Films of the Year 2010: Disappointments, Or Ten Good Films-in-Waiting?

These are the films which, before seeing them, I was certain I’d either greatly like, love or at the very least see something in them that would make me sit right up and take notice. Ultimately, I struggled to find much about them to praise in the end. For now. In short: I had expectations which were deflated by the titles below. But, as with any and every disappointing film (especially with end-of-year lists like these), a second or third watch one day might change my opinion of them. That’s optimism for you! So, here’s my list of either iffy disappointments, good films-in-waiting or just plain old regrettable sideline efforts – all dependent on whether you like to see it as a glass half full or glass half empty kinda deal. The films are in no qualitative order – certainly not biggest to least disappointing. They’re simply listed as and when they came to mind. Let the, um, disappointments commence...

The House of the Devil

I couldn’t have been more sure that I’d love The House of the Devil before seeing it, since the idea of a retro throwback horror containing all manner of devilry, a Halloween-esque vibe and a creepy support role for Tom Noonan sounded wickedly becoming. But, alas, it wasn’t to be. Despite its pleasingly creaky and period-savvy (late-'70s-early'80s) production values, I actually preferred director Ti West’s earlier, cheaper-looking horror, The Roost. Monsters, later in the year, was also set to be a sure thing sight unseen. A bare bones plot description had me intrigued from the off. But its listlessness and lack of any real prevailing atmosphere, matched with its fumbled potential, perfectly encapsulate why it sits with the other disappointments on this list, however sad that is to say. It was thin in most areas other than its generally glinting photography and director Gareth Edwards’ sheer all-round chutzpah with a laptop and a frugal budget (something to certainly be cheered), butfor me it missed many opportunities to actually be interesting. And, no, I wasn’t asking for monstrous wall-to-wall carnage either. Just better leads *cough* Paul Rudd and Anna Faris *cough* Yes, you heard right. (More on Monsters.) I generally had high hopes for Date Night. It could have been a new The Out of Towners or an updated, more harebrained After Hours. It had a great cast, all practised in various levels of comedic tomfoolery, and the atmospheric nighttime streets of New York at its service (a criteria which assures I’ll watch any film), but didn’t have a sharp enough script to make best use of those attributes. It could’ve been a solid mint comedy – had it not been so taken with being an ingratiatingly zeitgeisty hook, that cynically seemed to solely vie for the attention and cash of tired parents – but ended up merely intermittently amusing. Even now I’m struggling to recall many truly funny moments.

Survival of the Dead was by far Romero’s weakest Dead film. I hate to say it, especially as an utterly devoted, longtime fan of both Romero and zombie cinema, and I’ve not been nudged enough to say it so far (even after the rather dreary Diary of the Dead), but I’d be happy to see this film series die off now. Yikes, I said it. Now let’s move on to other things... Despite valiant efforts all round The Wolfman remake came in from the misty moors perilously under par. The cinematography was good, but some nifty camera angles and a smattering of foggy coverage alone do not a particularly great film make. Still, it wasn’t all bad: we did get to see Anthony Hopkins make manifest a half-werewolf, half-grumpy sea captain. He gave this year's Best Irritable Howler performance. Had I not seen the ripe and rangy original just a month prior the second remake on this list, Long Weekend, might not have fared so feebly in comparison. But it had faults beyond mere comparability and tonal misplacement – namely an overripe performance from Jesus Caviezel and the lack of some good animal acting/wrangling in a film which positively demands it. (Although the ominous animatronic sea cow was worth a titter.)

Heartless

Heartless, the return to filmmaking of the very talented Philip Ridley (who made the 1995 forest-fury gem The Passion of Darkly Noon) after a 14-year gap, featured some memorable performances (Ruth Sheen was far better here than she was in Another Year; Eddie Marsan continued to grind Brit film acting cogs in terrific fashion; Jim Sturgess was nicely unassuming in the lead), but came close to succumbing to a tonal dithering which threatened to sink the ominous atmosphere it initially set up. But it had the guts to be bonkers enough in essence, and is probably the best disappointment of this bunch.* (Although 2009’s similar The Disappeared generally took a better stab at depicting spooky council estates.) Miguel Arteta made one of the most surprising and interesting comedy-dramas of 2002 with The Good Girl, so it was a shame to admit that Youth in Revolt, his belated follow-up feature, was quite the boring exercise. The attempt to (partially) reclassify Michael Cera into a twitchy debonair wit was an initially diverting concept, and temporarily halted the Cera-as-Cera role influx that’s been happening for the last few years, but even that lost its vague amusement factor through the film’s increasingly tedious narrative. Good job Cera (though still very much as Cera) was bearable and actually funny in a much better 2010 film, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Jeff Bridges is always worth watching, and Crazy Heart was indeed worth the time spent on it merely for his full pelt gruff-bluster performance alone, even if it was – as with Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies or Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman – a ‘just because’ Oscar win. (Although I must say I had more fun watching him ape his Big Lebowski character surrounded by neon plains in TRON: Legacy last year.) The film itself, however, was uninspired and flat – watchable, sure, and not terrible by any stretch, but it didn’t entirely deserve the over-keen reception that it was greeted with.

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

Uncle Boonmee called – he wants his past lives back. He can have 'em, I say. The revered darling and Palme d’Or winner from last year – yes, Ol’ Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives to give him his full title – contained several vivid moments of glorious, often playful, bliss (red-eyed hairy man-beasts in the forest, a spectral relative materialising for dinner, unusual swimming proficiency lessons with saucy Mr. Catfish) but long stretches were monotonous and repetitive. Elsewhere in Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s work (particularly in his two previous hothouse wonders Tropical Malady and Syndromes and a Century) the stasis within the transitional sequences nudged me to feel the wonder of the meditative, dazzling camerawork, whereas here it felt more than a bit like extended doodling, overly studied wonder made to fit arthouse expectations. Weerasethakul’s 2009 precursor/side projects, A Letter to Uncle Boonmee and Phantom of Nabua (both part of his vast 'Primitive' installation) served his core concerns better, and both in under 20 mins. each. (More on Uncle Boonmee.)

* The predominance of horror/supernatural films on the list is not a fault of the genres in any way, it merely points to the fact that, as my default genre setting of choice, I tend to watch more of them than almost any other genre of film.

Disappointments - a quick-glance rundown (in alphabetical order):

Crazy Heart
Date Night
Heartless
The House of the Devil
Long Weekend
Monsters
Survival of the Dead
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
The Wolfman
Youth in Revolt

Next: Chin up, folks! Surprises of the year are on the way. Then: technical/crew, male and female acting, worst films, best films.

Bullet Points of the Dead: The Walking Dead Episode 1

The new zombie series The Walking Dead started last Friday night in the UK (FX channel at 10:00pm). I'd been waiting a while for it and am excited that it's now being shown, as horror-based serials such as this aren't too commonplace on today's TV schedules. Who would have thought there would one day be a regular zombie show on the telly. It wasn't so long ago that a variety zombie movies were struggling to resurface and get financing (I'm thinking no longer than 12 years). Nowadays, they're ten-a-penny. Just goes to show that, sooner or later, when something catches on it will likely expand into other platforms.

But, then again, two years ago we had the excellent Big Brother-meets-Dawn of the Dead three-parter Dead Set. Three episodes wasn't enough, though, however good they were. The Walking Dead has so far gone down well in the US, where it's showing a week ahead of the UK. (Isn't that always the way?) I'm pretty certain that if its success continues, and the fans and fair-weather watchers alike rally around it, it will go ahead with a second series (there are murmurs already, apparently).

So to acknowledge this zombie telly invasion, to give a hearty tip of the hat in its grim and gory direction, and to generally have a place to keep some ongoing, quickly-formed thoughts on it (as observational notes, or some such thing), I wanted to (try to) write an entry each week for its six-week duration, starting today. Three bullet-pointed paragraphs on each episode.

Info/synopsis here.

Episode #1: Days Gone By

• So far, the production values / overall filmmaking (or telly-making, if you will) are refreshing, seamless and of a high quality. The direction, editing, photography and special effects are particularly standout. I'm guessing the high level of the effects work will remain consistent, so I'll comment on them further when there's been much more prolonged undead gurning occurring each episode. But so far the zombies - particularly that half-person crawling along the grassy verge - are convincing and appropriately horrible. They need to be for it to work well.

• It conjured the crux, the vital matters, of Richard Matheson's  I Am Legend with far more emotion and brevity than did I Am Legend, the 2007 movie. I didn't dislike the latest film version of Matheson's novel, but as far as depicting the sick, gut-wrenching and near-ungodly feeling of seeing your loved ones somehow both dead and alive at the same time - and banging on the door of their home, desperate to be let back in - whilst you look at them through cross hairs thinking about allowing them a second death, it's done a stellar job so far. And without much in the way of fussy heel-dragging to it. I like that the emotion in certain scenes is clearly apparent and deeply saddening yet concise: it occurs, we take it in, then we move on. Key events - and the emotions aroused by them - may very well be later reiterated for further effect in particular characters' narrative arcs. This bodes well.

• Time. It's using it well. And it's certainly biding its time with aplomb. It's making us wait for the good stuff, the stuff most people want, which is repeated zombie-human face-offs, and plenty of them. To offset this, to add an ounce of leverage, it's trading the lack of zombie carnage with some evocative atmospherics (which is actually often where the very best apocalypse fiction content is to be seen). It seems to be taking its sweet time to tell us certain things. And its pace is wonderful, deliberate, considered. Details such as it taking Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) an inordinate amount of time to exit the hospital, in a relatively early scene, are well conveyed and allow for the build of imminent tension. One gripe so far (not sure if it's minor/major yet): where are the women?

I'm not entirely sure if it will turn out to be a Lost-style meander, a Heroes-style elaborate concoction, or a Harper's Island-style saga. It's serial TV, but as bite-sized tellyfilms (not a million miles away from, say, the Master of Horror series). Its heart lies in the movies though. I'm sure 28 Days Later... has been, or will certainly be mentioned as a reference point, among many other similar movies. (Romero is a given.) This first episode built intrigue and showed the seeds of continuing drama and what appears to be a sturdy longevity. I'm looking forward to episode two.

Ten Reasons Why I Like the Dawn of the Dead Remake

Zack Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake was a great film. Romero's original is one of my all-time favourite films, so it had a lot to live up to. But it worked for me - here's why:


Sarah Polley has more than car trouble to worry about

1. As I mentioned above, it's a remake of Dawn of the Dead (1978), one of my favourite films of all time. There was always a high chance that I was going to like - or at least appreciate or give the benefit of the doubt to - any revamped version of it, unless the person responsible royally messed it up. On the whole I’m not a remake basher (the original versions are still there: remakes accompany, they don't replace). I don’t think to be so puritanical as to feel that the '78 version shouldn't ever have been remade (unlike the many, many Psycho (1998) detractors). On the whole, the more zombie films getting made the better. Even if the quality level is variable, I’m willing to give them a chance. I can take it - I positively encourage it. Why can't it be good news?

2. Along with the excellent Shaun of the Dead (2004) it, in some way, helped get Romero's Land of the Dead (2005) off the starting blocks. To reiterate: it assisted in helping Romero make more films. Good news, again.*

3. The first ten-or-so minute intro scene, before the opening title sequence. It’s a great set-up: solidly paced, crisply edited and contains a real desolate feel for what's to come. Its gradual building of a tense atmosphere sets a standard that is sustained throughout the film. It's apparent from the start that Snyder's not messing around.

4. The decision to cast Sarah Polley as the main protagonist, not some randomly selected work-a-day actor (see any number of bland actors cast in Michael Bay-produced horror rehashes). It's a good sign when refreshing, capable actors get cast in projects such as this.


Generation kill: left - Sarah Polley, right - Jayne Eastwood

5. The actress Jayne Eastwood (as truck-driving Norma). In her small and limited role she managed to add to the film a few brief moments of melancholy. She's great in the film - it was a shame she, er, exited too early.

6. It was basically Aliens (1986) (one of the best, most efficiently-executed action films of the '80s/to date) only with zombies instead of acid-dripping xenomorphs. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

7. What seemed to be a possibly risky, untested choice for director (in Zack Snyder) actually turned to be ideal. I was hoping that he may go the way of someone like David Fincher, and go on to carve an interesing and varied filmography**. Remember that Fincher began with a sci-fi-horror that displayed a rather deft and detailed exploration of the genre flick (with Alien³ (1992)).

8. The opening title sequence at the beginning - and at the closing credits at the end. Perfect scene-setting and apt, effectively handled closure. Such a good use of a Johnny Cash track that Breck Eisner pulled a similar trick (with 'We'll Meet Again') for his recent Romero remake The Crazies (2010). (The Dawn titles are designed by Kyle Cooper, who of course did wonders for Se7en nine years earlier.)


The cast of Dawn of the Dead signing for help from the rooftops

9. The odd, descriptive and inventive use of language/text - printed and/or written - throughout the film. There were many shots of titles, words, slogans and so on that seemed to, either consciously or subconsciously, comment on the action, or were used to highlight modes of communication in a world where the usual channels to communicate are near obsolete. The banners and wipe-boards that the characters made or displayed, and the type used for shop names, come to mind. I tend to watch out for how typography is used (with)in films and it was interesting to see this taken into consideration in such a subliminal manner.

10. It's a zombie film. I love zombies. And films. True, it's not a staggeringly great film by some folks' standards, but for what it is it works remarkably well. And then some. I can put it on anytime I want a quick zombie fix. (That is, after I've returned to Romero's original first.)

* although he should have stopped before Survival of the Dead (2010).

** Snyder has followed up Dawn with 300 (2006) and Watchmen (2009) so far (regardless of what folk think of them, they both got their fair share of attention, for good or bad reasons). There's Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole and Sucker Punch to come.

Looking Back to 2005: Selections for the Ten Films of the Year

Continuing my look back at films and performances that made an impact on me three years ago, here are what I thought were the ten most noteworthy films from 2005. Obviously, writing about them now, in December 2008, there's the question of hindsight: Have any changes occurred? Have I revisited any, if not all, of them? And do they still hold up? My response would be: yes (since first assembling this list I got to see Ousmane Semebene's brilliant last film Moolaadé, which leapt right in and stole the no.3 spot and sadly shunted Tony Takitani out of the ten. And my revisiting of Laurence Dunmore's debut film The Libertine cemented its boldness all over again, so it claimed the No.8 spot from Battle in Heaven); yes, roughly half of the films I've seen for a second - and in one or two cases a third - time; unquestionably, yes. All these titles surely indicate, in my opinion, a healthy film year. *full comments to follow*

2005 was a strong year. Of the 134 films I saw that year roughly 30+ were worth seriously considering for the list; narrowing it down to just ten was tough. To address this I'll add a bit, after the top ten, on other films that stunned and/or surprised me. This second ten (11-20) deserve mention, too. Also, six of the ten directors of films on the list have gone on to produce work of equal distinction (or have made films with moments of note-worthy merit and flair in them) since. One (Semebene) sadly passed away; and three are yet to make follow-up films - though I'm confident future work by them will be worth catching). Overall though, this list is a way of remembering what recent films have stood out from the crowd: ten reasons to be happy cinema is continuing to make me sit up and pay attention. On with the list:

10. Land of the Dead (George A. Romero/USA)


09. Head-On/Gegen die Wand (Fatih Akin/Germany, Turkey)


08. The Libertine (Laurence Dunmore/UK, Australia)


07. The Wayward Cloud/Tian bian yi duo yun (Tsai Ming-liang/France, Taiwan)


06. The Beat That My Heart Skipped/De battre mon coeur s'est arrêté (Jacques Audiard/France)


05. A History of Violence (David Cronenberg/USA, Germany)


04. Last Days (Gus van Sant/USA)


03. Moolaadé (Ousmane Sembène/Senegal)


02. The Forest for the Trees/Der Wald vor lauter Bäumen (Maren Ade/Germany)


01. Tropical Malady/Sud pralad (Apichatpong Weerasethakul/Thailand)


Also good, in no order: Tony Takitani (Jun Ichikawa) / Mysterious Skin (Gregg Araki) / Vera Drake (Mike Leigh) / Battle in Heaven (Carlos Reygadas) / Somersault (Cate Shortland) / Café Lumière (Hsiao-hsien Hou) / Serenity (Joss Whedon) / In Good Company (Paul Weitz) / Innocence (Lucile Hadzihalilovic) / The Descent (Neil Marshall)