100 Movies to see before you die - part 1 (war)

Over the next few months, I'll be doing a run-down of my top 100 movies to see before you die. Rather than rate them and put them in order 1 - 100, I've decided to categorise them into genre. First up, we have the WAR section. It's a royal shame I can't put BAND OF BROTHERS into here, but with it being a mini-series, it'll have to hang about until I go through my favourite television episodes of all time. As I've said, these are in no order, but here are the eight war movies that make it into my top 100.

100. SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
Pulling no punches at number 100 is Spielberg's most thought-provoking film to date. I first watched this at school when I was 14. I didn't really understand everything that was going on but even then I was stunned by the mastery of the story, characters and direction. Liam Neeson delivers his best ever performance as Oskar Shindler, a businessman who witnessed the devastating terror of genocide and managed to save over a thousand Jews from certain death. It doesn't top IMDb's best war movies list for nothing - a true masterpiece and one of the most powerful films ever made.


99. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)
Staying with Spielberg, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is the most powerful film I've ever seen. I remember watching this at school in an English class. Take a bunch of 15-year-old boys and tell them they're going to watch a war movie. The reaction is pure delight - blood, shooting, death - just what teenage boys want. We watched the movie from start to finish and no-one uttered a single word. We all just sat there, completely shocked by what we saw. I don't generally cry but if any film is going to make me - it's this one. From the assault on Omaha Beach to the defence of the bridge with Private Ryan, this film is the most brutal, realistic and amazing film in the genre.


98. GOOD MORNING VIETNAM (1987)
Taking a new look at the Vietnam war, Robin Williams plays a radio host whose job it is to boost the moral of the American troops. The film rests a lot on a good understanding of the conflict and if you're not a fan of William's humour, you'll probably hate this film. Nevertheless, GOOD MORNING VIETNAM alternates between black comedy and brutal death, taking the audience on a mixed journey through the invasion.


97. PLATOON (1986)
Again, concentrating on the Vietnam war, PLATOON follows an American Private as he joins up with his squad and makes his way through the pillaged country. The film pulls no punches in its accurate portrayal of the conflict, often showing brutal murders and near-rapes by American soldiers. The best thing about this film is that it doesn't end at the close of the war. We follow one soldier's journey and as he leaves, the war continues. The tense character conflict throughout builds up to the most iconic image in 80s cinema - Willem Defoe's desperate cry for help upon his death.


96. BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001)
This Ridley Scott war adventure tells the story of the famous near-disaster when an 'indestructible' Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Somalia in 1993. The unique thing about this film is that it never focuses on one particular character. Rather than following one soldier through the conflict, we see every soldier's point of view. It takes some getting used to but allows for much more depth in the storytelling.


95. TEARS OF THE SUN (2003)
TEARS OF THE SUN tells the story of a Special-Ops squad who go behind enemy lines in Nigeria to extract an important doctor. With amazing gunfire and brutal realism, this film produces on every level. While focusing heavily on action, the character development is what drives the story and makes it one of the most emotional war movies to date.


94. TROY (2004)
If you can get past the annoyance of Brad Pitt's American accent, TROY is actually a very good war film. Based on Homer's The Illiad, we follow legendary warlord Achilles as he battles through the Trojan War. To do an accurate portrayal of Homer's work would be unreasonable. What works well in an ancient Greek epic poem, doesn't always transfer well onto screen. What the film excels at is in capturing the true character of Achilles and the relationship with his men. Combine that with spectacular action and battle scenes, you have a truly epic war movie.


93. 300 (2006)
300 received a lot of stick for its inaccuracy but as someone who knows a fair bit about the ancient Spartans, it's quite accurate. Captured through the unique eye of Zack Snyder, 300 follows King Leonidas as he marches out of Sparta and stares down the nose of thousands of invading Persians. A perfect tale of honour and bravery, 300 has captured the spirit of ancient Sparta and (semi)educated a whole generation in the warriors that were the Spartans.

David S. Goyer - The Dialogue

It would be an understatement to say that David S. Goyer was a successful screenwriter. The guy has written the likes of the BLADE trilogy, BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT (story) and the upcoming X-MEN ORIGINS: MAGNETO movie. He's the go-to guy when it comes dark action films. Anyone who knows his work will have a very strong idea of what to expect from his writing.

The Dialogue is a shiny website hosting interviews with tonnes of great writers. You can see samples online and order the DVDs. Goyer's interview is extremely insightful and makes great viewing. Here is is for your viewing eyes:

Great Movie Openings

What makes a good opening to a movie? In my opinion, it's an opening that says something about the movie itself - grabs your attention, tells you what to expect, sets the tone, introduces characters etc.

My all time favourite opening is in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. This assault on Omaha Beach is brutally shocking and brilliant cinema. It's made all the more powerful by the fact that it actually happened. The epic 20 minute long opening is split into two parts for your shiny viewing:

PART 1


PART 2

The TERMINATOR movies have always started with flashforwards to the nuclear war and a powerful voice over. The best one is by far in TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY. It very cleverly introduces John Conner, tells you what to expect in terms of tone and action and also pitches the movie to you. For some reason, I can't seem to embed any videos to this, so check it out on youtube here.

PULP FICTION has an incredible opening, again setting the tone for the movie. In classic Tarantino fashion, the witty dialogue and situation placing makes for brilliant comedy and drama:

Now think back to the first time you saw THE MATRIX - you had no idea what it was about. Who are the good guys? The bad guys? I didn't know. And it's that confusion that the opening plays on. Take a look as it ticks all those opening boxes - tone, characters, action, tension, interest, questions.

These are just a few of my favourite film openings. I could go on and on but then I'd be embedding videos all day. What are your favourite openings and why? Let me know.

X-Men + The OC = Blissful Hell?

I read about this in shiny SFX a few months ago and thought it might be a joke, but apparently Josh Schwartz is to make an X-Men film (or TV show). Schwartz has been very succesful on TV, his biggest feat being the creation of THE OC. But does this guy know anything about comic books?

The article is here - let me know what you think. Will it be great? Will is be absolute shite? I'm leaning towards the latter at the moment.

Resulting film would likely draw from elements of the Marvel comic of the same name, launched in 2006, and enlist such characters as Iceman, Rogue, Angel, Colossus, Jubilee and Shadowcat, who have appeared prominently or made cameos in prior pics.

Connor Conclusion

We're getting near the conclusion of TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES over here in the UK (Thursdays 10pm, Virgin 1). The beginning of the season was top notch - easily as good as season 1. Then it hit a downfall. The middle episodes of T:tSCC have been a real disappointment, as I've been discussing with Dan here.

The first season had some really fun and cool scenes like this one:



The show got insanely boring and I was so close to forgetting the whole thing. To be honest, the only thing that kept me watching was my dedicated loyalty to all things Whedon. Summer Glau - who plays Cameron in T:tSCC - also played River in Joss Whedon's FIREFLY. I know she's an amazing actress. She proved this in every episode of FIREFLY, but for me, the only work that's come close in T:tSCC is this scene with John:

Dan says the finale is set to be pretty good, but who knows. The middle of the season was boring crap and nothing compared to the beginning. Although it is picking up - the last two episodes have been pretty good. For me, the shiny highlight of the season so far has been this scene in episode one.

Cameron has just been blown up (in the jeep) and Sarah and John are in a world of trouble. Something to note (for those who know what happens with John and that man in the room - why he is dead) - listen to the lyrics while Cameron is taking out man #1 - the song essentially narrates what is happening between John and man #2 in the room upstairs - very cleverly done. Check it out and let me know what you think:

Why TWILIGHT is a piece of fei-oo

This is a blog post about the film TWILIGHT as opposed to the book. I haven't read Stephenie Meyer so I have no idea about how much of the story is hers etc. So for all intensive purposes, I'm talking about the film and not the book. Every time I say the film is a bunch of crap, I just get a disbelieving sigh from fans. So it's time to justify my verdict.

First of all, the apparent primary appeal of this film seems to be Robert Pattinson. Everyone says he's a complete unknown; they're clearly forgetting that he played a supporting role in HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE a few years back and had quite a good death scene. Nevertheless, he seems to be the thing attracting viewers. This is something I really don't understand, but that's a matter of opinion. What exactly is the appeal of Robert Pattinson? Is he really that attractive? Maybe it's because I'm a heterosexual male, but I'm capable of appreciating that other men are attractive. Robert Pattinson I just don't get.

So that brings us to the audience. The film is aimed at (needless to say) readers of the book. They announce that the film is being made and you tend to get two reactions from fans. First off, they think "Ooooh, shiny Twilight as a film". Then comes the security response - "Bet it's going to be shit compared to the book". They cover themselves. That way, if the film is really bad, they've said that it's the fault of the film, not the book. Which is true.

The film clearly targets young females. The plot is essentially "A teenage girl risks everything when she falls in love with a vampire". It's escapism for teenagers. Young women long to be swept up and carried to a far away land where normal, boring things don't happen. The risk of danger adds to the appeal. There's also that sexy vampire thing going on as well.

So if a film satisfies its target audience (teenage girls), has it done its job? In a way, yes. You can almost guarantee that no 14 year old girl is sitting down thinking about the poor dialogue, anti-climax ending or poor character development. They're seeing an 'attractive' vampire swooping in to take a normal girl out of her boring life. Job done.

This brings us onto the whole sexy vampire theme. It's something that's been done time and time again. Right from the birth of cinema, vampires have been portrayed as sexy characters (disregarding Nosferatu of course). So this is nothing new. If it were done well, we might be able to get past this, but the fact of the matter is that it's practically impossible to fulfill the sexy vampire role in a teenage film. For that, you're going to need an 18 rating and possibly leather. And even if we just focus on the imagined appeal of a vampire - without showing explicit content and thrusting bloodsucking into the viewers' face - it still doesn't produce. There are a few scenes where Edward is desperately close to Bella, but for me, that just seems like a poor substitute to the chemistry between Buffy and Angel.

The acting isn't bad. Obviously it's not Oscar-worthy, but it's not as if the stars are given desperately emotional scenes. If you think they were, turn the sound off in a truly emotional scene and it'll still be emotional. That's not the case in TWILIGHT. Too much of the emotion comes from the musical score. Film is a visual medium and that's what should come first.

For me, the best acting in the film comes from Kristen Stewart. She does her best with the choppy dialogue and awkward moments, but that's all. If she were given a more powerful role, I'm sure she'd do better.

Dialogue time. In any film like this, there are going to be some majorly corny lines, but people will forgive that for the sort of film it is.

Bella: How old are you?
Edward: Seventeen.
Bella: How long have you been seventeen?
Edward: A while.

Not exactly Shakespeare but we can get past it. But can we really deal with horrible lines like;

Bella: I'm not scared of you.
Edward: You really shouldn't have said that.

Where does that come from?! Telling someone you're not afraid of them is a bad thing? A good thing? A funny thing? Either way, it's horrible, pointless dialogue.

James - the badass of the piece (but I'm coming to this) - says this line: "Beautiful. Very visually dynamic. I chose my stage well". No self-respecting tracker vampire who hunts people for fun would ever say anything like that.

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point about the dialogue. As bad as it is, it does have a few funny, ironic lines, but nothing original or unique.

The structure of the movie. Along the way, we begin to realise that something is killing off townspeople. Readers of the book knew exactly who was responsible, but for the average audience, it seemed highly likely that it was one of Edward's family. Then suddenly - about two thirds of the way in - we meet the bad guys. Let me explain something they teach right at the beginning of screenwriting - introduce your villains early on.

The audience likes to know where they stand. Every action film shows the villain near the beginning so people know who they are. It gives time for the audience to appreciate and accept them as dangerous. This isn't the case in TWILIGHT. They come in and we suddenly realise that maybe it was them killing everyone. Ok, but the way they killed them was nothing special.

To really show that these vamps are badass, there should have been an earlier scene where we realise who they are and what they can do. Also, the only reason these vampires can be seen as 'bad' is because of who you compare them to. The Cullen family is all dressed up in nice shiny baseball outfits. Enter the bad guys - dressed in leather and walking slowly. If you take them and dump them in another film, they suddenly become less scary - Blade - for example - makes them look like teletubbies.

Essentially, James is the dangerous antagonist. He is apparently an unstoppable hunter. He likes to track and kill his prey but we have no real evidence of this so he's not scary. There should be a scene earlier on where James displays expert hunting skills, shows no mercy and kills someone in an extremely gruesome fashion. But alas this never came.

The Cullen family try to tempt him away and hit him with the old bait and switch. But James doesn't fall for it. Again, nothing original here. Even I could work out (in his position) that I was being tricked. So he finds Bella, breaks her leg, then Edward turns up. There's a tiny fight, then James is killed out of frame. This is a vampire who is "never gonna stop", yet after a small fight, a few baseball-playing vampires manage to can his ass. A very unsatisfying ending.

The entire film now rests on characterisation. There is none. A few characters learn a few things, and others get a bit happier, but there's nothing big. No character arc really.

Annoyingly, the film opens with Bella's narration, explaining who the guy sitting next to her is. He's her cop father. Oh, because we didn't understand that what with him calling her "sweetie" and wearing a cop's jacket and hat. The voice over is completely unnecessary.

All in all, the film fails to produce to the full extent. I think they tried to be too much like the book, forgetting that what works on the page rarely works on screen. So many of these problems could have been avoided had the film makers read a few screenwriting books and given their audience more respect.

I think that's all I have to say on TWILIGHT but it's been a while since I've seen it. If you want to tell me your opinion - agree, or shout your gorram head off at me - feel free to comment or even e-mail me - neilbaker27@yahoo.co.uk.

Neil.

War epics

It's been a busy week for me - hence the time since the last post. What with more organising of MICHAEL'S RESIGNATION and other projects as well as uni work and my part-time job, there hasn't been too much time for blogging. But guess what - I've got 2 weeks off from uni! Yay for me! I'll be doing uni work in the first week, but week 2 is all for writing, which will be nice and relaxing. Or do I mean insanely stressful.....? I'll also have some time for a social life, fancy that!

Anyway, for some random reason, I decided I'd like to write a war epic. I'm not talking about a film, I'm talking about a mini-series - think BAND OF BROTHERS set in a futuristic war with Brits. I spent a long time last night brainstorming...oops...sorry...mind mapping. Actually, my name for this is this - you're not doing a brainstorm, your doing a creative diagram. Sounds fancy and bullshitty yes? Good.

Anyway, I want my war epic to consist of 10 one-hour episodes, showing the adventures of a platoon in a futuristic war. That means at least 600 pages of warfare writing. Stupidly difficult but so much fun!

I've already decided that there will be no fancy laser guns or plasma grenades. For all intensive purposes, this is a brutal, realistic and risky futuristic war series.

I don't have a solid story yet (or even their primary, series mission) but there are a few ideas floating around. I enjoy the (cliched) idea of the band of soldiers having to retrieve some vital piece of info and escape enemy lines. But that's been done too many times. The plan now is to use that and exploit it, maybe adapting the idea or throwing it out the window early on.

Anyway, that's what I'm gradually working on at the moment.

In other news, I joined this facebook group Film Blogs. It does what it says on the tin. The creator saw my blog and decided to tell the rest of the group about it, which is always flattering. I urge you to join the group and network - a very useful tool and a great community.

I also received an e-mail from a chappy, asking me to read through his script to add an English perspective to it. Again, rather flattering and it shows that someone out there is actually reading all these random blog posts. So readers - I thank you.

At uni, I'm writing a script for one of my modules. Apparently I'm on track for a good grade in that, which bores well for next year; instead of writing a 10,000 word dissertation, I'm handing in one of my feature scripts. It's already in the first draft so I'm about two months ahead of everyone else. Mua haha. Mine is an evil laugh!

I think that's it really; lots going on and it's all good fun. Now back to some uni work and random messages with the MR crew. Have a shiny day.

Neil.