The Dreamers – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 2003, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is The Dreamers, Bernardo Bertolucci’s steamy tale of rebellion, romance, and social awakening in 1960s Paris.

Sales: 3. Being a non-Hollywood movie, it was never going to send the world on fire. It made back its budget, just about. It’s a high 2 or low 3.

Critical Consensus: 3. I don’t think you can get to 4 on this one. A small number of critics loved it, most were middling. I was hoping for a re-evaluation after the cast became big, or after Bertolucci died, but not yet.

Director: 4. It’s something of a heady mixture between Last Tango and Bertolucci’s love for film, art, and youth. Most of the film takes place in a single setting, and he uses that setting to emphasis the warmth and discomfort of friendship.

Performances: 5. Similar to the film taking place mainly in a single setting, the majority of the film focuses on Eva Green, Michael Pitt, and Louis Garrel. It’s a young cast tackling some difficult stuff, but each performer handles themselves, each other, and the material so naturally that the film has a fly on the wall feel. Obviously there’s a lot of bravery when it comes to the nudity, but there seems to be a lot of trust between everyone and nothing feels forced.

Characters: 4. Although I’m neither French, nor American, nor lived through the Paris riots of 1968, I feel an affinity with the characters. I think that anyone who went to University or had that cultural clash of being thrown in with new people and ideas will feel a similar affinity. It’s one of those instances of feeling nostalgia for something you didn’t directly experience. Normally I’d go with a 3 here because the characters do feel somewhat like stock students – fiery, opinionated, certain in their believes and their ability to change the world – which we’ve seen time and time again on screen, but there’s something more captivating about them, coupled with the writing and the setting which gets me up to a 4. 2-4 is the range here, I feel.

Cinematography: 3. I guess you could get up to 4 here, when considering the exterior scenes and even those of the Louvre, but the majority of the film seems to cast a grimy, pseudo-bohemian wash over things which doesn’t make for a particularly eye-catching affair.

Writing: 4. This will likely depend on how you feel about the aforementioned characters – there’s a lot of talk of film, politics, art, and philosophy, then onto sexual awakening and finding your place in a society which may be actively trying to crush you. If it all sounds too ‘student’, then chances are you won’t care for any of it.

Plot: 3. There isn’t a lot in the way of plot from a traditional storytelling perspective – an American student transfers to Paris and ends up living with a pair of Hippy-esque twins. The form a tight unit, learning from and clashing with each other, all while the Paris Student uprising is bubbling.

Wardrobe: 4. <Inserts joke about the clothes coming off instead of staying on>. Authentic for the time and place, and reminiscent of every student ever.

Editing: 4. I don’t usually go higher than 3 in this category unless there’s something outstanding. This has a lot of cool moments where older movies are spliced into things – specifically around the Louvre scenes.

Make up and Hair: 3. Sure.

Effects: 3. A 3 for N/A.

Art and Set: 4. Again, go 3 or lower if you don’t care for the look, but it nails the student digs look and vibe – messy, cluttered with cultural icons, with only the barest essentials on display and taking a a lower priority than the true necessities like records, posters, and cigarettes.

Sound And Music: 4. A great soundtrack featuring Dylan, Hendrix, and other 60s squires from the US and from France, mixed with more traditional French elements. It’s cool and it works.

Cultural Significance: 3. A strange one because it’s very much a film about culture and significance. But the film sadly has not become too significant in itself. It was Eva Green’s breakthrough, and Michael Pitt’s too, and it was one of Bertolucci’s last films. So significant from a Cinephile’s perspective, but it hasn’t become widely enough seen or known to make any wider impact.

Accomplishment: 3. On the surface it doesn’t seem like the most difficult source material to convert onto the screen, but making it so watchable and youthful and authentic is an accomplishment to be lauded.

Stunts: 3. Another 3 for N/A

Originality: 3. It’s a similar kind of story you’ll have seen or read or experienced before – it’s coming of age. It just happens to have been made by a very specific director with a very specific tone.

Miscellaneous: 3. Not a lot to mention beyond it being a good gateway into foreign film because it deals with some universal subject matter and stars some familiar faces.

Personal: 5. I love it. Pitt and Green have long been two of my favourite performers, and it’s cool to see them here in their youth. Even with the nudity, it’s very accessible, and I can’t help but be reminded of my own Student days.

Total Score: 71/100.

Let us know your scores in the comments!

Falling Down – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 1993, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is Falling Down, Joel Shumacher’s story of a man who says ‘fuck it’, and goes on a rampage through LA.

Sales: 3. Do you go 4 here? It made around double its budget, but it was far outside the Top 20 Grossing movies for the year. That feels like a three to me. However, it did reach number 1 in the US Box Office for its first couple of weeks, so if you care strongly about initial audiences, then you could bump this higher. Of course, it dropped off quickly.

Critical Consensus: 4. While the moral complexity of the film, or perhaps more accurate to say the moral ambiguity, has always been a point for discussion by critics, consensus has always remained strong. The cast and the direction have been lauded, the script has taken a bit more of a beating as time has moved on due to the perceived racism and possible appeals to violence therein, but general consensus remains that it is a bold, violent, and funny satire on 90s society.

Director: 4. Schumacher had an impressive run from 85 to 95, making no less than 8 films. It’s a toss up between this and The Lost Boys as his best overall film and here he continues his use of setting, of soundtrack, of weather to heighten what’s already in the script. It’s stylish but not stylized and is ultimately played out like a futile tragedy rather than the rebellion emboldening statement some make it out to be.

Performances: 4. Michael Douglas is excellent in the lead, ably followed around by a game Robert Duvall, Barbara Hershey, Rachel Ticotin, and Tuesday Weld.

Characters: 3. It’s all about D-Fens, who is not, at least on the day presented, a very nice man. Sure he’s pissed that he’s out of work, divorced, late, his life is going nowhere, his expectations of the world aren’t being met, but does that mean he can go on a rampage? He’s supposed to be an everyman, at least for the men of the world who are angry at their lot in life, but taken to extremes. Depending on your POV, those extremes may only be slight.

Cinematography: 4. LA is so burned into our minds thanks to a hundred years of film and TV that it’s difficult to present it in an interesting way. It looks here just as it looked on news reports of the riots – an urban wasteland, brimming with chaos and only the facade of oases to make us think it’s some sort of paradise. The use of the sunlight and warmth is oppressive and hints that it’s not only this individual who is about to explode, but that the entire city could erupt at any minute.

Writing: 3. I’d love to go four here because the script is funny, and in my younger days I probably would have gone higher. But time moves on and attitudes change – there’s no getting away from the fact that parts of the script, intentionally or not, can be and have been co-opted by certain wings of society who would hold the movie up as a plan of action rather than a satire.

Plot: 3. At its core it’s very simple – it’s a classic ‘man wants to get home’ story. Regular glancers will know that that may be my favourite type of story. It’s a road movie mostly on foot. It’s simply a man trying to get from A-B, but he keeps being blocked on his journey and growing ever more enraged with the world.

Wardrobe: 4. It’s so simple, yet so effective. You think of this movie, and you immediately see Michael Douglas in his cheap shirt and trousers, with his briefcase.

Editing: 3. I’m not sure I’m ever going to give more than a 3 in this category.

Make up and Hair: 4. Again, very simple, but manages to be iconic. Which earns it the extra point.

Effects: 3. Not a movie filled with visual effects, but the practical work on the gunplay and explosive side are all solid.

Art and Set: 3. Compliments the Cinematography.

Sound And Music: 4. While the score itself isn’t overly tuneful or memorable, it is eerie and effective within the context of the film, and all of the other associated sounds help to build the paranoid and oppressive atmosphere.

Cultural Significance: 4. It’s on the outskirts of Cult territory in that it has all the attributes of a cult movie, except with a big name cast and director, and is marginally more known and seen. That said, the movie has had a cultural reach beyond its means, particularly in the music scene where many bands and artists have taken inspiration from it. That mirror of culture, The Simpsons, has also made reference to it.

Accomplishment: 3. I don’t feel this warrants higher than a 4 – it’s the sort of movie a lesser director may make with lesser known stars, but has been given the Hollywood treatment. It’s something of a throwback to films of the Dirty Harry and Death Wish movies in their outlook, but it’s not a strict revenge movie or cop against crime movie. It does elevate a simple idea though.

Stunts: 3. It’s not strictly an action movie, or a thriller, or a drama, but some Venn Diagram middle point. There is action but it’s on a small scale, and is more about the sudden abrupt outbursts, like how Takeshi Kitano would do things once upon a time.

Originality: 4. I went back and forth between 3 and 4 on this. It’s not the most original idea – we’ve seen angry man movies, we’ve seen trying to get home movies etc. But it’s the merging of these ideas, the positioning of the story in a modern day, recognizable, cosmopolitan warzone, and making the lead character conflicted and one who seems genuinely unsure of how to even exist anymore when his idea of how the world should be no longer exists.

Miscellaneous: 3. Nothing worthy enough to get me up to a 4. I love the poster.

Personal: 5. On another day if I was being more critical I’d go down to a 4, but I love it.

Total Score: 71/100.

Let us know your scores in the comments!

Nightman’s Favourite Movies – Critically Destroyed!

*NOTE – Sometimes things get messy when you’re an unstructured mess like I am. The post below was written in advance of me posting my first Get Rekt movie post. But then I forgot to publish it, flying ahead with the series with no explanation. I’m rectifying (rektifying?) that now. So this is a slightly more pointless post than most stuff around here.

Greetings, Glancers! You’ve read it by now, right? My Nightman’s Scoring System (c) Movie Edition post? If you haven’t, click that link and start using it – bloggers, critics, movie reviewers – it’s a great system to employ if you absolutely must give a score in your movie reviews, much better than an arbitrary or random score out of 5, 10, or 100.

If you hang around my site more than is legally advised, chancers are you’ve had a juke at either my Favourite Movies By Year posts or my Beatles albums reviews. In the Beatles posts, I used the musical version of the Nightman Scoring System (c) to give a score. As I was brushing my teeth last night, I was thinking how to better advertise and use the Movie version in my posts and have decided to go through my Movies By Year posts and score those movies using the system. If I was going down the purely arbitrary route, I would simply assign a 5 out of 5, or 10 out of 10 to everyone one of those. That would be selfish and based mostly on personal preference, while I’m aware that quite a few of those films are not ‘good’ or deserving of such a score on a critical level.

But I’m curious to see how well these films do in terms of scoring, and how they rank against each other. Is Problem Child a better film than Police Academy 4? I have no idea, but we’ll find out. Twenty categories, each with a score out of five, each given as honest a consideration as I can provide while admittedly being a bias-tainted fanboy, totalled to tally a final result out of 100. It’s going to take a while, and I’ll probably give up long before the end, but I’m planning to give it a shot.

In writing my original yearly favourite movie posts, I started at 1950 and worked forwards and for my updated posts I started at 2010 and worked backwards. To spice things up for myself in this series, I think I’m going to start with the Number 10s of each year, starting with 1950, then circle back to the Number 9s until we get to the Number 1s. That way I won’t get bored looking at the same year for weeks on end. It would be swell if we had some audience participation too – give your own scores and we can compare. I know you won’t, but I can dream.

In all seriousness, this is mainly another case of my curiosity getting the better of me, leading to another series of posts no-one is going to care about. I have fun writing these things though, so it’s all good. As always, feel free to drop your input in the comments section and I’ll see you there!

Project A – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 1983, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is Project A, one of Jackie Chan’s most famous Hong Kong films.

Sales: 4.  major success in the native Hong Kong, and fairly successful throughout Asia with notable minor returns elsewhere.

Critical Consensus: 4. Arguably the most well received of any Jackie Chan movie till this point.

Director: 4. I’m going to be generous here, though it’s more likely a 3. Because the action is so good and the pacing is swift, I’ll go with a 4. Chan and Hung don’t do anything out of the ordinary in terms of their wheelhouse, but they do it bigger and better.

Performances: 3. This will rely heavily on your exposure to Martial Arts movies, and Asian comedies. If you are a fan, you’ll be more liable to enjoy the performances, if you’re new to things then you’ll likely be a little confused. There’s no doubting Chan is charismatic, and he’s ably backed by Sammo Hung, Hoi Sang Lee, Yuen Baio, and other Asian action legends.

Characters: 3. I could see people going as low as 2 here. If you’ve seen any Hong Kong cop or action movie, then you’ll be familiar with all of the character types here.

Cinematography: 3. It’s shot neatly enough to accentuate the period of the piece and place, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Writing: 3. You’ll be seeing a lot of threes for this film. It’s a fun action comedy, and not trying to be anything more. Subjectively, sterner critics could go 2 here. It serves the purpose of showing us the characters and plot, it has a few zingers, and that’s yer lot.

Plot: 3. Martial arts movies are rarely known for the most amazing of plots. This one merges the genre with a straighter action/comedy style. There’s not much to it – a bunch of cops who protect the Hong Kong coast from pirates and other maritime badness, have a bit of a rivalry with the ‘normal’ cops. When the Coast Cops see their ships go up in smoke, they are forced to retrain with the normies, while trying to work out who the baddies are. Throw in the usual corruption and a hunt for 100 guns, and that’s it. The plot exists to allow Jackie and pals to have fun with stunts.

Wardrobe: 4. It’s a period piece, so a lot of care and attention is put into the wardrobe. Good.

Editing: 4. Fast and fun. I love the style of this period of action cinema.

Make up and Hair: 3. Sure.

Effects: 3. It’s pre-CG (kind-of), so effects are hand-made. There isn’t much in th way of ‘effects’, because most of what you see happens on camera, and your typical gore gags and explosions and miniatures aren’t involved.

Art and Set: 4. It’s a period piece, so a lot of care and attention is put into the art and set. Good.

Sound And Music: 4. A lot of the Hong Kong movies from this period either aped US Jazz, featured some wailing 80s Asian pop music, or was just forgettable stock strings and horns. Project A stands out, actually making the music sound of the period – you have jaunty sailor heigh ho music, stuff that sounds like it belongs in a circus, and lots of amusing copying from Classical artists. It’s probably a 3, but I have a lot of fondness for how fun it sounds within the film, but it’s unlikely going to be music you just stick on for daily listening pleasure.

Cultural Significance: 3. Your score here will depend on how you define cultural significance. What lens do you, or should you use? In the grand scheme of things, the impact the movie had worldwide was minimal, yet in China and even Japan, the film was a landmark. It did enough to land a sequel, which is a baseline metric for how significant a film is, and it was important enough that a white kid from Northern Ireland got a hold of it in the 90s and is blogging about it 30 years later.

Accomplishment: 4. Most will go with a 3, but I think that in terms of the action accomplished, the fact that Chan did not die doing what he did, and that it was one of the first films he made after returning from an unsuccessful stint in the US, adds up to a 4 for me.

Stunts: 5. Is there any doubt? If you haven’t seen the film, and you enjoy action movies, you owe it to yourself to see it. If you really don’t enjoy Asian movie, at the very least you should check out the stunt highlight on Youtube – I’m sure there’s a compilation out there. Remember, no strings, no stand-ins, and fuck it – not safety nets, just a bunch of veterans throwing their bodies and lives on the line in over the top, extravagant, dangerous, and amusing ways for our entertainment. It’s a Top 5 Chan Stunt movie.

Originality: 3. There’s little originality in the story, plenty of films of this type have been set in this period and place with these types of characters, but it’s all about the creativity of the action. Again, a sterner critic could go 2.

Miscellaneous: 4. I’m going 4 here because Project A was one of the first films to truly go balls deep in terms of dangerous physical stunts, and because it was the first time Jackie and his school mates Sammo and Yuen worked together.

Personal: 4. It’s one of my favourite Jackie Chan movies, from right at the start of his peak, and it’s a joy for those who enjoy his particular brand.

Total Score: 72/100

Let us know your scores in the comments!

Badlands – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 1973, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is Badlands, Terence Malick’s tale of youthful love and violence in the middle of nowhere.

Sales: 2. It struggled to find an audience, and even as an artsy movie it failed in Europe. But it had a low budget so wasn’t a significant financial failure.

Critical Consensus: 4. Looking at it today, it’s universally acclaimed, but there’s no doubting that much of the criticism in 1973 was negative.

Director: 5. I don’t think you can go lower than 4 here. It’s Malick’s movie, and even at this point in his career, it’s masterful.

Performances: 5. Maybe you go 4 for the relative inexperience of Sheen and Spacek, but both are incredible as the focal points of the film, ably backed up by veterans like Warren Oates.

Characters: 4. I could see some people going 3, given the prevalence of this type of story and these types of characters before and after Badlands. They’re kids angry with the world, kids in love, but the characters are strengthened by the performance and the way the story is told.

Cinematography: 5. Malick films are uniformly gorgeous, here he employs a group of cinematographers to convey the American landscape.

Writing: 4. It’s an excellent first-time screenplay, with just the right amount of philosophical introspection to portray these intelligent, flawed people. The narration and the speeches may put some viewers off, and the ending may frustrate.

Plot: 3. If you haven’t seen the characters before, you’ve definitely seen the story in one way or the other; angry young lovers frustrated at the world meet, just want to be alone, go on a rampage. It was more original then that it would be now, but certainly not unique.

Wardrobe: 3. Holly is made to look very young, Kit is made to look like James Dean. Not much more to add.

Editing: 4. Smooth.

Make up and Hair: 3. See wardrobe.

Effects: 3. Not really applicable, so a 2 or a 3, but we’ll be positive.

Art and Set: 4. It’s a beautiful movie, but it was made for pennies.

Sound And Music: 4. A solid soundtrack with some notable pieces of music.

Cultural Significance: 4. Three may be more appropriate given that the movie hasn’t directly influence much in wider culture, at least not when considered against the film it’s most usually compared to – Bonnie & Clyde. But, considering it was Malick’s first film and very early in the careers of Spacek and Sheen, and considering that it has influenced many film-makers, including Tarantino.

Accomplishment: 4. Again, a huge accomplishment for a first-time director to create something so complete, visionary, and mature. The only let down is that it has always been underseen.

Stunts: 3. It’s not an action movie, but it does have violence and chases – Kit hunting down cops and driving away from them. You could go with a 2.

Originality: 4. Depending on what’s valuable to you, you could go lower here. Plot and characters – not overly original, but contemporary. But the lyrical way the plot unfolds and how we view the characters and the places they find themselves in, the things they see and feel – few films of this nature take such an approach.

Miscellaneous: 3. Nothing much to add here – I like that True Romance makes multiple references to Badlands. I love True Romance. 

Personal: 4. As much as I love Badlands, there’s something a little clinical about it. It’s the same thing I always find with certain directors, like Malick. I rarely get too invested in the characters or the plot with these directors, but you can’t deny the technical proficiency, the performances, and the directing.

Total Score: 75/100

Let us know your scores in the comments!

Dementia 13 – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 1963, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is Dementia 13, Francis Ford Coppola’s little seen black and white chiller.

Sales: 2. You can’t say it was a success, but it cost less the 50 grand to make. It didn’t make much at release and it hasn’t made much in home sales, so it’s either a 1 or 2.

Critical Consensus: 3. That’s a low 3, mainly due to critics re-evaluating the film after Coppola’s later successes. Critical response has always been mixed – aware of it being a low budget, Corman produced effort with plenty of issues, but that it has plenty to admire.

Director: 3. There’s clearly ability and flair on display, the use of the setting, the creation of mood, and being creative with the horror elements.

Performances: 3. A lot of Corman favourites and locals to Ireland, everyone is fit for purpose in what is essentially a cheap shocker.

Characters: 2. Even in 63, most of the characters were archetypes seen in many genres, including Gothic horror.

Cinematography: 3. It looks good for its age and budget.

Writing: 3. It’s clearly rushed and clearly dated, but again its serviceable for what the film is.

Plot: 3. There are some notable twists, but at its core it’s a mixture of Macbeth-level scheming and Gothic slasher fare, as a young woman hides the death of her wealthy husband in an attempt to get some of that sweet sweet cash.

Wardrobe: 2. It doesn’t exactly compete with more famous, bigger scope horror films of the era.

Editing: 3. Some good stuff, yes.

Make up and Hair: 3. I’ll consider the gore here, otherwise it would be another 2.

Effects: 3. Not really applicable but we’ll give it a positive 3 rather than a 2.

Art and Set: 3. Lovely setting, looks good, let down by the money.

Sound And Music: 3. I quite like the soundtrack – it follows a similar classic, yet jagged approach to Psycho but feels more Baroque and tuneful. It’s not as iconic and memorable. Good use of sound throughout, in key horror scenes, to add to the scares.

Cultural Significance: 2. In the grand scheme of things it’s mostly forgotten, but it is a Francis Ford Coppola movie and it is a Roger Corman movie so it will continue to be relevant. Other people have referenced it in their own art.

Accomplishment: 3. Any movie made under the Corman budget and timeframe is an achievement in itself, but to make one which was genuinely good and has a rewatch-ability takes it up another level.

Stunts: 3. In lieu of a N/R/A (not really applicable) we can go 2 or 3 here.

Originality: 3. Gothic horror movies were once upon a time a dime a dozen, and once we entered the post-Psycho era we began to get twists on the formula, or the setting. This isn’t massively different, except it’s less focused on the supernatural and it does have some twists.

Miscellaneous: 3. It’s a Francis Ford Coppola horror movie. He would revisit the genre decades later so it’s interesting seeing what has changed.

Personal: 3. I’d never go 5 with this, but sometimes I’d go 4. It’s a high 3 at least, but I don’t think it has enough polish or scares to reach 4. Today.

Total Score: 56/100.

Let us know your scores in the comments!

Peter Pan – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 1953, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is Peter Pan, Disney’s latest adaptation.

Sales: 4. It’s not quite the smash which Disney’s biggest are, but it still made a tonne of money. You have to always view this category, each of the categories really, in context.

Critical Consensus: 4. Mostly positive. Most of the criticism goes against the portrayal of the Native Americans and the differences from the source material.

Director: 4. Animated movies have a history of double-directors, or a group of directors and Peter Pan is no different. You probably won’t know the names, but each of the 3 directors were experienced animators and directors, working on Sleeping Beauty, Bambi, Snow White, many shorts, and each won or was part of an Academy Award winning piece. They use that experience to ensure Peter Pan is a vibrant, energetic feature.

Performances: 3. It’s all about Bobby Driscoll as Peter, and Hans Conreid as Hook. Everyone is good, but as the majority of characters are kids, there’s an awful lot of samey, high-pitched, posh and juvenile kiddery. It gets tiresome after a while.

Characters: 4. You could go lower here, given it’s an adaptation. But as with most Disney adaptations, it’s the movie characters which become the best known. Pan, Hook, Tinkerbell, Wendy, Tiger Lily, The Lost Boys etc.

Cinematography: 4. It looks great, from the early London scenes to the look of Neverland.

Writing: 3. A lighter adaptation of the original story. Not the most exciting on a personal level and the focus on kids doesn’t do much for me.

Plot: 4. I like the central themes of the plot – not wanting to grow up, responsibility, wanting to go home, and how the different characters’ journey are interwoven.

Wardrobe: 4. If I simply list the character names again, you’ll immediately see their outfits in your mind’s eye. Iconic.

Editing: 3. Sure.

Make up and Hair: 3. Yes.

Effects: 3. Fine.

Art and Set: 3. The Victorian/London house stuff is always fine in Disney movies – they’re better when they’re going all out. Neverland isn’t as magical as it could have been.

Sound And Music: 2. One of the more poor soundtracks of the classic Disney era, there are no standout songs. Never Smile At A Crocodile is fine, but it’s like a nursery rhyme and can only be tolerated for so long.

Cultural Significance: 4. Many of the themes of the book and the movie have stuck around in public consciousness.

Accomplishment: 3. It’s fine – another book brought to screen.

Stunts: 3. Plenty of action, but nothing outstanding.

Originality: 3. Straight down the middle Disney – take a popular story, streamline it for the kids, add some songs.

Miscellaneous: 4. Loads of other versions of the book have been made – it’s debatable whether those are due to the book or the Disney movie. Michael Jackson’s favourite book, movie, character, and he made his own Theme Park… so that’s nice.

Personal: 3. It’s not a Disney movie I really grew up with or return to much. It doesn’t have the songs and I’m not overly fussed on what’s going on. Another day I might go 4 – it’s in my top ten after all, but 3 in the grand scheme of things feel more honest.

Total Score: 68/100.

Let us know your scores in the comments!

Get Rekt – A recap and future state

Greetings, Glancers! I’ve been publishing quite a lot of Get Rekt movie posts recently, and some of you have been reading and (hopefully) enjoying them. This post is to provide a recap on what Get Rekt is all about, and to present the films I have yet to cover. It’s not a roadmap or publishing schedule by any means, but rather a single place for anyone enjoying this series to check out the full list of films I’m covering, what I’ve done, and what’s to come.

First off, here’s a link to the original post explaining why I’m doing all this, and what the different categories are. The short version is that I don’t usually score whatever I review, but I decided I wanted to explore how good or bad I feel my favourite movies are by removing as much bias as I can, and by giving a score out of five for twenty categories I feel are important in film. I can’t just give 5s across the board, because I have to use real, honest data along with valuable opinion. I can’t give a score of five in a category of Sales to a movie which was a complete flop, as much as you can’t give a score of 1 for Performances to a film where the cast won Oscars for their performances.

The list of films I’m using this system for are my favourite films of each year, going back to 1950. In most cases it’s 10 films per year, but in a few others the total could reach 20. To keep things interesting, I’m starting from the bottom of each year, and moving from the first year in each decade to the next in each post, then back around. That means my 10th favourite film of 1950 would be first, then my 10th favourite of 1960, tenth of 1970, 80, 90, and 2000s, then back around to my 10th favourite of 1951, 61, 71 etc.

Here is the full list, by year, with links to the published posts:

1950

10: Les Enfants Terribles (France)

9: Outrage (USA)

8: Panic In The Streets (USA)

7: Gun Crazy (USA)

6: Winchester 73 (USA)

5: Rio Grande (USA)

4: Stage Fright (GB)

3: Cinderella (USA)

2: All About Eve (USA)

1: Rashomon (Japan)

1951

10: Scrooge (UK)

9: Fourteen Hours (USA)

8: The Prowler (USA)

7: Quo Vadis (USA)

6: The Lavender Hill Mob (UK)

5: The Idiot (Japan)

4: The African Queen (UK/USA)

3: A Streetcar Named Desire (USA)

2: The Thing From Another World (USA)

1: Strangers On A Train (USA)

1952

10: Flesh And Fury (USA)

9: Bend Of The River (USA)

8: Monkey Business (USA)

7: The Steel Trap (USA)

6: Viva Zapata (USA)

5: Forbidden Games (France)

4: The Greatest Show On Earth (USA)

3: The Prisoner Of Zenda (USA)

2: High Noon (USA)

1: Ikiru (Japan)

1953

10: Peter Pan (US)

9: Fear And Desire (US)

8: Stalag 17 (US)

7: Tokyo Story (Japan)

6: I Confess (US/Canada)

5: The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (US)

4: From Here To Eternity (US)

3: The Hitch-hiker (US)

2: The Big Heat (US)

1: The Wild One (US)

1954

10: Sabrina (USA)

9: The Caine Mutiny (USA)

8: La Strada (Italy)

7: Hell And High Water (USA)

6: 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (USA)

5: On The Waterfront (USA)

4: Godzilla (Japan)

3: Dial M For Murder (USA)

2: Rear Window (USA)

1: Seven Samurai (Japan)

1955

10: The Ladykillers (UK)

9: I Live In Fear (Japan)

8: Lady And The Tramp (USA)

7: Les Diaboliques (France)

6: The Colditz Story (UK)

5: East Of Eden (USA)

4: Bad Day At Black Rock (USA)

3: The Night Of The Hunter (USA)

2: Marty (USA)

1: Rebel Without A Cause (USA)

1956

10: Crime in The Streets (USA)

9: The Ten Commandments (USA)

8: The Killing (USA)

7: I Vampiri (Italy)

6: The Wrong Man (USA)

5: The Searchers (USA)

4: Giant (USA)

3: The Bad Seed (USA)

2: The Man Who Knew Too Much (USA)

1: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (USA)

1957

10: Sayonara (USA)

9: 20 Million Miles To Earth (USA)

8: Funny Face (USA)

7: The Lower Depths (Japan)

6: The Bridge On The River Kwai (UK/USA)

5: The Seventh Seal (Sweden)

4: Paths Of Glory (USA)

3: Night Of The Demon (UK)

2: 12 Angry Men (USA)

1: Throne Of Blood (Japan)

1958

10: Thunder Road (USA)

9: The Blob (USA)

8: The Vikings (USA)

7: The Defiant Ones (USA)

6: The Magician (Sweden)

5: The Hidden Fortress (Japan)

4: The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad (USA)

3: Touch Of Evil (USA)

2: Dracula (UK)

1: Vertigo (USA)

1959

10: The Diary Of Anne Frank (USA)

9: The Hound Of The Baskervilles (UK)

8: Anatomy of A Murder (USA)

7: The House On Haunted Hill (USA)

6: On The Beach (USA)

5: The 400 Blows (France)

4: Rio Bravo (USA)

3: Ben Hur (USA)

2: Sleeping Beauty (USA)

1: North By Northwest (USA)

1960

10: Village Of The Damned (UK)

9: Eyes Without A Face (France)

8: The Apartment (USA)

7: Jigoku (Japan)

6: La Dolce Vita (Italy)

5: Breathless (France)

4: Spartacus (USA)

3: Peeping Tom (UK)

2: Psycho (USA)

1: The Magnificent Seven (USA)

1961

10: The Young Ones (UK)

9: Judgement At Nuremberg (USA)

8: One Eyed Jacks (USA)

7: The Day The Earth Caught Fire (UK)

6: Breakfast At Tiffany’s (USA)

5: The Innocents (UK)

4: One Hundred And One Dalmations (US)

3: The Hustler (US)

2: The Guns Of Navarone (UK/US)

1: Yojimbo (Japan)

1962

10: Carnival Of Souls (USA)

9: Lawrence Of Arabia (USA/UK)

8: To Kill A Mockingird (USA)

7: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (USA)

6: The Longest Day (USA)

5: What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? (USA)

4: Sanjuro (Japan)

3: Lolita (UK/USA)

2: Cape Fear (USA)

1: Dr No (UK)

1963

10: Dementia 13 (USA)

9: The Pink Panther (USA)

8: 8 1/2 (Italy/France)

7: The Sword In The Stone (USA)

6: Cleopatra (USA)

5: The Haunting (UK)

4: From Russia With Love (UK)

3: Jason And The Argonauts (UK/USA)

2: The Birds (USA)

1: The Great Escape (USA)

1964

10: Marriage, Italian Style (Italy)

9: Woman In The Dunes (Japan)

8: Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte (USA)

7:  A Hard Day’s Night (UK)

6: Seance On A Wet Afternoon (UK)

5: Dr. Strangelove (UK/USA)

4: Kwaidan (Japan)

3: Zulu (UK)

2: A Fistful Of Dollars (Italy/Germany/Spain)

1: Goldfinger (UK)

1965

10: A Patch Of Blue (USA)

9: Faster Pussycat Kill Kill (USA)

8: The Flight Of The Phoenix (USA)

7: Alphaville (France)

6: Von Ryan’s Express (USA)

5: The Cincinnati Kid (USA)

4: The Ipcress File (UK)

3: Thunderball (UK)

2: Repulsion (UK)

1: For A Few Dollars More (Italy/Germany/Spain)

1966

10: Carry On Screaming (UK)

9: Born Free (UK)

8: Alfie (UK)

7: The Professionals (US)

6: Blowup (UK/US/Italy)

5: One Million BC (UK)

4: Dracula, Prince Of Darkness (UK)

3: The Battle of Algiers (Italy/Algeria)

2: Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (USA)

1: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly (Italy/Germany/Spain/US)

1967

10: Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner (USA)

9: The Fearless Vampire Killers (USA)

8: In The Heat of The Night (USA)

7: Bonnie And Clyde (USA)

6: The Graduate (USA)

5: Cool Hand Luke (USA)

4: Wait Until Dark (USA)

3: The Dirty Dozen (USA)

2: The Jungle Book (USA)

1: You Only Live Twice (UK)

1968

10: Barbarella (France/Italy)

9: Hell In The Pacific (USA)

8: If (UK)

7: The Producers (USA)

6: Planet Of The Apes (USA)

5: 2001 A Space Odyssey (UK/USA)

4: Bullitt (USA)

3: Rosemary’s Baby (USA)

2: Once Upon A Time In The West (Italy/USA/Spain)

1: Night Of The Living Dead (USA)

1969

10: Carry On Camping (UK)

9: The Damned (Italy/Germany)

8: They Shoot Horses Don’t They (USA)

7: Marlowe (USA)

6: Easy Rider (USA)

5: Midnight Cowboy (USA)

4: The Italian Job (UK)

3: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (UK)

2: Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (USA)

1: The Wild Bunch (USA)

1970

10: Woodstock (USA)

9: Zabriskie Point (USA)

8: MASH (USA)

7: Brewster McCloud (USA)

6: The Conformist (Italy/France/Germany)

5: Joe (USA)

4: The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (Italy/Germany)

3: Patton (USA)

2: Five Easy Pieces (USA)

1: Kelly’s Heroes (USA)

1971

10: Vanishing Point (USA)

9: McCabe And Mrs Miller (USA)

8: Walkabout (UK/OZ)

7: Straw Dogs (US/UK)

6: The French Connection (USA)

5: Get Carter (UK)

4: Dirty Harry (USA)

3: Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory (USA)

2: The Big Boss (HK/Thailand)

1: A Clockwork Orange (USA/UK)

1972

10: Silent Running (US)

9: Last Tango In Paris (France/Italy)

8: The Getaway (US)

7: Asylum (UK)

6: Deliverance (US)

5: Game Of Death (HK)

4: The Last House On The Left (US)

3: Fist Of Fury (HK)

2: Way Of The Dragon (HK)

1: The Godfather (US)

1973

10: Badlands (US)

9: Robin Hood (US)

8: High Plains Drifter (US)

7: Mean Streets (US)

6: Serpico (US)

5: Don’t Look Now (UK/Italy)

4: The Wicker Man (UK)

3: The Exorcist (US)

2: Enter The Dragon (HK/US)

1: Live And Let Die (UK)

1974

10: Black Christmas (CAN)

9: Stone (OZ)

8: Blazing Saddles (US)

7: Death Wish (US)

6: Chinatown (US)

5: Young Frankenstein (US)

4: The Golden Voyage Of Sinbad (UK)

3: The Man With The Golden Gun (UK)

2: The Godfather Part 2 (US)

1: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (US)

1975

10: Nashville (US)

9: Barry Lyndon (UK/US)

8: Picnic At Hanging Rock (OZ)

7: Hard Times (US)

6: Deep Red (Italy)

5: The Land That Time Forgot (UK/US)

4: Monty Python And The Holy Grail (UK)

3: Dog Day Afternoon (US)

2: One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest (US)

1: Jaws (US)

1976

10: All The President’s Men (USA)

9: Network (USA)

8: Silver Streak (USA)

7: The Outlaw Josey Wales (USA)

6: Logan’s Run (USA)

5: Carrie (USA)

4: Taxi Driver (USA)

3: The Omen (USA)

2: Rocky (USA)

1: Assault On Precinct 13 (USA)

1977

10: Hausu (Japan)

9: Rabid (Canada/USA)

8: Sorcerer (USA)

7: Soldier Of Orange (Netherlands)

6: Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (USA)

5: Martin (USA)

4: Eraserhead (USA)

3: Suspiria (Italy)

2: The Spy Who Loved Me (UK)

1: Star Wars Episode IV (USA)

1978

10: Eyes of Laura Mars (USA)

9: Midnight Express (USA)

8: Big Wednesday (USA)

7: Jaws 2 (USA)

6: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (USA)

5: The Deer Hunter (USA)

4: Superman (USA/UK/Switz/Panama)

3: The Driver (USA)

2: Halloween (USA)

1: Dawn Of The Dead (USA)

1979

10: Escape From Alcatraz (US)

9: Escape To Athena (UK)

8: Life Of Brian (UK)

7: Zombie Flesh Eaters (Italy)

6: Quadrophenia (UK)

5: Rocky II (US)

4: Apocalypse Now (US)

3: The Warriors (US)

2: Mad Max (AUS)

1: Alien (UK/US)

1980

10: The Big Red One (US) Sam Fuller

9: Cannibal Holocaust (Italy)

8: Kagemusha (Japan)

7: The Watcher In The Woods (US/UK)

6: The Elephant Man (US)

5: Raging Bull (US)

4: The Blues Brothers (US)

3: The Shining (US)

2: The Fog (US)

1: The Empire Strikes Back (US)

1981

10: Escape To Victory (UK/US)

9: The Entity (US)

8: Scanners (Canada)

7: Clash Of The Titans (UK/US)

6: The Evil Dead (US)

5: Escape From New York (US)

4: An American Werewolf In London (UK/US)

3: For Your Eyes Only (UK)

2: Raiders Of The Lost Ark (US)

1: The Road Warrior (AUS)

1982

10: Q (US)

9: The Wall (UK)

8: Poltergeist (US)

7: Creepshow (US)

6: 48 Hours (US)

5: Blade Runner (US)

4: Rocky 3 (US)

3: First Blood (US)

2: The Thing (US)

1: Conan The Barbarian (US)

1983

10: Project A (HK)

9: The Hunger (UK/US)

8: The Dead Zone (US)

7: Le Dernier Combat (France)

6: Blue Thunder (US)

5: Rumble Fish (US)

4: The Outsiders (US)

3: Videodrome (Canada)

2: Scarface (US)

1: Return Of The Jedi (US)

1984

10: Ghostbusters (US)

9: This Is Spinal Tap (US)

8: Starman (US)

7: Beverly Hills Cop (US)

6: The Karate Kid (US)

5: Gremlins (US)

4: Temple Of Doom (US)

3: Police Academy (US)

2: A Nightmare On Elm Street (US)

1: The Terminator (US)

1985

10: A View To A Kill (UK)

9: Return To Oz (US/UK)

8: Brewster’s Millions (US)

7: Rocky IV (US)

6: Police Academy 2 (US)

5: First Blood Part 2 (US)

4: Day Of The Dead (US)

3: The Goonies (US)

2: Back To The Future (US)

1:  Commando (US)

1986

10: Highlander (UK/US)

9: Stand By Me (US)

8: A Better Tomorrow (HK)

7: Blue Velvet (US)

6: Platoon (US)

5: Police Academy 3 (US)

4: The Fly (US)

3: The Hitcher (US)

2: Big Trouble In Little China (US)

1: Aliens (US)

1987

20: A Chinese Ghost Story (HK)

19: Withnail And I (UK)

18: City On Fire (HK)

17: Planes, Trains, And Automobiles (US)

16: Good Morning, Vietnam (US)

15: The Princess Bride (US)

14: The Living Daylights (UK)

13: Lethal Weapon (US)

12: Full Metal Jacket (US/UK)

11: Evil Dead 2 (US)

10: The Untouchables (US)

9: Hellraiser (UK)

8: The Running Man (US)

7: Dream Warriors (US)

6: Citizens On Patrol (US)

5: Prince Of Darkness (US)

4: Near Dark (US)

3: The Lost Boys (US)

2: Predator (US)

1: Robocop (US)

1988

10: They Live (US)

9: Hellraiser 2 (US/UK)

8: Bloodsport (US)

7: Akira (Japan)

6: Twins (US)

5: Young Guns (US)

4: Heathers (US)

3: Willow (US)

2: Die Hard (US)

1: Beetlejuice. (US)

1989

10: The Killer (HK)

9: Uncle Buck (US)

8: Born On The Fourth Of July (US)

7: Kiki’s Delivery Service (Japan)

6: See No Evil, Hear No Evil (US)

5: Licence To Kill (US/UK)

4: Pet Sematary (US)

3: Back To The Future Part II  (US)

2: Bill And Ted’s Excellent Adventure (US)

1: Batman (US)

1990

20: Boiling Point (Japan) Takeshi Kitano

19: La Femme Nikita (France) Luc Besson

18: The Witches (UK/US) Nicholas Roeg

17: Dances With Wolves (US) Kevin Costner

16: Awakenings (US) Penny Marshall

15: The Godfather Part 3 (US) Francis Ford Coppolla

14: Ghost (US) Jerry Zucker

13: Another 48 Hours (US) Walter Hill

12: Misery (US) Rob Reiner

11: Arachnophobia (US) Frank Marshall

10: Kindergarten Cop (US) Ivan Reitman

9: Young Guns II (US) Geoff Murphy

8: Mermaids (US) Richard Benjamin

7: Tremors (US) Ron Underwood

6: Wild At Heart (US) David Lynch

5: Total Recall (US) Paul Verhoeven

4: Home Alone (US) Chris Columbus

3: Goodfellas (US) Martin Scorsese

2: Problem Child (US) Dennis Dugan

1: Edward Scissorhands (US) Tim Burton

1991

10: Drop Dead Fred (US/UK) Ate De Jong

9: Double Impact (US) Sheldon Lettich

8: The Doors (US) Oliver Stone

7: Bill And Ted’s Bogus Journey (US) Pete Hewitt

6: Thelma And Louise (US) Ridley Scott

5: Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves (US) Kevin Reynolds

4: Don’t Tell Mom The Babysitter’s Dead (US) Stephen Herek

3: The Last Boy Scout (US) Tony Scott

2: Beauty And The Beast (US) Disney

1: Terminator 2 (Top Ten Of All Time) (US) James Cameron

1992

10: Aladdin (US) Disney

9: Universal Soldier (US) Roland Emmerich

8: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (US) Francis Ford Coppola

7: Candyman (US) Bernard Rose

6: My Cousin Vinny (US) Jonathan Lynn

5: Wayne’s World (US) Penelope Spheeris

4: Braindead (NZ) Peter Jackson

3: Reservoir Dogs (US) Quentin Tarantino

2: Fire Walk With Me (US) David Lynch

1: Hard Boiled (HK) John Woo

1993

17: Falling Down (US/France/UK) Joel Schumacher

16: Mrs Doubtfire (US) Chris Columbus

15: Schindler’s List (US) Steven Spielberg

14: What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (US) Lasse Hallstrom

13: Cliffhanger (US/France/Italy) Renny Harlin

12: Benny And Joon (US) Jeremiah S Chechik

11: Dazed And Confused (US) Richard Linklater

10: The Vanishing (US) George Sluizer

9: Carlito’s Way (US) Brian De Palma

8: The Nightmare Before Christmas (US) Henry Selick

7: A Perfect World (US) Clint Eastwood

6: Demolition Man (US) Marco Brambilla

5: Last Action Hero (US) John McTiernan

4: Body Snatchers (US) Abel Ferrara

3: True Romance (US) Tony Scott

2: Tombstone (US) George P Cosmatos

1: Jurassic Park (US) Steven Spielberg

1994

20: Little Women (US) Gilliam Armstrong

19: Ace Ventura (US) Tom Shadyac

18: The Mask (US) Charles Russell

17: Stargate (US/France) Roland Emmerich

16: Forrest Gump (US) Robert Zemeckis

15: The Lion King (US Disney)

14: Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein (US/Japan) Kenneth Branagh

13: Timecop (US) Peter Hyams

12: The Shawshank Redemption (US) Frank Darabont

11: Ed Wood (US) Tim Burton

10: Natural Born Killers (US) Oliver Stone

9: Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (US) Wes Craven

8: Clerks (US) Kevin Smith

7: True Lies (US) James Cameron

6: Speed (US) Jan de Bont

5: Pulp Fiction (US) Quentin Tarantino

4: Interview With The Vampire (US) Neil Jordan

3: Leon (France) Luc Besson

2: The Crow (US) Alex Proyas

1: Dumb And Dumber (US)

1995

20: Braveheart (US) Mel Gibson

19: Casino (US) Martin Scorsese

18: Casper (US) Brad Silberling

17: Jumanji (US) Joe Johnston

16: Dangerous Minds (US) John N Smith

15: Strange Days (US) Kathryn Bigelow

14: In The Mouth Of Madness (US) John Carpenter

13: The Last Supper (US) Stacy Title

12: Kids (US) Larry Clark

11: Pocahontas (US) Disney

10: Mortal Kombat (US) Paul W S Anderson

9: Now And Then (US) Lesli Linka Glatter

8: The Doom Generation (US/France) Gregg Araki

7: La Haine (France) Mathieu Kassovitz

6: Die Hard With A Vengeance (US) John McTiernan

5: Heat (US) Michael Mann

4: Mallrats (US) Kevin Smith

3: Desperado (US) Robert Rodriguez

2: Goldeneye (UK) Martin Campbell

1: Things To In Denver When You’re Dead (US)

1996

10: Crash (UK/Canada) David Cronenberg

9: Fly Away Home (Canada/US/NZ) Carroll Ballard

8: Trainspotting (UK) Danny Boyle

7: Breaking The Waves (Denmark) Lars Von Trier

6: The Long Kiss Goodnight (US) Renny Harlin

5: The Craft (US) Andrew Fleming

4: Beavis And Butthead Do America (US) Mike Judge

3: Broken Arrow (US) John Woo

2: From Dusk Till Dawn (US) Robert Rodriguez

1: Scream (US) Wes Craven

1997

20: The Ice Storm (US) Ang Lee

19: Boogie Nights (US) Paul Thomas Anderson

18:  LA Confidential (US) Curtis Hanson

17: Cube (Canada) Vincenzo Natali

16: Princess Mononoke (Japan) Hiyao Miyazaki

15: Grosse Point Blank (US) George Armitage

14: The Postman (US) Kevin Costner

13: Con Air (US) Simon West

12: The Game (US) David Fincher

11: I Know What You Did Last Summer (US) Jim Gillespie

10: Face/Off (US) John Woo

9: Liar Liar (US) Tom Shadyac

8: Life Is Beautiful (Italy) Robert Benigni

7: The Devil’s Advocate (US) Taylor Hackford

6: Donnie Brasco (US) Mike Newell

5: Chasing Amy (US) Kevin Smith

4: Lost Highway (US/France) David Lynch

3: Cop Land (US) James Mangold

2: Starship Troopers (US) Paul Verhoeven

1: The Fifth Element (France) Luc Besson

1998

10: Wild Things (US) John McNaughton

9: The Truman Show (US) Peter Weir

8: Dark City (US/OZ) Alex Proyas

7: Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas (US) Terry Gilliam

6: Saving Private Ryan (US) Steven Spielberg

5: What Dreams May Come (US) Vincent Ward

4: Fallen (US) Gregory Hoblit

3: Blade (US) Stephen Norrington

2: Ronin (US) John Frankenheimer

1: Ringu (Japan) Hideo Nakata

1999

20: The Sixth Sense (US) M Night Shyamalan

19: Girl, Interrupted (US) James Mangold

18: The Green Mile (US) Frank Darabont

17: Shiri (SK) Kang je Gyu

16: The Iron Giant (US) Brad Bird

15: American Pie (US) Paul Weitz, Chris Weitz

14: Existenz (Canada/UK/France) David Cronenberg

13: Ghost Dog (US/France/Germany/Japan) Jim Jarmusch

12: Music Of The Heart (US) Wes Craven

11: Office Space (US) Mike Judge

10: The Mummy (US) Stephen Sommers

9: Fight Club (US/Germany) David Fincher

8: Man On The Moon (US) Milos Forman

7: Dogma (US) Kevin Smith

6: End Of Days (US) Peter Hyams

5: Audition (Japan) Takashi Miike

4: South Park (US) Trey Parker

3: The Matrix (US/OZ) The Wachowski Brothers

2: The Blair Witch Project (US) Daniel Myrick Eduardo Sanchez

1: Bangkok Dangerous (Thailand) The Pang Brothers

2000

10: Almost Famous. (USA) Cameron Crowe.

9: Gladiator (USA/UK). Ridley Scott.

8: Best In Show (USA). Christopher Guest.

7: Dancer in The Dark (Denmark). Lars Von Trier.

6: Unbreakable (USA). M Night Shyamalan

5: Pitch Black (USA). David Twohy

4: X-Men (USA). Bryan Singer

3: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (China/HK/Taiwan/USA). Ang Lee.

2: Final Destination (USA). James Wong

1: Battle Royale (Japan). Kinji Fukasaku

2001

10: The Majestic (US) Frank Darabont

9: Ichi The Killer (Japan) Takashi Miike

8: Session 9 (US) Brad Anderson

7: The Mummy Returns (US) Stephen Sommers

6: Frailty (US/Germany/Italy) Bill Paxton

5: Bully (US) Larry Clark

4: Visitor Q (Japan) Takashi Miike

3: Mulholland Drive (US/France) David Lynch

2: The Fellowship Of The Ring (NZ/US): Peter Jackson

1: Amelie (France/Germany) Jean Pierre Jeunet

2002

10: City Of God (Brazil) Fernando Meirelles

9: Equilibrium (US) Kurt Wimmer

8: Hero (China) Zhang Yimou

7: Infernal Affairs (HK) Andrew Lau/Alan Mak

6: The Pianist (France/Germany/Poland/UK) Roman Polanski

5: Dark Water (Japan) Hideo Nakata

4: The Eye (HK/Singapore) The Pang Brothers

3: The Twilight Samurai (Japan) Yoji Yamada

2: 28 Days Later (UK) Danny Boyle

1: Sympathy For Mr Vengeance (SK) Chan Wook Park

2003

10: The Dreamers (UK/US/France/Italy) Bernardo Bertolucci

9: Underworld (US/UK/Hungary/Germany) Len Wiseman

8: Kill Bill Vol 1 (US) Quentin Tarantino

7: A Mighty Wind (US) Christopher Guest

6: The Curse of The Black Pearl (US) Gore Verbinski

5: Zatoichi (Japan) Takeshi Kitano

5. Oldboy (SK) Chan Wook Park

4: A Tale Of Two Sisters (SK) Kim Jee Woon

3: Ju On (Japan) Takashi Shimizu

2: The Return Of The King (NZ/US) Peter Jackson

1: X2 (US) Bryan Singer

2004

10: District 13 (France) Pierre Morel

9: A Very Long Engagement (France) Jean Pierre Jeunet

8: R-Point (SK) Kong Su Chang

7: Shaun Of The Dead (UK/US/France) Edgar Wright

6: Spider-Man 2 (US) Sam Raimi

5: House Of Flying Daggers (China/HK) Zhang Yimou

4: Saw (US) James Wan

3: The Grudge (US) Takashi Shimizu

2: Kill Bill Volume 2 (US) Quentin Tarantino

1: Dawn Of The Dead (US) Zach Snyder

2005

10: Land Of The Dead (US) George A Romero

9: Hostel (US) Eli Roth

8: A Bittersweet Life (SK) Kim Jee Woon

7: Sympathy For Lady Vengeance (SK) Chan Wook Park

6: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (US) Shane Black

5: The Descent (UK) Neil Marshall

4: The 40 Year Old Virgin (US) Judd Apatow

3: Revenge Of The Sith (US) George Lucas

2: Sin City (US) Frank Miller/Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino

1: Batman Begins (US/UK) Christopher Nolan

2006

10: Paprika (Japan) Satoshi Kon

9: The Host (SK) Joon-ho Bong

8: Death Note (Japan) Shusuke Kaneko

7: Idiocracy (US) Mike Judge

6: Children Of Men (US/UK) Alfonso Cuaron/Pan’s Labyrinth Guillermo Del Toro.

5: The Hills Have Eyes (US) Alexandre Aja

4: The Departed (US) Martin Scorsese

3: Apocalypto (US/Mexico) Mel Gibson

2: Borat (US/UK) Larry Charles

1: Casino Royale (US/UK/Czech/Germany) Martin Campbell

2007

10: Black Snake Moan (US) Craig Brewer

9: Sweeny Todd (US/UK) Tim Burton

8: Grindhouse (US) Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino

7: Angel-A (France) Luc Besson

6: 30 Days Of Night (US) David Slade

5: Paranormal Activity (US) Oren Peli

4: 28 Weeks Later (UK/Spain) Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

3: The Mist (US) Frank Darabont

2: Enchanted (US) Kevin Lima

1: Rec (Spain) Jaume Balaguero/Paco Plaza

2008

10: Johnny Mad Dog (France/Liberia) Jean-Stephane Sauvaire

9: Pontypool (Canada) Bruce McDonald

8: Cloverfield (US) Matt Reeves

7: Rambo (US/Thailand) Sylvester Stallone

6: Ip Man (HK) Wilson Yip

5: Let The Right One In (Sweden) Tomas Alfredson

4: Departures (Japan) Yojiro Takita

3: Martyrs (France) Pascal Laugier

2: The Dark Knight (US/UK) Christopher Nolan

1: Love Exposure (Japan) Sion Sono

2009

10: Dead Snow (Norway) Tommy Wirkola

9: The Princess And The Frog (US) Disney

8: Micmacs (France) Jean Pierre Jeunet

7: Jennifer’s Body (US) Karyn Kusama

6: Antichrist (Denmark/France/Germany/Italy/Poland/Sweden) Lars Von Trier

5: Trick R Treat (US/Canada) Michael Dougherty

4: Triangle (UK/OZ) Christopher Smith

3: Inglourious Basterds (US/Germany) Quentin Tarantino

2: Drag Me To Hell (US) Sam Raimi

1: Orphan (US/Canada/Germany/France) Jaume Collet Serra

2010

11. Inception

10. Kick-ass

9. The Expendables

8. Kaboom!

7. Tangled

6. Ip Man 2

5. The Last Exorcism

4. Bedevilled

3. Stake Land

2. Paranormal Activity 2

1. I Saw The Devil

Enjoy!

City Of God – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 2002, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is City Of God, by Fernando Meirelles, a Brazilian crime drama following the intertwining lives of childhood gang members and drug dealers from the 1960s to the 1980s in a favela which increasingly becomes violent and hopeless.

Sales: 4. A smash hit in terms of Brazilian cinema, making ten times its budget. It was the one foreign movie your American mate had seen and used to sound enlightened.

Critical Consensus: 5. Universal acclaim. Inexplicably not nominated for Best Foreign Film at The Oscars. Still held up as one of the best films of the 21st Century.

Director: 5. It’s the best thing Fernando Meirelles’ best film and he gets down into the dirt. It feels like a renegade first time director, except he had been making movies for twenty years by this point. He handles the epic story and cast of characters, the politics, the violence, and imbues it all with a searing style which burns into your memory.

Performances: 4. Raw is the word. Most of the cast were not actors, lending to much of the hyper-realization of the film. You wouldn’t know they were actors, or not actors.

Characters: 3. There have been plenty of gang movies over the years with large casts, focusing on kids or teens. While the characters range from sympathetic to psychotic, and while the setting may have been unique for the time, we have seen these types of characters plenty of times before.

Cinematography: 4. It’s a grim, dark tale, reminiscent of the more horrible aspects of gangster movies, but it’s set in sun-kissed Brazil, but it’s set in the sweaty, over-populated, slumland favellas. I’ll admit that it’s hard for me to separate sun from good things, coming from a perma-grey country in terms of weather, landscape, and outlook. When it’s sunny, I feel better. When I see sun, I think only good things apply. Nonsense of course, but there’s always some lingering whisper when I watch a horror movie set in daylight, or a story of violence against a bright backdrop. Ignoring all of that, as you should, it looks great and feels blistering and claustrophobic.

Writing: 4. Based on the semi-autobiographical novel of the same name, it pulls no punches when it comes to gang warfare, loyalty, and police corruption, how decisions and actions will always come with a deadly caveat, how crime is inescapably generational. It’s shockingly frank in how young the characters are.

Plot: 3. As good as the directing, writing, and performances are, the story isn’t wildly different from other crime movies you’ve seen, typically focused on the Mafia, Yakuza, Triad etc. We have warring gangs killing for control, members rising through the ranks, and it’s seen from the eyes of a bystander of sorts – a photographer who dreams of escape and survival.

Wardrobe: 4. Honestly, I’m not sure with this one. It all seems so authentic that the actors simply came in off the streets wearing their normal clothes. I’m sure there’s more to it, but depending on the viewer I think 2-4 is the range here.

Editing: 3. The only reason this isn’t higher is because there’s a little too much of the handheld swinging around out of focus for my tastes. This was all the rage back then – at least here it is used to heighten the chaotic nature of the violence, but over-used.

Make-up and Hair: 3. I’ll go lower here as I went higher on wardrobe.

Effects: 3. Not much, beyond the odd squib.

Art and Set: 4. While much of the film takes place on the streets, the interiors are suitably glum, messy, jam-packed, squashed, and detailed.

Sound And Music: 4. I’m no expert, but it’s a very modern, Latin flavoured soundtrack and score, moving between lithe beats to frenetic dance bangers, with a few familiar hits from the 70s and beyond. It all paints a picture of Favela life, but taken out of context feels like your summer holiday soundtrack.

Cultural Significance: 4. I could go 5 here, maybe if you’re in Brazil you could push for it. The early Noughties was an impressive time for world cinema, with many voices emerging or peaking around the world and spreading beyond their normal boundaries. City Of God was one of the earliest and most impressive examples of this, opening a gateway to South America while also highlighting the existence of Brazil’s criminal underbelly and unique storytelling to many.

Accomplishment: 4. A major accomplishment to get the film off the ground, then to have it be so good, then to have it be such a global success.

Stunts: 3. While there is action, it is more close quarters, guerrilla gunplay than John Woo antics. Elsewhere, it’s foot chases through busy, narrow alleys than big budget car chases.

Originality: 3. Go higher if you feel the setting warrants it, but many films have told big screen stories such as this.

Miscellaneous: 4. It went on to generate a sequel and a TV show, with some actors returning (as different characters). I haven’t seen the show, must get on that.

Personal: 5. It’s one of the best films from the early 2000s and is an excellent gateway film for those wishing to dip their toes into foreign cinema.

Total Score: 76/100

Let us know in the comments what you think of City Of God!

Aladdin – Get Rekt!

Greetings, Glancers! Today I run a more critical eye over my tenth favourite movie of the year 1992, seeking to ignore my bias and provide a fair score based on the 20 criteria I feel are most important in the creation of a film. Today’s movie is Disney’s Aladdin, one of the central results of the Disney Renaissance, a Romantic Adventure led by Robin Williams and set in the world of Arabian Nights. 

Sales: 5. There are going to be a lot of 5s dished out when it comes to any Disney movies which feature in my Top Tens. This was smack bang in the middle of the Renaissance, when anything the company released gobbled up every penny going. It made over half a billion at release and has probably made something similar in the time since.

Critical Consensus: 4. Potentially a 5 as this was universally acclaimed and the time and remains seen as a high point now, but several critics did give negative reviews concerning what even some of the positive reviews called out – racial stereotypes.

Director: 4. Musker & Clements reteamed after The Little Mermaid, bringing another romance but this time one with a heavier action and comedy slant. It’s a feast for the eyes, ears, and heart. Feel free to go 5 here. My only criticism is that it feels a little by the numbers Disney, but you could just as easily flip that to a positive by saying it does what Disney does best.

Performances: 5. Robin Williams is obviously the star of the show but Scott Weinger and Linda Larkin hold their own as Aladdin and Jasmine, Jonathan Freeman does a great, sneering Jafar, and Gilbert Gottfried pierces everyone’s earholes as Iago. It’s arguably the best performed Disney film ever.

Characters: 4. Classic characters/archetypes are given a bit of an American white-washing, but at their core it’s a universal bunch; the slum kid with a heart, the lonely Princess who yearns for independence, the clearly insane genie, the hapless Sultan and his scheming, power hungry advisor. Plus the side characters like Abu, Iago, even a mute flying Carpet all have endearing qualities.

Cinematography: 4. It’s not quite as gorgeous as Beauty And The Beast but again showcases a leap forwards in scope and an expansion into CG.

Writing: 4. The plot is standard fare, brought into the modern day with a less subservient Princess and some meta wit. Plus Robin Williams ad libs and goes off with his own shtick which may hit or miss depending on each individual.

Plot: 3. It’s a rags to riches story, a romance, and a story of redemption all in one. The writing and performances raise what is hardly the most original plot.

Wardrobe: 4. From the sheer number of main and backing characters on screen, particularly in the town and parade scenes, to the attention to detail in what would have been seen as exotic for Disney, it’s all stunning.

Editing: 4. Well handled in the set pieces and services the overall pace.

Make up and Hair: 3. Detailed for the time though not as iconic as some Disney films for me.

Effects: 4. In the more adventurous scenes – the Cave Of Wonders, the Whole New World scene, the climax, it’s a visual and exciting treat.

Art and Set: 4. From Day 1 Disney has known how to create worlds and dreams, palaces, and memorable places. Aladdin is no different.

Sound And Music: 5. A step down from Beauty And The Beast but stronger than most. It’s not just about one song. You have the centrepiece, but you also have One Jump Ahead, Arabian Nights, and Prince Ali. Never Had A Friend Like Me is fine too. One of the more consistently strong Disney scores.

Cultural Significance: 4. Difficult to assess as a standalone because The Little Mermaid spearheaded the Renaissance, Beauty And The Beast was the crowning achievement, and The Lion King was the fan favourite. Aladdin was the next in a line of hits. It did lead to sequels, a TV show, and the inevitable remake, but whether it kickstarted an interest in Arabian media is unlikely. Arguably its greatest impact was in placing a major household name in the cast, which would become the norm.

Accomplishment: 4. It’s easy to overlook how much effort and work was put into this, because we take it for granted that Disney movies will just be good. It’s often more difficult to appreciate the work that goes into an Animated film. Plus, when the film works you don’t think about the years it took to bring it to completion. This was a step up in scope for Disney, with more characters on screen and more complexity than other films they’d already made.

Stunts: 4. Can you give an animated movie a high score for Stunts? While there’s no traditional, physical, dude in a suit jumping off a building, stunts here, you should then question how the action makes you feel. Is it bland? Exhilarating? Does it offer something you haven’t seen before? Does it do it with style? My score tells you how I feel.

Originality: 3. It’s a modern re-telling of an ancient tale, or a number of ancient tales. Boy meets girl. Poor boy wants to be rich. Bad guy wants power. Girl wants to be heard. Dude gets three wishes. These stories are ingrained upon us from youth. But it tells them in a fresh, up-tempo, 90s era fashion.

Miscellaneous: 4. I saw it at the Cinema, does that count? The made for TV sequel and TV show actually weren’t too bad, and the videogame adaptation was notoriously difficult. All helps to create a package which feels less cynical than today’s big budget cash grabs. But that could just be nostalgia talking.

Personal: 5. It’s one of my favourite Disney movies. Top 5. Of course it’s going to get a 5 from me. I pretty much only do musicals if they’re Disney and they’re animated. This is peak Disney, right before they jumped to CG, and has everything I want in one of their movies – heart, adventure, laughs, memorable songs, wonderful characters, and a world of pure imagination.

Total Score: 79/100.

Is that our highest movie score so far? Am I going to check? What’s your own score? Let us know in the comments!