Films of the year - number two

Now, lest it seem that I'm going all out for action movies, here's a perfect little picture that manages to do the hokey "grumpy old man gradually learns how to love life again" schtick to perfection, throwing in a few curve balls along the way.

The Visitor also has a lot to say - or rather show, because it's not at all preachy - about US foreign policy and treatment of immigrants. Throw in some excellent performances by the main actors, and you have a great film. Five stars all the way for me.

And yes, I know the poster has an old white geezer playing the bongos, but by the end of the movie, you won't care. Which is sort of the point.

Films of the year - number three

Now I confess that I wasn't particularly "in" on all the expectation surrounding this movie, given that I still think a viral is something you buy Contact 200 for. But a movie from the guy who brought us Lost has to be worth a look, surely? And to its credit - unlike the afore-mentioned TV series - Cloverfield knows not to outstay its welcome. Its a lean 85 minutes, and I was gripped throughout. A refreshing take on the disaster movie, crossed with Godzilla - what's not to like?

And, never underestimate the value of having a film filled with actors you've never really heard of - it's so much harder to work out who is wearing the red vest a la Star Trek.

But is it great cinema? Look, I enjoyed it a great deal, and isn't that what counts? (A theme we shall return to later...)

Films of the year - number four

All together now: why so serious?

Yes, folks, in at number four, it's The Dark Knight. For my money, easily the best of the far-too-many Batman movies. I didn't really care for the previous film - the relaunch of the franchise, called Batman Returns or Batman Reloaded or Batman Strikes Back, I really could care less - but this one delivered real bang for your buck, and of course had a compelling star turn by Heath Ledger into the bargain.

What I really liked was the overall dark tone - comic-book noir, if you will - of the piece. Oh sure, Tim Burton's first movie had a gothic feel to it, but it was far too pantomime to really hit home (I'm looking at you here, Mr Nicholson). But for those of us who were around when Alan Moore's graphic novel first came out and completely reinvented this whole superhero thang, finally we could see it up on the big screen with this film. Oh yes. Pretty darn scary in parts too - you'll never look at a pencil in the same way again. (Though teachers have been aware for ages that a pencil counts as weaponry in the wrong hands...)

Films of the year - number five

Quite tricky narrowing this lot down to a top five, now I come to actually make my list. I've decided to go with my gut instincts, in terms of films which appealed at the time and gave a real cinematic experience. So no room for No Country For Old Men, which may well come to be regarded as an outright classic, but just didn't quite fully grab me (and besides, the Coens then went on to make the truly lamentable Burn After Reading, so they get marks off for wasting two hours of my life with that garbage). And ditto for There Will Be Blood, which was too much of an endurance test for this reviewer.

Anyway, on we go with number five: the animated, sort-of-documentary Waltz With Bashir. A very powerful movie with a great soundtrack (Hebrew heavy metal! Max Richter!) and a great deal to say about events in the Middle East, both back in the day and, I have to suppose, now. Unforgettable ending too.

Of Time and the City

As promised, a final film squeezed in before the year's end.

Of Time and the City comes with quite a pedigree: not only did it win, um, something or other at Cannes, but it's also the Film of the Year for none other than Dr Mark Kermode (all praise be to his name). It's clearly very arty, and filmic, and all other sorts of stuff. But is it any good?

Well, "know your audience" is an essential bit of media advice for producers, and here I reckon it helps to know if you are meant to be in the audience. And if I'm honest, it helps if you're... well.. getting on a bit. If you're under twenty, go see Twlilight instead. If you're under thirty, then go wild and see both - hey, you have the disposable income, after all. But for those of us the other side of four decades, this offers all manner of nostalgia and is well worthy of consideration.

For those who don't know, the film is billed as an elegy and/or love song for Liverpool. There's a lot of b&w photography, great music, and a voice-over by director Terence Davies who manages to out-baker Tom Baker, which is quite an achievement. Nothing terribly much happens, for the whole length of 74 minutes. (It's not quite autobiography, and not quite documentary either). There's definitely a poetic quality to the whole affair, and it's truly a unique film. And even though I did nod off a couple of times, that only helped to add to the dreamy quality of the whole affair.

On a different day, this could have been pretentious twaddle. But today, I found the film moving and quite, quite beautiful. Now get me my pipe and slippers, it's nearly my bedtime.

(Oh, but: Film of the Year? Nah.)

Twilight

Blimey, but it's quite a movie poster, isn't it?

Anyhoo, one more film squeezed in before the end of the year (with one more to follow - watch this space). I confess I haven't read the book which the movie is based on, so I'm coming to this relatively clean. Except for one major fact, mind you: I come to this movie as a pretty big fan of Buffy, which is going to take a lot of beating.

What's the big?
You know, I have to say that overall I liked this film a fair bit. It sort of lost me towards the end, when there's a bit of drama shoehorned in and derring-do to be, er, done in order to save our heroines's life from the Nasty Vampires; and for a two-hour movie the second hour felt a lot longer than 60 minutes. But I enjoyed the set-up and the performance of Kristen Stewart as Bella, the female lead, in particular. Yes, it's slow, and yes, it's faintly ridiculous - um, hello, like, could these people look more like vampires? - but it captures teenage romance and angst very well indeed. Go see it and unleash your inner emo.

My bad
But there is still the Buffy thing. And Buffy did all this way before, way better - indeed the central Angel/Buffy will-they-won't-they is practically photocopied here. And most crucial of all: Buffy did this with humour as well as angst, which sounds easier than it is. (To be fair, the heroine's Dad here has a nice line in dry wit, which gets a few laughs.) So all in all, I'm sitting around the 3/5 mark, though with time I may upgrade this.

Do the math
Well, respect to the movie for one thing: Bella does seem to be a bit of a geek, as does Edmund. (Edward? I forget.) And part of their "bonding" comes when they both own up to knowing the square root of pi (1.77...) - so that's how to get the girls? Jings, I wish someone had told me that when I was in high school!

Films of the Year - preview

Yes, folks, it's almost time for maths teacher to reveal his films of the year - a moment you have surely all been waiting for.

The graph shows that movie-going has remained reasonably steady for me this year, though I'm still way down on the heady heights of 2004 (over 70 movies - how did I find the time?). Let me stress that I am only counting actual, bona fide cinema visits in this total - films caught later on DVD manifestly do not count on this blog. Not that I see many films that way, come to think of it.

Still, at the moment I have just under 40 movies to pick from, which isn't bad going. I don't feel I can really offer a top ten, though, as that would have to include 25% of the films I've seen, and I'm not sure they all deserve such special mention. Instead, I'll be offering a top five, which seems more reasonable.

Watch, as they say, this space. Meanwhile, regular readers are invited to come up with a function describing the number of films seen each year - clearly it's not a linear graph...