The Lego Movie

#172 at the time of writing.

I was surprised to see this on IMDb's Top 250 - a brand cash-in flick just doesn't scream high expectations. But the trailer looked fun, so I went to see it with my wife yesterday (we are still children at heart).

So does it deserve the hype? Well... it's good... but I suspect it won't stay on the Top 250 for long. It's very high octane, with lots of laughs, and a sweet ending that caps it off nicely. The story follows a Lego construction worker, who always follows instructions in true Lego style, as he learns the value of occasionally throwing away the manual and unfettering his creativity.

Two things especially struck me: First, that the film is so fast and action-packed in its jerky Lego world that my head was left spinning (probably exacerbated by the 3D). A little too much for me perhaps. However, the amount of effort that the animators went to to make the world seem so expansive and... Lego-ey... is seriously impressive. The amazing attention to detail will be bliss for Lego geeks.

Second, the film is relentlessly po-mo, filled with references to other films, breaking the fourth wall, self-aware story elements and characters that knew they were part of a film, and shamelessly unsubtle cultural references designed to appeal to the cynical and surreal tastes of the Internet generation.

Nice to see that fifteen years later one of my favourite films, The Matrix, is still being parodied...

Gravity

#50 at the time of writing.

Went to see this film, about two astronauts that get stranded in space, at the IMAX yesterday. Totally worth shelling out the extra cash to see it 3D on the big screen. It's more like a theme park ride than a movie. And what a ride!

The first 15 or 20 minutes is presented as one long shot with no cuts, extremely impressive given that the actors are floating around in zero gravity fixing a space station module with the sun setting on Earth in the background.

Sandra Bullock may have seemed like an unlikely choice to play the main character (alongside George Clooney), but she does fantastically well, even making you believe some of the bits that could have seemed silly in lesser hands. A dream role for her, I imagine. (Angelina Jolie and Natalie Portman were previous choices.)

But I suspect that this would lose much of its impact on a small screen. Like I said, more of a ride than a film. The writing felt at best formulaic, and at worst slightly annoying. The end could have been immensely emotionally impactful, but it somehow missed the beat. The music was once or twice intrusive. And the science requires a bit of suspension of disbelief - like everybody knows that tears in space don't fall!

However, undeniably extremely suspenseful, tense and intense. A great achievement. Well done especially to Alfonso Cuarón for realising such an ambitious vision.

Definitely worth watching the companion piece, Aningaaq. And the other, unofficial companion piece...

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

#119 at time of writing.

After the phenomenal success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and some legal wrangling with New Line cinema and the Tolkein estate), Peter Jackson gained enough trust from the studios and the fans to do whatever he liked with The Hobbit. Originally planned as a two-part film with Guillermo del Toro at the helm, Jackson took over and expanded Bilbo Baggins's tale with backstory from the Lord of the Rings books to end up with a behemoth three-parter.

And it shows. Part one, An Unexpected Journey, runs to nearly three hours (will the DVDs still have an extended edition?). It's certainly flabby and self-indulgent. But you know what? I was very happy to indulge it.

I sat enjoying the expansive story world, feeling at home as each scene lingered languidly. Like sitting by a fire with a glass of port on Christmas morning.

Much has been made of the fact that this is the first feature film to be shot and projected at 48 frames per second, twice as fast as the industry standard of 24 frames, the intention being to provide the smoother, more realistic motion, especially in 3D. Did it make much difference? Meh.

Interesting to note that the filmmakers did not have the requisite rights to use material from Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales - evident when Gandalf "forgets" the names of two of the five wizards, Alatar and Pallando, who only appear in the book Unfinished Tales. So, plenty of scope for yet more engorged trilogies in the future.

The Lion King

#79 at time of writing.

This film announces itself as something special in the first five minutes. A sweeping panorama of the African savannah with swarms of animals gathering to welcome a newborn lion prince, set to Elton John and Tim Rice's beautifully crafted song "The Circle of Life" - and then, boom, the title screen. Awesome.

The visuals are stunning throughout, but what really makes the movie is the dramatic story (inspired by Hamlet) and the thoroughly musical sense of humour.

It's very telling that the recent re-release of the film in 3D has seen it rocket more than 20 places higher in IMDb's ranking - a sign that this (mostly) hand-animated marvel has endured into the age of ubiquitous CGI.

Arguably the peak of the 90s Disney Renaissance, and one of the best (non-Pixar) Disney animated features ever.

How To Train Your Dragon

#173 at time of writing.

Dreamworks SKG was set up in 1994 by industry heavyweights Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen. The animation arm later spun off as a separate company.

Dreamworks Animation has had nothing like the consistency of Pixar’s output, but has produced some great films along the way: Antz, Shrek, and its partnerships with Aardman Animations stand out in particular.

To those stand-out films, I would be tempted to add How To Train Your Dragon.

Set in a fictional world of dragon-besieged Vikings, the weedy protagonist discovers a revolutionary secret - the dragons aren't necessarily all that bad. The story that ensues, based on Cressida Cowell's book, is wonderfully inventive and action-packed, with some beautiful imagery. It would kick ass in 3D.

Toy Story 3

#9 at time of writing.

Wow. I haven't laughed out loud so often, and cried so hard, since... well, since Up. But if you exclude Pixar, since ever.

That's right. I'm a grown man and I bawled my eyes out.

Pixar are the masters - nay, the gods - of story. With Toy Story 3, they once again excel themselves. There is not one moment that allows your attention to flag, and the plot masterfully achieves that most challenging of goals (as taught by Terry Rossio): it's decisive, set-up, inevitable and yet genuinely unexpected.

This wonderful threequel complements and augments the first two films beautifully, whilst simultaneously laying a fair claim to being one of the best animated movies ever. Indeed, IMDb voters have propelled it into the top 10 movies of all time, of any genre. (With Inception currently at #3, July 2010 is proving to be a month of astonishingly high-quality film releases, at least as far as IMDb voters are concerned.)

The emotional core of Toy Story 3 is provided by the question: What happens to Andy's toys when he grows too old to play with them? A typical Pixar mix of loss, jealousy, hope and high-jinks follows, with an ending that will reconnect you to your inner child - and perhaps have your real children wondering why you are sniffling and teary-eyed over a bunch of toys.

Thank goodness Pixar and Disney made up. When they split over creative differences in 2004-2005, Disney started up an animation division titled 'Circle 7 Animation,' which would have been in charge of churning out sequels for Pixar films without consulting Pixar. The original plot for Toy Story 3 was going to be about Buzz Lightyear having a defect and being shipped to Taiwan to be fixed, and the other toys shipping themselves to Taiwan to rescue him. Judging by Disney's decidedly mediocre record with sequels, we should be grateful that Pixar are back in charge.

Avatar

Unranked at time of writing.

James Cameron (or at least his marketeers) claimed that Avatar will change cinema forever. Having watched the preview in front row seats at IMAX last night, I finally understand what he means.

Avatar is a stunningly beautiful, comprehensively realised vision that absolutely must be experienced in a cinema. That’s the kicker – I doubt this film would have anywhere near the same impact on a TV screen. Two dimensions would not do this movie justice.

So if Avatar changes cinema it will be by making it more like going to the theatre – you have to see it live. More likely, I think, is that this movie - which is James Cameron’s first outing since 1997’s record-smashing Titanic - will precipitate the advent of 3D in our living rooms (for one thing, they might have to sell a lot of DVDs to break even – the production is rumoured to have cost $300m and as much again is being spent on marketing).

3D films often feel fairly flat, apart from the occasional thing jumping out at you, but the 3D in Avatar has an incredible depth of field. The landscapes of the planet Pandora seem to stretch away for miles. Another bar raised is the CGI. The attention to detail is breathtaking.

Yes, the story uses every trick in the Hollywood book to hook you in, but – wow! – Mr Cameron is a master of those tricks. The pace and interest don’t flag for a moment in the 162 minutes running time. It’s truly epic; it feels like the three Lord of the Rings films rolled into one.

You might argue that the characters and the plotting are a little close to formula, but as an aesthetic and dramatic experience, Avatar is – without exaggeration – the film of the decade. Truly hypnotising.

Up

#37 at time of writing.

My wife and I attended a preview screening of Pixar's tenth feature at the BFI Southbank last week. My love for Pixar only grows.

There was a particular sequence within the first 15 minutes of the film that made me cry. Within the first 15 minutes! I can't think of any other film that has achieved that, ever. Beautiful, touching, bold, genius. It was followed by a good hour of belly-laugh comedy excellence, and then the end just about lived up to the beginning.

The plot of Up is (typically for Pixar) wonderfully left-of-centre. A 78-year old widower ties thousands of balloons to his home and flies it to the tepuis of South America, accompanied by an unexpected companion. I can't think of any Hollywood films that dare to have an old widower in the starring role since, I dunno, About Schmidt.

Director Pete Docter and producer Jonas Rivera were in attendance for a Q&A after the film. It's wonderful watching a film alongside its creators - the audience was much more vocal than a normal cinema audience, clapping and cheering and laughing out loud.

Pete had lost his voice, so Jonas did all the talking. He spoke of many things. There were no new technical challenges in Up (like fur in Monsters Inc, water in Finding Nemo), which allowed them to focus on design. And it shows - Up is gorgeous. Although come to think of it, isn't being in 3D a new technical challenge?

Talking of 3D, the extra dimension is used subtly to add depth to the sweeping Venezuelan vistas, rather than to make things jump out of the screen. This was the first 3D film, as well as the first animated film, ever to open the Cannes Film Festival.

The producer admitted that they had trouble with the villain character, and indeed I think the villain's story is the weakest link in an otherwise flawless film. The villain Charles Muntz is named after Charles Mintz, the Universal Pictures executive who in 1928 stole Walt Disney's production rights to his highly-successful "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit" cartoon series. This led Walt Disney to create Mickey Mouse, who soon eclipsed Oswald in popularity.

Up with Pixar, say I! Bring on Toy Story 3, Cars 2, The Bear and the Bow and Newt! (And 1906!)

Dial M for Murder

#243 at time of writing.

This film was like an Agatha Christie novel - very clever, and quite satisfying, but not particularly deep, and populated with fairly stereotypical characters.

Hitchcock manages to keep the suspense and intrigue going throughout, as is his wont, but I disgree with all the people that say he is a master of the medium. He doesn't use the versatility of film to its full extent at all - he produces films that feel like stage plays (at least the ones I've seen).

That style doesn't sit easily with me, it makes me restless. So although this is a perfectly good film, with some surprising twists, I wouldn't rank it among my favourites.

Bizarrely, this was originally filmed in 3D, which explains the prevalence of low-angle shots with lamps and other objects in the foreground. There was only a brief original release in 3D, followed by a conventional "flat" release; the 3D version was reissued in 1980.