BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Joseph Whittle

Listed below are comments made by Joseph Whittle between Tuesday, 23rd June 2009 and Thursday, 10th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Christmas Movie Magic 5:42pm on 10 Dec 2009 Surely Efron's new effort gives you another chance to have a bit more Kermode-esque fun when purchasing tickets?

"Two tickets for me and Orson Welles please"
Screening Room: Disaster! 6:38pm on 18 Nov 2009 The best disaster movie never made has to be The Drowned World, JG Ballard's first novel, and one of the first to feature people actually welcoming the end of the world.

In movie terms it quite obviously forms the spiritual and narrative basis for much of Alex Garland's work (Sunshine, 28 Days Later, The Beach).
Heartless in mouth 00:33am on 29 Aug 2009 xxx? Sorry, meant Sarah. It's late.
Heartless in mouth 00:30am on 29 Aug 2009 Aw, the good doctor's all excited. Bless.

I sense hesitation about Descent 2 though, and I agree. It really didn't need a sequel - I thought the great thing about the original was that, in my interpretation at least, xxx killed everyone else and the monsters are all in her head. Depressing endings? Forget The Mist. Surely a sequel undoes all this?
Moon Movies 12:59pm on 05 Aug 2009 Just wanted to add myself to the list of people who went out and bought Ninth Configuration on Dr K's advice. Not being an Exorcist fan I wasn't expecting much, but really loved it. Reminded me, weirdly, of Mike Nichols' Catch-22 adaptation.
John Boorman: an exorcism 12:56pm on 05 Aug 2009 I just made a connection. Is Obi Wan Kenobi's mate Charlie Boorman (who was in Emerald Forest as a kid) the son of John Boorman (who made Emerald Forest when he was a adult, presumably)?

It would explain why he's never been in any other films.
John Boorman: an exorcism 12:53pm on 05 Aug 2009 @tommus jay

"diary of the dead is, in my eyes, a flawed masterpiece, and one of the wittiest films romero's done, and i actually watched inland empire last night and, while it's not up there with lynch's mid 80s to mid 90s stuff, it's still an astounding film, and then the mention of the coens in mental, i've not seen burn after reading, but are you forgetting that the year before they made no country for old men, which is one of the best films of the decade?"

Yes, and Scott just made American Gangster, and Lynch recently did Mulholland Drive, and Spielberg made War Of The Worlds.

I think you missed my point slightly. I didn't say these directors weren't any good any more. I'm saying that many directors rode the crest of a radical, experimental wave of the late 70s/early 80s, making tight, challenging, genuinely visionary films. A symptom of their individual ageing is that their output becomes... well, flabbier.

It has to be admitted that none of those directors are ever going to make a film as good as their first ones I listed. Lynch's best *is* Eraserhead. The Coens' best *is* Blood Simple. Scott's best *is* Alien.

Etc.

Oh, and one thing I do take issue with: Diary Of The Dead was flipping *awful*.
John Boorman: an exorcism 5:37pm on 04 Aug 2009 I think this could generally be the case of young directors who caught a late 70s/early 80s radical wave. Even if the directors are still fit and healthy, the films can show an awful lot of middle age spread. Take some of my personal early favourites....

Scott. Then: Alien, Blade Runner. Now: Body Of Lies, A Good Year.
Coens: Then: Blood Simple. Now: Burn Before Reading.
Lucas. Then: THX 1138. Now: Phantom Menace.
Lynch. Then: Eraserhead. Now: Inland, sorry, INLAND EMPIRE.
Carpenter. Then: take your pick. Now: take your pick.
Romero. Then: Night Of The Living Dead. Now: Diary Of The Dead.
Speilberg. Then: Indiana Jones. Now: Indiana Jones.
Obscene Publications Act 4:53pm on 30 Jul 2009 We don't need moral "guidance" by people who will never watch the films they're legislating against, or draconian Lists Of Evil that simply don't take into account the context within which offensive material is meant to be viewed.

There is a clear line to be drawn by any sane person between a fictional depiction of an event that is in the interests of a story's narrative, and a film depicting actual events from which we can derive no particular cultural use.

The BBFC certification works perfectly, especially given its neutral stance, its vested interest in the film industry and its willingness to move with, and sometimes ahead of, the times.

What is needed is a continued and active balance on the part of the certifiers. Is Antichrist genuinely suitable for an 18 year old? Would the (re)introduction of an X (or 21) certificate simply encourage film makers to push the content of their films that little bit further simply for controversy's sake?

The BBFC's willingness to include real sex in films, and to release uncut versions of films like Cannibal Holocaust show a real (and welcome) shift in perception, while at the same time films like Terminator are being downgraded to 15 for DVD release.

The certification system we have is healthy and progressive. Anything else is simply pandering to the knee-jerkers and the tabloids.
Terminator Redemption? 11:06pm on 23 Jun 2009 hardy 24

What Mark was getting at with the "shouldn't have been an action film" comment is that making Terminator as an action film is simply lazy. The first and second *were* action films, sure, but just goes to highlight the difference between modern and classic action flicks.

The classics, like the first Terminator, are plot and ideas driven, with special effects brought in because of the sci fi nature of the story. Now, there is no initial story - a film is put into production on the premise that it is going to be loud, violent and effects heavy. And *then* the story is written, in all its wafer-thin glory.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Joseph Whittle