jesse James in this epic, brooding, melancholy western, but Casey Affleck’s skin-crawling turn as Robert Ford is even better. Writer/director Andrew Dominik’s deconstruction of the Jesse James mythology also has a cautionary message about hero worship that resonates greatly in our celebrity obsessed culture. The achingly beautiful cinematography demands to be seen on a big screen, and I strongly suspect this will be revered in years to come as a masterpiece.

That’s it – feel free to send your usual arguments.

Some potentially excellent films will vie for our attention in 2008, including No Country for Old Men, Charlie Wilson’s War, There will be blood, Jumper, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, In the valley of Elah, Vantage Point, Cloverfield, The Dark Knight, Prince Caspian and the return of a certain archaeologist who was last seen on the big screen in 1989. I shall, as ever, attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Happy New Year (almost).

Simon Dillon, December 2007.

Someone once asked me what exactly constitutes a film buff. Here, I will attempt to offer a few criteria, all of which, I would argue, apply to me. Whether that makes me passionate about my interest or just immensely sad I leave you to decide. Or you can mark yourself out of twelve and see how you rate on the Simon Dillon “filmbuffometer”.

1. A film buff must appreciate all types of film. That’s not to say he/she can’t have favourite genres, but they must at least be able to appreciate those they are less keen on. For example, its no good saying one is a film buff if one doesn’t appreciate westerns, musicals, or other genres that are less popular in today’s marketplace. In the same way, you are not a film buff if you won’t watch black and white and/or foreign films.

2. A film buff does not have a favourite film. There are far too many classics to choose from, and what one might be predisposed to choosing depends entirely on one’s mood. If forced, they might be able to select a hundred favourites, but that is the absolute minimum.

3. A film buff does not regard a film as a classic until it is at least ten years old and after several viewings. So many films are excellent at first glance and considerably less impressive on a second look (Crash is a recent example of this). With reference to point 2, if a film buff did list his/her hundred favourite films, most of them will be from before 1977 (see point 5 with reference to the pre-Star Wars era).

4. A film buff is defined not by how many good films they’ve seen, but by how many bad films. They will have endured all manner of dross and mediocrity over the years thus qualifying them to truly ascertain what constitutes a good film. Conversely, they will also have discovered many terrible films which are nevertheless entertaining guilty pleasures.

5. A film buff must remain objective in the face of his/her favourite genre. For example, my favourite genre is fantasy/science fiction, but that doesn’t mean I unduly overrate films in that category. When Serenity was initially released, many fanboy types preposterously claimed it was better than Star Wars, whereas it was in fact merely as good as a decent Star Trek film. It was certainly not a monumental landmark event like Star Wars which literally divided American cinema into two clear eras in a kind of BC/AD way.

6. A film buff will always be more interested in directors than film stars.

7. A true film buff generally does not eat snacks whilst watching films (certainly not popcorn). However, I will be sexist here and say female film buffs might do this, as they are far more capable of multitasking!

8. Wherever possible, a film buff will go and see films in the cinema. Home cinema systems and all their gadgets are all very well, but one can still be disturbed by the phone, front door, neighbours who don’t appreciate the noise, and so forth. Going to the cinema is an escapist ritual (even if one is seeing a gritty realistic drama), and as such is a total immersion experience. One can always rediscover an old favourite on television, but I shudder to think of someone watching the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Apocalypse Now, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings for the first time on television.

9. A film buff will be quite anal about where he/she likes to sit in an auditorium. I am quite particular about sitting near the front, and have a favourite seat designated in just about every one of my local screens.

10. A film buff will want to bring back capital punishment for people who let their mobile phones go off during screenings (or worse answer them). In fact, film buffs, normally a fairly pacifistic bunch, can be turned into violent bloodthirsty killers when faced with a disruptive audience.

11. A film buff is not a film critic. Film critics are paid to do a job, whereas film buffs enjoy their movies far more. Critics invariably bring their political slant to movies but a film buff still appreciates the artistry of a film even if they completely disagree with its message (Million Dollar Baby was a recent example of this happening to me).

12. A film buff is not afraid of being labelled a social reject for going to the cinema alone. A film buff decides what they want to see and goes to see it regardless of whether or not anyone else is interested. They might go with friends, but a film buff never goes with a group with a view to deciding what they’ll see when they get there, because inevitably, one person will have seen the good film, so everyone will end up seeing a rubbish one. In fact, a true film buff will often want to go by him/herself, especially to see films like Schindler’s List where it’s nice to have time alone afterwards to collect ones thoughts instead of immediately dishing out half-baked opinions to companions.

This is the first in an occasional series of film related rants. My topic for today: cinema rage.

We’ve all experienced it. You’re sitting in the cinema immersed in a good film, perhaps during a particularly emotional or intense scene, when some inconsiderate twit lets their phone go off, and the entire audience is subjected to a track by Akon. What’s worse said twit doesn’t hurriedly and furtively turn the phone off, but instead yells into the receiver “I’m in the cinema!” It then takes massive amounts of self-control not to beat the perpetrator into a bloody pulp, and after the film you leave fuming. Bringing back capital punishment for people who answer phones in cinemas suddenly seems fair and reasonable.

As far as I’m concerned, mobile phones are the bane of modern life, but nowhere do I resent their presence more than my local multiplex. It’s not just their ringing that causes me to foam at the mouth, it’s the bright glare that distracts you from the screen when groups of 12 year old brats feel the need to text each other incessantly. I’m at a loss to understand why they bothered paying for a ticket to watch a film in the first place, if all they want to do is chat to each other. Surely they would be better off hanging around outside their local Co-op intimidating hapless customers?

Admittedly, since Orange put out their hilarious “don’t let a mobile phone ruin your movie” campaign, things have improved somewhat (check out the latest excellent addition with Michael Madsen as “the phone booth killer”). But even so, one can still be caught off guard – as I was last Friday – by inconsiderate audiences. And their weapons do not just include mobile phones. It was my misfortune to be surrounded in a smallish screen by a large group of teenagers who simply would not shut up, despite repeated pleas from me and other audience members. Of course, in the old days, an usher would have been present and asked them to leave, but modern multiplexes seem to have done away with this common sense precaution. Instead, irate audience members are forced to come out of the screen and try to find a member of staff and complain, causing them to miss part of the film.

At this point, I must make a clarification. There is a big difference between disruption and interaction. By interaction I mean where an audience laughs in comedies, screams in horror films and so forth. This can be an integral part of the cinema experience, and anyone who has been to see a film in Italy, America or certain other countries will know what I’m talking about. Although British audiences are traditionally more reserved, they can sometimes be provoked out of their apathy by a truly monumental film. For example, when I went to see the 1997 re-release of Star Wars at the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the audience mostly consisted of twentysomethings all of whom had seem the film countless times and knew it backwards. They clapped and cheered at appropriate moments, often at in-jokes best known to those fluent in Star Wars folklore (eg the stormtrooper who bangs his head). Leaving aside the fact that Star Wars is a full-on masterpiece that needs to be seen on a huge screen to be properly appreciated, there was a tremendous sense of childhood nostalgia and fun inherent in the proceedings, and the audience was interacting with the film not disrupting it.

So, how best to avoid cinema rage? I offer the following advice:

1. Don’t go on a Friday or Saturday, especially during matinee performances, and particularly avoid films likely to attract 12 year olds in a group.

2. Support your local “art house” cinema and broaden your cinematic horizons by watching something a bit different. Audiences at art house cinemas are notoriously intolerant of the slightest disruption to their viewing. One of my favourite cinemas in the country, Harbour Lights Southampton, actually at one time had a policy whereby if someone allow a phone to go off during a screening and they answered it, their name goes on a list and they are permanently barred.

3. Try to sit at the front (or near the front – I appreciate that some multiplexes have their front rows absurdly near the screen). This way, you will not only avoid troublemakers who generally sit near the back, but also the “weak bladder society” whose walk to the exits often obstruct the view.

4. Don’t be afraid of seeing U certificate family films. Troublemakers generally avoid these, and although you might think the presence of children will cause disruption, this is rarely the case since they are with their parents. What you will get is some delightful interaction – squeals of delight, gasps of amazement or occasionally parents whispering explanations of the plot, but again, this is all part of the cinema ritual for such films and entirely appropriate.

Failing the above, I recommend going armed with a hoody and baseball bat, should Christian restraint fail you (as it nearly did me last Friday).

I put these five points together recently, for a laugh. I’m sure I could think of more, but believe it or not I have better things to do with my time.

Just for the record, I don’t consider myself a film critic in the strictest sense of the word because 1) it is not my full time job, 2) I rarely attend press screenings, 3) I only watch about one film a week at the cinema, so I don’t see everything, and 4) I would not want to see everything because it would mean subjecting myself to the likes of The Santa Clause 3. Anyway…

Simon Dillon’s Rough Guide to Surviving Film Critics:

1. The more a critic sees, the harder it is for them to enjoy films on their own terms. This is an unfortunate side effect of watching too many films. Critics end up in an increasing state of desperation, craving something – anything – out of the ordinary. That is why they will often slate perfectly passable genre fiction and overpraise anything that’s a little bit different (Babel is a good recent example of this – not bad exactly, but it has been rather overrated).

2. Over time, the more reviews you read of a particular critic, the more you will get to know their preferences. For example, Barry Norman has a penchant for Woody Allen comedies and westerns. There is nothing wrong with either of those, but it’s always worth taking a rave review from Barry Norman on such films with a pinch of salt. Conversely, Barry Norman is also slightly obsessed with the idea that a film should always have some kind of message, which meant he was less kind to action classics such as Die Hard. My own favourite genre is fantasy or science fiction, so when a true masterpiece like Pan’s Labyrinth appears, I perhaps tend to praise it more than I would an outstanding entry in – say – the romantic comedy genre.

3. What critics hate more than anything is a mediocre film because there is nothing much to say. They would much rather have fun really slating a film, because it’s an opportunity for full-on sarcasm (see for example my scathing review of The Matrix Reloaded, which I had loads of fun writing). Incidentally, film critics who say they hate a film, yet note that “the audience seemed to enjoy it”, mean they enjoyed it despite knowing its a terrible film.

4. Whether they mean to or not, a critic will always bring their politics into their writing. By politics I don’t just mean government politics of left/right Labour/Conservative, but spiritual and/or moral politics. For example you can always rely on the Guardian to write idiotic, ill-informed things about The Lord of the Rings being racist, whilst the Daily Mail will jump up and down trying to get a film like Reservoir Dogs banned for no good reason at all. My own solution to this impossible problem is to simply review the film on a purely aesthetic level before praising or damning it for its moral/spiritual values. However, most other critics will try to disguise their worldviews by saying irrational things about the quality of the filmmaking if they disagree with its message, or overpraising if they happen to endorse its content. Initial reviews by critics on The Passion of the Christ, and The Last Temptation of Christ provide a good case study on this principle.

5. Film critics will always try to blind you with science. They will compare the film they are reviewing with older films, books, television programmes or other art forms because it makes them sound clever. The more obscure the reference, the cleverer they sound, so more points are scored if they can quote an old film, or better still, an old foreign film. Nobody questions this, because hardly anyone has seen the films they are referencing (unless you are someone like me). This is a classic film bore technique, which I’m often guilty of using myself. The film critics will defend themselves by saying they are trying to educate their audience into tracking down some of these older pictures, but the truth is it is a clandestine game of one-upmanship that film bores play with one another, so don’t be fooled. Their opinion on a film is no more valid than yours.

Let me know if you can think of any more!

Simon Dillon, January 2007.

It’s that time of year again, when I select my annual ten best films. In general terms, 2006 has been quite a good year for cinema, and there are several movies worthy of an honourable mention that didn’t quite make the final selection.

Children of Men was a remarkable slice of dystopian sci-fi, but was squeezed out of the final selection due to ferocious competition. Although George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck was very good, it was also a bit too dry for the shortlist. Elsewhere, despite having hugely enjoyed Cars, a certain film involving singing Emperor penguins proved to be my favourite animated picture this year. None of the years guaranteed cult-status movies – from Brick to The Proposition and Snakes on a Plane – ended up in the shortlist. The Devil Wears Prada lost out on a place because of its fudged ending. Martin Scorsese’ violent but brilliant swear-fest The Departed was surprisingly good (despite being a remake of Infernal Affairs) but still not on a par with the likes of Goodfellas. South African film Tsotsi was a notable best foreign film winner at the Oscars, but didn’t quite make the grade. Neither did Walk the Line, featuring Joaquin Phoenix’ excellent performance as Johnny Cash; another film I would have loved to include, but competition for space was too strong. And most regrettable of all, Superman Returns narrowly missed out, because I decided after a second viewing that of all the blockbuster films released this year, Casino Royale was the best of the bunch.

So here is the final selection (in no particular order of merit):

Munich – Steven Spielberg’s powerful and thought provoking drama about an Israeli assassination squad targeting Palestinian terrorists who were involved in the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Hidden – Sublime paranoid French thriller about a man and his family who receive videotapes showing they are under surveillance.

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada – Tommy Lee Jones directs this hugely impressive modern western.

United 93 – Paul Greengrass’ absolutely riveting drama/documentary about the only hijacked plane on 9/11 that didn’t reach its target – mercilessly intense, harrowing, unsentimental, and monumentally upsetting, yet ultimately profoundly moving, stunningly powerful and utterly unforgettable. The best film of the year by far, and one that should easily get an Oscar nomination for best picture (and if it was up to me, a win).

Little Miss Sunshine – Forget Borat, this was the best comedy of the year, and another likely Oscar nominee, about a dysfunctional family’s road trip across America to get their little girl to a beauty pageant. Hysterically funny, but also mercilessly satirical and emotionally painful.

The Queen – Helen Mirren’s stunning central performance as Queen Elizabeth II towers over this respectful and fascinating drama about the days following the death of Princess Diana. Another film with major Oscar potential.

Casino Royale – The best James Bond film for decades, with Daniel Craig superb in the lead role.

The Prestige – Christopher Nolan’s near-masterpiece about feuding magicians in Victorian London. The best thriller of the year.

Pan’s Labyrinth – Dark, spiritually dubious, but superb fairy tale for grown-ups, and will without doubt ultimately prove a landmark in fantasy cinema.

Happy Feet – Singing Emperor penguins and strong environmental messages may sound like an odd mix, but together they add up to the best animated film of the year.

Happy New Year!

Simon Dillon, January 2007.

I have recently discovered the Four Word Film Review site, and quite enjoy browsing there - it’s difficult to say something about a movie that succinctly and have it mean something! Anyway, you’ll see their UK Box Office Top 5 on the right with example reviews (which is probably a really bad idea, cos it’s quicker and easier to read theirs than ours!). See what you make of it, and if any objectionable content appears, please let me know, as I may not see it myself. Cheers.