Cinephilia

Retarted Ending

It all started when some kid wanted to make a point about Open Water. Since then it's gone on to become one of the only message boards on iMDB that's actually worth reading!

Can a minor really understand the psychological depth of a film like, ahem, Open Water? Join the debate!

Death Of The Pink Panther

Steve Martin... a remake... no press screenings. I had a bad feeling about this. But ours at Sky Movies is not to reason why, and the review had to be done. So, come 11.30 am on Friday, there I was on the Kings Road, blending in with a borrowed Barbour and cinnamon-topped cappuccino, after tracking down the earliest public showing of The Pink Panther to Cineworld Chelsea.

When the lights went down, there were five of us in there. One bloke was definitely a critic (notepad, Guardian, barnet suggesting that 'comb' is a four-letter word)... and the old chap with the bicycle clips wasn't the kind of punter you'd normally expect to be first in line for the latest Beyonce Knowles flick. At this point, I must thank all at Cineworld for showing mercy by sparing us any adverts and trailers and getting on with the main torture.

After having big-screen battery acid poured into my eyes and ears for 93 minutes, I groggily noticed that there were only two of us left. Even the woman who'd laughed when Clouseau knocked a cyclist off his bike for the first time had gone. Three early exits from five. That's a 60% walk-out - which is lower than it deserves.

With the arrogant and oh-so-punchable Steve Martin showing all the comic timing of a Thai-made Rolex and gags so lame they make Douglas Bader look like Paula Radcliffe, The Pink Panther is clinical depression in celluloid form.

In the name of all that is good and right in this world, I implore you to avoid this pitifully unfunny excuse for an entertainment.

A Rock And A Head Case

You know when I was a mere strip of a lad hacking away at Sky News, now and again Lowri Turner would pop in to give her thoughts on what people were wearing. You know at the Oscars or the BAFTAs or whatever. Inoffensive stuff in tne mainand she seemed nice enough, if a bit full of herself.

But, what have we here

It seems the pint sized gobshite has turned her razor sharp mind to matters political and gay. Hmmm, one of the nastiest most ill-informed pieces of Op-Ed it's been my misfortune to see in a while. I'm assuming that she wrote it for the Western Mail thinking her (gay and straight) media mates in London would never see it.

I can only suggest you email the link to all your friends in television, radio and newspapers suggesting they never employ her again. Go on. You know it makes sense (and you do have some friends in the media, don't you?)

Mike Taylor

EDIT: No, I'm not gay, but you really don't need to be to be offended by this.

EDIT 2: It's been suggested we set up the (Lowri) Turner Prize for the piece of writing that, in the opinion of the judges, most wants to make them remove the writer's spleen with some rusty razor wire. Over to you...

The Cod Da Vinci

The Da Vinci code is one of the most anticipated movies of the year. So i figured I'd better read the book and what all the fuss is about. And lets face it, like the book, the film is destined to make a multi-national mint.

But Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) spends a third of the book to going from a museum to a bank. In that time he stands talking Amile and then jumps out of a window.

Most of the time Amilie Sophie says "What?" and Langdon responds with 3 pages of cod Christian history. How do you turn that into a movie? Will Hanks talk to camera? Can you really be bothered to listen to the same long, drawn out speeches if you've already read the book?

"Well Sophie, it all began in 65BC..." ZZZzzzzz. BORING

If Ron Howard populates these story-heavy scenes with flashbacks and imagery then the movie has the potential to be Hudson Hawk in disguise. Besides, the producer said he wanted to make the movie the closest he could to being the same experience as reading the book. Well, wouldn't it be a better idea to just, well, read the book?

Richard Phippen

Bending Over For Oscar

This year’s BAFTA nominations are out and the ballyhoo is uncontained. But do the British Academy awards have any real significance?

Over the last few years, BAFTA has done everything in its power to align its awards shindig with that of its American cousin, bringing forward the date of the ceremony and including as many potential Oscar nominees as possible.

According to its own website, one of BAFTA’s main purposes is “benefiting the public”. Presumably, this means the British public?

If this is the case, why are so many of this years’ nominations from American movies which the vast majority of the British public have not yet seen?

Capote, Syriana, North Country, Walk The Line, Good Night, And Good Luck... At the time they were nominated, none of these films were on general release in the UK and some aren’t due for release until after the awards are handed out.

One of the rules for eligibility at the Oscars is that a film must be viewable to the public (even in a limited fashion) by December 31 of the previous year. The only rule for inclusion in the BAFTA race appears to be that some BAFTA members might have seen the movie.

This elitist and unfair approach has backfired as DVD screeners of Steven Spielberg’s Munich were sent out in the wrong format, thus scuppering the chances of an obvious favourite.

As a result, Munich isn’t among the nominations which changes the complexion and outcome of the whole ceremony. Whatever wins, would BAFTA have preferred it to Spielberg’s non-runner? And will voters remember it next year?

BAFTA needs to acknowledge its self-proclaimed duty to the British public, re-establish its own identity and stop acting like the London branch of the American Academy. Because, at the moment, the BAFTAs aren’t much more than Oscar’s bitch.

Elliott Noble

It's Deja Vu All Over Again...

We are used to seeing multiple sequels churned out, year after year, as the studios seek to cash in no the occasional successes they have. After all, studio execs have a limited time in their job before they deliver one flop too many and find themselves on the way back down the slippery slope. So it's inevitable they will green light something that they already know audiences enjoy.

But it isn't just the sequels that have got my back up of late, it's the alarming lack of originality in general. Remakes, book adaptations and sequels will make up over a quarter of ALL movies scheduled for release in 2006. About 35 out of 176 movies currently listed for release were not original ideas. From adapts of TV shows (Miami Vice), adapts of comic books (V For Vendetta) remakes (The Fog), sequels to comic book adapts (Sin City 2) and, most alarmingly of all, remakes of sequels to remakes (The Grudge 2).

When I was a kid I dreamt of there being a movie version of my favourite books and tv shows - "Grange Hill the movie? that would be cool!" Only the guys that are saying 'cool' are not 12 year old boys playing with their Tonka trucks, but full blown suits in Hollywood. Maybe it's my generation calling the shots now, saying yes to the things we dreamed of as kids. If this was so, surely the end products wouldn't be so consistently bad.

For example, you will not find a movie more vacuous and devoid of originality than Starsky & Hutch or The Dukes Of Hazzard. Novelty props, character names and outfits, like Daisy's shorts, are not enough to touch the old-school appreciation nerve.

And you know what? While we continue to buy the tickets, it ain't gonna change anytime soon.
Rich

CLICK HERE NOW for a list of what they said - and what we think about the big movies out in 2006.

Rich Phippen

Bourne Again...

I watched The Bourne Supremacy again last night. Nothing strange in that, you may think. But it's getting to levels bordering on obsession. Yes, I watch The Bourne Supremacy all the time. Even when I could be venturing out to capture Spielberg's Munich, I'd much rather be watching Matt Damon closing in on nasty Brian Cox. Of course, the story of how Mossad tracked down the killers of the Israeli Olympic athletes is of real political importance. But it's just not as exciting as Matt making his way up Europe to track down the killers of his girlfriend.

Jason Bourne's trail of vengeance may be just a film and one that did reasonably well at the box office. But I think it's much more than that. I think all thrillers should be made this way. What's so good about it? Well, it doesn't hang around. It's all sleight of hand - you never really see anything. When Jason's taking out a duplicitous fellow operative in a designer Munich house (a coincidence, I'm sure) you never see a punch thrown. When he's evading capture in Berlin's Alexanderplatz, he shakes off his pursuers...but you don't see how. It's left up to you to viscerally imagine the excruciating deaths and soul-sapping powerlessness as Jase slips through the net.

The BS also boasts one of the best car chases in recent years. Ronin wasn't far off the mark, but the grinding, concussive tyre scream through Moscow's drizzly streets makes you feel the seat-belt busting thwack of every collision. Every minute of its lean 108 minute running time is pure adrenaline-pumping pleasure.

They've just announced the new Bond. Apparently GoldenEye director Martin Campbell is back in the chair. Why didn't they put out the call to Bourne director Paul Greengrass? If any thriller franchise needed a gritty kick in the pants, it's the bloated carcass that Bond's become. One lipsmacking potential scenario is Daniel Craig's 007 coming out head-to-head with Bourne Three - with Damon and Greengrass both back on board. Until then, I'll make do with...well, you know what I'll make do with.

Tim Evans