Archive for February, 2010
Saturday, February 20th, 2010
Revisiting ‘Dark City’
I’ve never been one for Director’s Cuts. Mostly, you can see why various scenes were removed and in some cases (*coughDonnieDarkocough*) would arguably have been far lesser films if someone hadn’t got out the digital scissors… But then there’s Dark City.
When I first saw the enigmatic trailer, the cryptic mix of film noir evolving into science fiction was always going to win a place in my heart. It was never a film for everyone but with a budget of $27 million, did it have to be?
But, despite the stellar, understated performances, the amazing production design and my own affection for the film, some things always niggled…
If you’ve seen it, then you know the theatrical cut starts with Kiefer Sutherland’s cat-out-of-the-bag voiceover that was the narrative equivalent of watching The Sixth Sense while sitting next to Bruce Willis wearing his ‘my character is a ghost’ sandwich-board. I then saw the film for the second time with the lovely Heather who, despite liking the film, didn’t like that the soundtrack score never bloody shut up.
Both these things were forced on the film by execs who didn’t trust audiences with the patience for the developing mystery. Surely the fun, if not the point, of the film was to follow amnesiac John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) as he wakes up accused of murder in a sunless city.
But when I picked up the recent Director’s Cut, I was amazed at how much slicker and pacier the whole film felt - which is impressive considering the new version is fifteen minutes longer than its original hour and a half. Gone is the voiceover so you are now drawn in without being talked down to. Also, the music has been re-scored in several places so no one is trying to add a frantic chase soundtrack to dialogue scenes.
But, perhaps most importantly (aside from it now being Jennifer Connelly singing instead of lip-synching a smoky jazz club number) are those added minutes. Now William Hurt’s overwhelmed detective doesn’t make a sudden character U-turn. Now the audience witness more of the strangeness along with Murdoch instead of before him and new special effects show a gradual growth in his abilities (as well as adding some new nice touches to other set pieces)
If you haven’t seen Dark City in a while then I strongly recommend picking the Director’s Cut up for a few quid and seeing the difference. If you haven’t seen Dark City at all, then I suggest you ignore the theatrical cut completely.
But if you’ve seen either version what did you think? For me, the Director’s Cut - while not making it perfect - has definitely boosted Dark City to being one of my favourite films.
Thursday, February 11th, 2010
Does Superman need to hit people?
(WARNING: May contain fanboy trying to be objective!)
Originally, this was going to be a post called ‘Does the bad guy have to die?’ but the recent announcement that Chris Nolan will be ‘Godfathering’ the next Superman film has me contemplating the fate of the Man of Steel on the silver screen.
When Superman Returns was on over Christmas, the usual jibe that the plot is ‘Superman lifts a series of increasingly heavy objects’ (Oops…possible spoilers 
) started appearing on twitter and that what we all really wanted was to see Superman scrapping with some kind of giant beastie. But this instantly brings up the other general moan about Superman; that he’s ‘just too powerful’. So who’s he going to hit?
When DC Comics published The Death of Superman in the 90s (and had a younger me sobbing unashamedly) they created the mysterious creature nicknamed ‘Doomsday’.
For anyone who hasn’t read it, the premise is basically that Superman and Doomsday duke it out across American and into Metropolis. A lot of the actual plot or story is carried by the rest of the cast (Lois Lane and other less powerful superheroes) looking on, reacting in horror and helplessness. But, having re-read this story older and slightly more cynically, I did start to wonder why Superman didn’t just throw Doomsday up into space. But, again, doesn’t that just count as the ‘lifting a heavy object’ plot?
Hmmn. So what to do?
I’ve always thought that – apart from Lex Luthor – the best nemesis for Superman is that, for all his speed and strength, he still can’t be in two places at once. He can’t save everyone. To my mind, at its best, Smallville gets it right, primarily as the onus is on the Clark Kent/ Superman balance. Most episodes DO end with him turning up and punching someone in the nick of time to save his friends. But the fun of the episode is always whether Clark will find where he has to get to and who he has to punch someone and, more specifically, if he can get there in time without Lois noticing.
And I think this where Bryan Singer’s Superman went badly wrong. There was no mention of Clark for entire second half of the film. I’m not saying that Clark needed to be bumbling around Metropolis exploded. But the fact that the Daily Planet was evacuated and no one thought once to say ‘Hey, has anyone seen Clark?’ showed a different concern from the film-makers. But perhaps the Smallville structure only works due to it being an ongoing series than standalone feature that needs a third act.
To those who say that the ending of Superman Returns was anticlimactic, I can only say that (as is usual) the problem with the Ending was the Beginning and the Middle. But I do have a huge soft spot for the film – Superman, as a concept, is far more optimistic (or, indeed, soppy) than the likes of Batman in much the same as the difference in tone between Star Trek and Star Wars. But if the film had been as uplifting as the teaser trailer below, I, for one, would have been amazingly happy.
But ultimately, the finished film seemingly could not make up its mind what its main plot was. I’d say that the key flaw with Superman Returns wasn’t only that the makers decided against a big punch-up climax, but they really didn’t deliver on the Lois/Clark/Superman triangle either. Even if the film had ended with Supes pummelling Lex Luthor into villainous Spacey-chunks, we still probably wouldn’t have cared that much.
So while my answer to whether Superman has to hit people is probably ‘yes’… it’s not why I’ll be buying my ticket. What about you?
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
What makes a film a ‘Best Picture’?
Described as the most important of the Oscars, Best Picture always seems to be the most contoversial - probably because it’s the vaguest in terms of what it actually is. And this year’s selection is certainly a mixed (as well as much larger) bag.
So what does ‘Best Picture’ mean to you? When discussing with friends, I blithely claimed ‘You shouldn’t be up for Best Picture if you’re not up for Best Original/Adapted Screenplay’ which is, of course, mostly bollocks …Mostly (see how I steered the conversation round to James Cameron there?)
In terms of Avatar, there hasn’t been a Best Picture nominee not to receive a Screenplay nomination since, oh, Titanic. The James Cameron conspiracy continues 
But Titanic wasn’t the first. Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture without a screenplay nom but lost out to Annie Hall (which then went on to win both). But I don’t understand how you can compare Woody Allen and George Lucas (beyond arguing that both their earlier work was better) for making the film of the year.
It’s curious that they’ve taken the number of nominees back up to 10. While it’s nice for certain films to be acknowledged, should you be nominated if you haven’t really got a chance of winning? (But then do the Oscars actually mean much beyond the personal choices of the Academy and possibly a bit of Hollywood politics?)
So is Best Picture the film that’s better than the sum of its parts? The film the Academy wants to be remembered for choosing? An award for taking film in a new direction or against the trends of the last few years? I’d say it can be all of those things. But is that varied message why we sometimes think, in past years, that the Academy clearly got it ‘wrong’?
And who do you want to see win Best Picture 2010? And what the hell makes it ‘Best Picture’ anyway?
