The films on this list, however, have something special that gives them enduring longevity. It’s not the film itself but the film experience that counts. With the intricacies of the plot laid bare, the twists, turns, shocks and surprises all blunted by experience, what’s left is whatever ethos the film can conjure up. Which is precisely what some cult classics manage so successfully. Umberto Eco once wrote that “Casablanca became a cult movie because it is not one movie. It is “movies”.”¹ His point was that the film itself wasn’t any particular gem, but it encapsulated what movie-goers expected to see. The lines were famous before they were spoken, perhaps the most famous line of all being the one that wasn’t even in it (“Play it again, Sam”). But films that are able to do that go on to be remembered long after they’re made, irrespective of their individual merits and the quality of their cinematography, acting or screenplay.

This is simply a list of films that qualify merely on account of springing to mind first when considering what makes a film rewatchable. They’re mostly quite mainstream, with a heavy slant on the action side, no doubt in part because drama is a singularly poor trait for repeat value. But they are foremost a very personal example, and I doubt whether others will share even a portion of their number.

James Bond series

Bond

This is of course a complete cheat entry, as there are more films here than in the rest of the list put together. Nevertheless, the series is a perfect representation of what I mean by a film ethos somehow entirely separate from its content. In fact, the film ethos is so far separated from the material, that there is no real storyline threading the films together—one could go as far as to say the films do better being stood in isolation than seen as part of a series. The contradictions are numerous, the plots often bear scant relation to one another, with hardly ever a reference to what went before or what will come after. How else could so many actors have played multiple roles in the series?

The Bond films are an encapsulation of fantasy and escapism, the same as their belletrist predecessors. The third Fleming novel, Moonraker, was less well received in comparison to the other Bond outings, primarily because it is set entirely in England, and without the exotic locations that characterise so many of Bond’s adventures, the book lost some of its charm. The films endear to precisely those same principles, and would in a sense be incomplete without the clever gadgets, fast cars, racy women, wicked villains and so on. That’s not to say that each film is a carbon copy of the others, merely that watching a Bond film is entirely akin to unwrapping a chocolate bar: the experience will be entirely what you expect.

Although the films are not in themselves particularly bad, there is nevertheless plenty to criticise. The plotlines are often genuinely ludicrous, the villains are cardboard cutouts, and Bond himself, despite the change of actors and the seemingly unaged complexion after nearly 60 years of service, is a great ball of clichés. Which is curiously entirely to the series’ credit. Bond can find himself challenged by a chess Grand Master, a karate world champion, or a marathon race through the desert against a camel, and he will come through looking as though he were about to attend the embassy ball. As Raymond Chandler put it, “Bond is what every man would like to be and what every woman would like to have between her sheets.” That just about sums up one of the greatest figures in cinema’s history.

Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade

Indy

Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade was the film which started this list. One idle Sunday afternoon when I should probably have been mowing grass, revising for exams, or generally doing something vaguely productive, I had a flick through the TV guide and noticed this film was on. Before another thought popped into my head, the TV was on, my feet were up, and a mug of hot tea had magically appeared on the table beside me.

This film certainly bears plenty of relation to the previous entry. The most obvious link is that the character of Indiana Jones was modeled to a large extent on that of James Bond. Adequate reason to have ‘the father of Bond’, Sean Connery, play Indiana Jones’ father in this outing. This extra dollop of charisma on top of Harrison Ford’s already powerful on-screen presence was probably what made this film the best in the series in my opinion. But the film series in general also shared much in common with its Bond inspiration, including the characteristics of its tough and endearing hero, the exotic locations, evil villains (plundering the Nazi legend for all its worth), and plenty of stunning action sequences, lightly peppered with short comedy elements. Even the formula James Bond intro sequence, that had little if anything to do with the main plot, was incorporated into the series.

Whilst the film offers nothing truly spectacular in comparison to many other films of the action/adventure category, nevertheless it built upon a successful heritage and represents one of the best in the genre. The story is solid enough that the film doesn’t simply feel like a collection of action sequences flimsily strung together, although if we’re honest, the film might just as well be described as a visual rollercoaster. John Williams’ accompanying music provides one of the most recognisable signature tunes, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, the ending provides one of the most satisfyingly cheesy farewells in cinematic history.

Duel

Duel

Should you already have pictured what the rest of this list would look like, Duel probably wouldn’t have figured among many people’s guesses. This low budget and innocuous little film has earned the acclaim of having established Steven Spielberg’s career, as the first of three TV movies he produced for Universal Studios.

Quite how I’ve managed to watch this film more than once is rather a surprise to me, given that I think every time I’ve noticed the film broadcast it has started at some unreasonably small hour in the morning. Nevertheless, the film has a certain charm about it that makes it so readily watchable. The simplicity of the story—a commuter on a lonely road finds himself harassed to the point of attempted murder by the unknown driver of an articulated truck—nevertheless fills the film’s 90 minute runtime nicely. With only one real character, and the open road for most of the filming, watching it is something akin to experiencing the thoughts of a man having a nightmare. The viewer literally is David Mann, murderously pursued by a great hulking truck for no apparent reason, attempting to find some kind of compromise, solution or escape.

Whilst elsewhere described rather nicely as a cross between a road movie and a monster film, Duel somehow has a satisfying, almost calming effect watching it. Perhaps it’s the TV equivalent of staring into a burning fire. Or perhaps it’s just a damn good film.

1. Umberto Eco, Travels in Hyperreality, (London, 1986), p. 208.

Classics of their medium, but which will have a harder time in the future?

In comparison to a medium like cinema, computer games suffer from a particularly poor level of longevity. The vast majority of films can still happily be viewed today, often in an updated format, though keeping to the original production. That isn’t to suggest that films do not become dated, nor that more than just distribution formats are updated in later productions. Only recently I had the privilege of watching a once lost silent Polish film, A Strong Man (Mocny Człowiek), rediscovered in 1997. As there were no hints as to what musical accompaniment was meant to be played with the film, the DVD was released with a modern ambient style, that took a short while to get used to, but actually fit the film’s plot and style rather beautifully. On the whole, however, a film produced fifty years ago can be viewed with much the same clarity today as on the day it was released.

With computer games this issue is all too obviously unsolved. Not only do games age, as with any form of media entertainment, but they do so astonishingly quickly. The systems in place to support many of them gradually fade away, the communities surrounding them normally dissipate before too long (if there even is one), and in many cases the hardware and software required to run them simply move on.

To compare games to cinema is perhaps unwise, but many of the principle facets remain the same. Older games may not have the same visual complexities of today’s successors, nor the scope of their worlds or the detail of their mechanics, but their storylines and gameplay can remain as fresh as ever. A game such as Tetris will never die, on the basis of its blinding simplicity and addictive gameplay – but most importantly thanks to the myriad of rewrites, updates and clones that have kept the game alive to this day. Even the signature theme tune will live on as a classic example of gaming heritage.

Yet for every classic such as Tetris that has survived or been adapted for the modern era, there are simply thousands that have been essentially lost under the rolling wheels of technological advancement. Worst of all is that whilst many games become unplayable as operating systems and hardware develop, and as publishers stop producing them, copyright holders generally maintain their grasp on the games and consign efforts to keep them alive to pirates. This is quite frankly one of the more maddening aspects of computer game development, that golden classics should be consigned to history or piracy, since they cannot legally be made available for free, and cannot be purchased in any store that isn’t still anticipating the Millennium bug, is in my eyes simply a crime. All power to the outfits that make their games available after a certain period, or like id software have a policy of releasing their source code for free after a certain period.

Nevertheless, all is not Doom or Gloom. This post was originally inspired when I came across the remake of a classic of the 1980s game Ghostbusters, entirely rewritten for today’s machines. No doubt the original is out there somewhere, and playable via one of the many decent emulator programmes available, but trying to acquire and run these things can be a challenging experience. The more popular platforms have well developed, stable emulators with a lot of support, and finding ROMs for these isn’t particularly challenging, but for the more obscure platforms and titles, this can still be a frustruting and fruitless search.

Fortunately, some really great work has been done on a number of projects to keep certain niches alive. The ScummVM project has done some excellent work to make a number of classic adventure games playable on today’s operating systems. Quite how they’ve run into battles with the LucasArts legal team when trying to rescue their back catalogue from the dustbin is beyond me. A number of projects have also arisen around the selection of older id software games, such as Doomsday, which providing an updated game engine for Doom, Heretic and Hexen, helped in large part to id software’s laudable policy of releasing the source code (not to mention having the temerity to port many of their games in the first place). With a more general aim, the DOSBox project empowers a great many classics with a new lease of life, although this can be a tricky process, made much easier by the D-Fend Reloaded frontend. As per the recent entanglements with Worms, however, even this can cause some headscratching.

My favourite project of this ilk, however, has to be the astoundingly good OpenTTD. The ultimate goal being to create an entirely free re-working of Chris Sawyer’s classic Transport Tycoon Deluxe, the project certainly sits on shaky legal ground for attempting to present a copy of the game, but that aside the software is able to utilise the original game’s graphics and sounds, and not only recreate the original experience, but also improve upon it. Amongst other merits are the plethora of options, the feature additions which are well within the tone of the game, and of course the brilliantly updated multiplayer options which has given this game a decidedly extended lease of life. I could happily go on raving about this project, but that’s probably best left for another post altogether.

One might like to believe that the future looks brighter as far as gaming longevity is concerned. Distribution platforms such as Valve’s Steam allow games to be ‘published’ long after the traditional cycle, and has even been in large part responsible for resurrecting some old classics (e.g. Commander Keen). It may also spur developers to keep their catalogues ‘current’, at least as far as running on the latest Microsoft operating system. Nevertheless, the modern computer game has certainly moved far from its humble origins. The classic games of yesteryear that have remained with us on account of their unique simplicity, are mimicked today in the largely plotless gameplay oriented multiplayer games of the Counter-Strike or Unreal Tournament ilk. There are of course more recent and highly successful moves in the direction of more immersive and detailed worlds, and although World of Warcraft alone probably accounts for well more than half of all players of MMORPGs, clearly in terms of gaming attributes the multiplayer aspect has grown to highly significant proportions.

Ultimately then, whilst there are numerous well-intentioned projects out there to attempt to rescue many classic games from the grave, will the future of gaming make that job actually harder rather than easier to achieve? Certainly any multiplayer gaming experience relies to some extent on the quality of the players involved, but setting up a multiplayer game of Doom is probably easier today than it was when it was released, the only thing needed are the players. But for games that rely on servers and a myriad other players cannot really hope to be recreated in the future, in the same way that an old DOS or Amiga game can be rewritten or emulated. In the future, will we be forced to look back upon a game like World of Warcraft as a phenomenon?

Warning: possible spoilers ahead.

The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull isn’t as good as classic Indy, that’s for sure, and it does rather ruin the previously well-rounded ending to the series. The first thing that strikes is that Harrison Ford really is a lot older now. He has the charisma to pull the character off, and that counts for a lot, but when it comes to the action sequences it really shows that the reactions and flexibility of old simply aren’t there any more.

One thing that really seems to have griped a lot of fans is the realism factor. I imagine this partly comes since a lot of us just aren’t the youngsters we were when we first saw Indy. The original Raiders of the Lost Ark was released back in 1981, so even people currently in their 40s may have only been young teenagers when they first saw that absurdly clad archaeologist creating mayhem in the desert. That similar loss of magic no doubt dispelled a lot of Star Wars fans’ hopes when the prequel trilogy was released. Yet where the recent Star Wars trilogy had a reason to be made—the episode numbers were blank and the story untold—The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull smacks much more of a cash-in. This financial incentive is another criticism many film-goers have, but making money is the point of most movies, so why should this Indy adventure be treated any differently. There were a number of scenes in the film which were blatantly unrealistic, but the previous films contained as many obvious impossibilities that were simply part of the magic of Indy. Jumping out of an airplane and sledging down the Himalayas in a dingy, sneaking onto a German submarine from the open sea (exactly where would you hide?), or diving under a burning lake of petrol are all part of an average day in the life of Indiana Jones.

The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull certainly delivers on the entertainment aspects, with so much happening in its 124 minute runtime that you barely have time to take it all in. The storyline is perhaps a little hit and miss, and many have remarked that they weren’t particularly impressed with the extra terrestrial aspect (no doubt more into the religious mysticism of the other films) though the oodles of action knitted the scenes together well enough. Shia LaBoef probably deserves an award for the least annoying new character of recent years. If there are future films planned it seems clear that LaBoef’s role in this film was fleshed out to provide a possible successor to the ageing Harrison Ford. The latter’s age is humourously dealt with, with Indy playing a far more conservative role in his older years, often times pointing out the dangers to his more impetuous companions. The film really grips its 1950s environment, something the other films largely glossed over, from the Fonzi-like character of LaBoef, to the nuclear tests and the cafe brawl set to the tune of Shake, Rattle & Roll. The music of course is first rate, which is little else we come to expect from John Williams, though as he himself admits, getting back to working on an Indiana Jones film was like wearing an old pair of gloves (i.e. he didn’t have to work too hard at it). It was also rather nice to hear some authentic Russian in a film for a change instead of the usual hashed attempts—and all credit to Cate Blanchett for trying.

There were however plenty of poor elements to the film. The promised CGI rebate wasn’t forthcoming, with many scenes obviously touched up and others overly reliant on the green screen. The ants scene in particular was virtual plagiarism of The Mummy. Mutt’s Tarzan-esque swinging through the jungle was more than a little on the childish side, and whoever dreamt up the atomic blast scene was clearly enjoying some illegal substance or other, although the humour just about made up for it. The film also suffered from a deluge of poor supporting characters. Sullah stand-in character ‘Mac’ turned out to be more of a pointless confusion than anything else, given that he revealed himself to be a mole almost from the off (which the FBI confirmed), the unnecessary double-agent shenanigans did little to disguise the fact that he was the obligatory “moral death” character (see Elsa Schneider in The Last Crusade or perhaps Rene Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark). Marion Ravenwood’s return might tie up some loose ends but her demeanour made the whole jaunt down the Amazon seem more like a family vacation than a brutal race against time. In fact very little in the film smacked of danger, perhaps the key reason that the film really failed to live up to its predecessors. At no point did Indy ever look to be in any real trouble, even as a guest of the villain Irina Spalko. Whilst the Nazis had to be transplanted by the Soviets for reasons of chronology, the end result was a much more carnival atmosphere to the fight against evil and life and death situations of the earlier series.

Ultimately, your reaction to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull depends mostly on your attitude and expectations. If you hope that this latest offering will enable you to relive those childhood memories and the magic of the earlier films, then you will only be disappointed to find that time has changed us no less than it has changed Indy. On its own merits, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull delivers as an action movie but perhaps too much for its own good. Had the action been toned down a little and made more believable, and the script toughened up to make us will Indy to the finishing line (instead of merely willing it to finish) then the film would have been deserving of the box office receipts it will no doubt take. Harrison Ford deserves all the credit for reprising the role, and his on-screen charisma makes the film immensely more watchable than its constituent parts alone. It’s definitely Indy, but not as we knew him.

Nevertheless, Krzysztof Penderecki provides a beautiful score to underline the images, with a smattering of Tchaikovsky and Chopin thrown in during some of the propaganda scenes. As a piece of cinematography the film probably deserves its Oscar nomination, though it is difficult to tell whether it will be remembered more for that or its political implications. That the film does not get caught in a loop of nationalist propagandism is important in light of the tendencies in Moscow and elsewhere. Power is not what comes from the end of a gun but the ability to make people believe ones lies. Certainly disturbing news from Putin’s Russia.

The film’s climax is a rather visceral, and to some extents shocking visual of what the film is after all about. However it does offer an interesting juxtaposition for those taken by the irrationality of mankind—as officer after officer is dispatched in the name of political idealism, these same go to their deaths with a prayer on their lips. Absurd or simply tragic? One thing however is for certain, and that is that my quest for the non-melancholy Polish film continues…

The Boys from Brazil

I recently caught a TV screening of The Boys from Brazil, a film adaptation of Ira Levin’s novel, concerning the nefarious actions of Dr. Josef Mengele in South America, and his pursuit by a Nazi-hunter presumably modelled on Simon Wiesenthal. Certainly a rather motley cast, with Laurence Olivier showing why he is so often cited as amongst the highest echelons of English-speaking acting, whilst James Mason poorly attempts to cover up his stiff accent. Still not entirely sure what to make of Peck’s performance.

Regardless, the film is entertaining, even if you’ve heard the twist previously as I had. Produced slightly before Mengele’s actual death in Brazil in 1979, it reminded me of a German film I’d read about entitled Nichts als die Wahrheit, which portrays the fictitious events of Dr. Mengele’s trial as he returns to German, a sick, old man. Sadly, I was unable to track the film down on the Internet, and at least according to this website the film is currently only available on VHS. Hopefully that situation will be rectified before too long, but if anyone knows where or when it might be published on DVD, please leave a comment.

For anyone who recently enjoyed Hot Fuzz, this new film looks like it will carry the torch where Shaun of the Dead previously led the way. 28 Days Later meets Dog Soldiers?

Casino Royale

So they’re silly. So they’ve been going since the ’60s. So this is the twenty-first (official) outting of the sixth incarnation of a spy who has survived promotion, demotion and the Cold War. It’s a Bond film, and one purporting to go ‘back to basics’ with a new face and a general overhaul for the series. As one of those heretics who preferred the slightly heightened realism of the Timothy Dalton era, this film showed plenty of promise with a conspicuous absence gadgets, a somewhere near realistic plot, and nary a nuclear device in sight.

It’s been compared to the series reboot that Batman Begins provided, and for all its grittiness and mortality of the main character, has been lauded by the critics, whilst simultaneously pleasing fans for remaining true to the Bond brand. Daniel Craig proved to be a controversial choice, but from his experience behind the lines in Archangel and some technical bomb-making expertise in Munich, he came well prepared to play the UK’s most dangerous export.

Warning, possible spoilers after the break!

So it is with some disappointment that I say this film wasn’t quite all I’d hoped it might be. The opening scenes proved Bond is still bulletproof, even if he struggles a bit more in the hand-to-hand business, he’s still happy to kill and injure innocents, he can still outrun even the fastest of adversaries, and they will still only shoot him point-blank when their clips are empty.

Nevertheless, at least the plot shows some logic to it this time; Bond gets reprimanded for his actions in the opening scene, the plot surrounding the poker game is reasonably well thought through and generally entertaining. It can be forgiven for its fairly wooden characters, this is a Bond film after all, and should be lauded for at least breaking the mould in depicting the main characters outside of the stereotype (Le Chiffre and his Ugandan clients, Bond and his, ehm, chair). If anything, unfortunately, the main plot suffers because it is all over a little too quickly, leaving the remaining hour to seemingly endless double-crossing. And I hope I’m not alone in finding the line “It’s the tell! Bond was right…” distinctly cringe-worthy.

However, Craig puts in another admirable performance in his new role. Perhaps it is unduly harsh to criticise the plotline when there is much to be thankful for in this remake of the series. Even the opening titles offer something a little novel (a distinct lack of women, for starters), and the reliance on overt action scenes and futuristic gismos has been at least partially shelved for something more akin with the public’s imagination of the secret services. Bond is still adept at handling his gear, but it’s more in the line of laptops and mobile phones than remote controlled cars and laser-equipped watches. Apparently the film forms something of a two-parter with the upcoming Bond 22, and Casino Royale certainly offers much for the series to build upon. Here’s to hoping they stay aloof of the sort of tripe which the franchise resorted to with Brosnan as the lead.