Dunkirk

#51 at the time of writing.

Just watched this, and my initial impressions are twofold. First, I'm incredibly grateful to be living in relatively peaceful times; we must never take that for granted. I don't know how I'd react if I was forced into such horrendous circumstances, but I'll be thankful if that's never tested.

Second, this film suffers a little from director Christopher Nolan's trademark flaw. His movies are awe-inspiringly ambitious spectacles, with intelligent and compelling plots, but populated by under-developed characters. The people in this story feel like ciphers.

Still, the film showed me perspectives I hadn't considered - and taught me things I didn't know - about the Dunkirk evacuation, and made me want to read more.

The practical effects deserve praise, and Hans Zimmer's musical score added to the tension beautifully (if unsubtly).

According to IMDb trivia, roughly 30 veteran Dunkirk survivors, who were in their mid nineties, attended the premiere in London. When asked about the film, they felt that it accurately captured the event but that the soundtrack was louder than the actual bombardment, a comment that greatly amused director Christopher Nolan.

The Mark Rylance character, Dawson, is closely based on Lightoller, Second Officer of the Titanic, who took his yacht Sundowner to Dunkirk at the age of 66. Like Lightoller he refuses to let the navy crew his boat - "if anyone takes her it will be me", and takes one of his sons with him. Like Lightoller, Dawson has lost a son in the RAF (Brian, shot down in a Wellington bomber on the second day of the war) who taught him how to evade air attack. Also like Lightoller he packs the boat so full (four stood in the bathtub), the disembarkation officer couldn't believe over 55 men were aboard Sundowner.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

#197 at the time of writing.

I've warmed to the original Star Wars since I blogged about it - ok, I admit, it is a brilliant film. (Though I've cooled to the sequel.) But I've never been excited about Star Wars.

Until this film came along.

J. J. Abrams did it with Star Trek, and I believed he could do it again. Perhaps I got caught up in the hype, but I was really looking forward to watching this, and it exceeded my expectations. It successfully walked the tightrope between modern and nostalgic, while keeping up a great pace and sharp wit throughout. Yes, it's basically a remake, but it's fresh, and it effectively reboots the franchise in a direction that has captivated new generations - and me. Without a Jedi in sight.

In particular, Rey kicks ass in a way that I - and my daughter - would love to see more of on the big screen.

I love that relatively untested actors were used. It's a testament to the legend that Star Wars has built up for itself that John Boyega was so nervous and frightened at the prospect of not getting the role that he didn't tell his parents he'd been cast until after a cast photo was posted online by the official Star Wars Twitter page, and Daisy Ridley nearly had a panic attack during her first day on set when she feared her performance wasn't up to scratch.

George Lucas, thank you for letting go. Bring on the sequels.

Neat trivia: John Williams received his 50th Oscar nomination for scoring this film. Oh, and this is the third movie in history to reach the $2 billion mark after Avatar (2009) and Titanic (1997).

La La Land

#40 at the time of writing.

There aren't many non-animated original musicals at the moment, and perhaps that's why this one has made such a splash. It's firmly in the tradition of Singin' in the Rain-era musicals. It's a love story, and a love letter to Los Angeles (to the point that the navel-gazing Academy nominated it for a record number of Oscars, equalling Titanic and All About Eve).

Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling give great performances - they are both utterly charming actors. It's particularly impressive that Ryan Gosling learned to play all the piano music by heart.

It's fizzy and peppy and sweet, with a thoughtful storyline. I liked it a lot. But I don't think I loved it. Too showy for my tastes perhaps? For offbeat musicals, despite being a much smaller film, Once made a much bigger impression on me.

Princess Mononoke

#99 at time of writing.

After enjoying Howl's Moving Castle, My Neighbour Totoro, and especially Spirited Away, I was excited to watch the highly IMDb-rated Princess Mononoke.

A demonically possessed hog attacks the town of a forest tribe and infects a young prince. The prince, doomed to suffer a drawn-out and painful death, travels to a faraway land to seek the help of a forest spirit. But the matriarch of the local mining town is in conflict with the forest spirit and its animal denizens, including the eponymous wolf-princess Mononoke, and our hero's fate becomes entwined.

This is a much darker and bloodier affair than the other Studio Ghibli films I've seen, and in my opinion not quite as satisfying. The characters were fun, but I found it hard to empathise with them. I enjoyed the story, but certainly less compelling than it could have been. I watched the English dub (as written by Neil Gaiman) - I wonder if anything was lost in the translation.

The animation is lush and beautiful - the last major animated motion picture to be filmed on plastic animation cels - and the film was phenomenally successful in Japan, the highest-grossing film since E.T. until Titanic came along.

One of the things that most charms me about Studio Ghibli films is the visualisation of Japanese animism. The cute clockwork forest sprites were a highlight.

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.

How much does it cost to make a film?

$218. That's how much it costs to make a film.

At least, that's how much it cost Jonathan Caouette to make Tarnation, released in 2003. And it grossed well over half a million at the worldwide box office, making it the film with the second highest return on investment ever (the highest being The Blair Witch Project with a 354,614% return on investment - eat that William Hill).

Ironically, IMDb users rate Tarnation as a better film than Titanic, which is one of the costliest films ever made.



The whole Mars Pathfinder mission cost
millions less than the film Titanic


A quick glance over The Numbers list of Movie Budget Records reveals what a terrifying risk studios take when they agree to spend a 9 digit sum to make a film. God knows how Warner Bros. is still solvent after losing some $96million on The Adventures of Pluto Nash. That's the same amount that Bush Senior and Clinton managed to raise for their entire Hurricane Katrina Fund.

And yet it's Warner Bros. that are about to release the most expensive movie ever made. The budget for Superman Returns is $250,000,000. A quarter of a billion simoleons. That's the Queen of England's whole fortune. No pressure, then, folks.

Personally, I quite like the idea of spending the $218 I have in my bank account on making a film.

Box office musings

I've just been browsing through IMDb's list of films that grossed the most money in worldwide box offices. It makes for interesting reading.

The big three are represented right at the top, as you would expect: Star Wars: Episode I comes in at number four with $922,379,000 of box office receipts. That in itself is incredible - it's 15 cents for every single person alive.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone enjoys the number three spot with $968,600,000 - which approaches the GDP of Belize. Number two goes to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King with an astronomical $1,129,219,252. That's more than all three Indiana Jones films put together.

And guess how much the number one grossed. Nope, guess again. A little more... You're getting warmer...

Titanic stands alone with $1,835,300,000.

That's incredible. There are fewer than 40 films that have ever grossed more than half a billion, and then there's Titanic, which grossed nearly two billion. Look, I've put it on a graph so you can see how ridiculous it is:



A Titanic spike indeed.

Adjust for inflation, however, and there's a different story. Titanic drops to sixth, according to Box Office Mojo's list. The number one, thanks to 67 years of inflation and a re-release or two, is Gone with the Wind.

Interestingly, there is almost no correlation between the films with that grossed the highest at the box office and the films that were ranked as best by IMDb users. In other words, no correlation between popularity and quality: