I guess you’d argue the Alien films are a female-led franchise, certainly Charlie’s Angels, Terminator has a strong female presence, but not really a lead.

Looking at the convenient Wikipedia page listing film series with three entries there are a couple more (of those with fairly mahjor entries, a lot have a big first film and straight-to-DVD follow-ups):

• Legally Blonde
• Resident Evil
• Underworld

The most convincing argument for the Spider-Man reboot, though, must be Spider-Man 3. Wrong in just about every way imaginable – too long, too many baddies, too many queasy lurches in tone, too many musical numbers, too many emotions signposted by the protagonist’s ever-changing haircut, too many scenes of Kirsten Dunst frying eggs and dancing the twist – Spider-Man 3 has become shorthand for unfocused studio bloat. It was one set of rubber nipples away from being Batman and Robin – and look at what an overhaul did for Batman’s fortunes.

Were they trying to see how far they could go?

I do vaguely remember hearing about this, but it passed under my radar until a recent visit to the rental store and now I can’t imagine why, it’s a great movie.

OK, so the title sucks.  I suspect this is part of why it didn’t do as well as Shaun of the Dead (it’s described as ‘Doctor Who meets Shaun of the Dead’), that and it’s aimed at a much more niche market.

OK, so it’s a bit geeky.  It is, largely, set in a pub (much like SotD).  The average episode of Doctor Who has a larger effects budget by the looks of it though.

Considering the limitations of the budget (this is a joint BBC and HBO films production) they have to fall back on character and story and for any sci-fi fans out there it’s sure to please.

The plot revolves around the three main leads: Ray (nerd, played by the IT Crowd’s Chris O’Dowd), Toby (nerd, Marc Wootton) and Pete (cynic, Dean Lennox Kelly) who go to the pub (after Ray gets fired from his job at a theme park).  They’re happily writing a letter to let Hollywood know how to make films after seeing a bad one before the pub when Ray bumps into Cassie on his way back from the bar.

Cassie (Anna Faris bringing some Hollywood glamour) is a time traveller whose job involves fixing time leaks, is a big fan of Ray’s.  When he gets back he tells the guys, who don’t believe him until Pete stumbles onto the time leak in the gents and comes back to a pub full of dead bodies (including his).  Several visits to the toilets and near misses with their past and future selves ensue before they discover their one good idea (written on the back of the letter to Hollywood) is the cause of the problems and threatens their lives.

It’s very British in its outlook, geeky and funny, with Faris (who is fairly unknown, despite staring in some big movies, and is a Hollywood star in waiting) bringing some geek love appeal and raising the star power.  Needless to say it’s packed with nods to sci-fi films (although Ray insists it is called Science Fiction or SF).  DVD is probably a better medium for it (it’s not really cinematic), although the lack of any extras seems criminal considering the fanbase.

If you’re a fan of Hitchhikers then you should definitely take a look.  It’s got cult hit written all over it.

Should you be interested, I stumbled across a small interview with some of the cast here.

You can check out the full trailer on YouTube or on the official site, which has some other information about the film and cast.

They need to do something, I’m still not convinced by Blu-ray but downloads are still too pricey (how can something with minuscule distribution costs be more expensive than physical media?).

In 2009 I watched roughly 320 films. Other than the aforementioned Streep, only three could be said to feature oldish leading characters: Hirokazu Koreeda’s Still Walking, 71-year-old Dustin Hoffman getting it on with 49-year-old Emma Thompson in Last Chance Harvey (funny how no one noticed that particular age disparity), and Brad Pitt ageing backwards in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which I probably shouldn’t count any more than I’d count Twilight’s Edward Cullen as a 100-year-old. In 2009, alas, the most memorable appearance by an actor of pensionable age was by 87-year-old Betty White, whose "Native American" dance in The Proposal was both patronising and cringe-making.

Mammia Mia won the box office battle, although James Bond, Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings fill all the other slots in the UK. Globally it’s a slightly different picture.

There’s a bit more variety in the list of best-selling DVDs, it’s nice to see The Shawshank Redemption in there.

My personal recommendations would be (excluding those on Sky):

• Blade Runner: The Final Cut – a classic how it was meant to be, before meddling studio execs got involved.
• King Kong – Peter Jackson’s remake.
• The Nightmare Before Christmas – not seen it but supposed to be very good.
• Scrooge – classic.
• About a Boy – warm-hearted tale for the festive season.
• Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events – beautifully shot, I like it.
• The Matrix – still a great film.
• Over the Hedge – some brilliantly inventive twists.
• Corpse Bride – again, not seen it but supposed to be very good.
• The Polar Express – festive family fun.
• The Incredibles – a great Pixar movie.
• Billy Elliot – uplifting tale of northern ballet.
• Gladiator – I dare you not to say “On my signal, unleash hell” after watching it.
• Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit – W&G is an institution.
• The School of Rock – Jack Black at his finest.
• Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World’s End – not the best one, but enough to keep everyone entertained.
• The Magnificent Ambersons – not seen it, but supposed to be top-drawer.
• The Holiday – slushy festive romance.
• Pride And Prejudice – period slushy romance.
• Singin’ In The Rain – best.  Musical. Ever.  And very funny too.
• Romancing The Stone – classic action adventure.
• Some Like It Hot – the original romcom.
• Superman Returns – a great return for superman.
• The Good Shepherd – a look at the shadowy world of the CIA.

Which is a shame.  I’ve read the books and quite enjoyed them, and I enjoyed the first film (The Golden Compass, from the book Northern Lights).

It’s interesting the blame has been laid (by Sam Elliot at least) at the foot of the catholic church.  Personally, I was under the impression it was purely a financial decision.  It didn’t make enough money (see below).  Now, the protesting at the movie’s release may have had an impact, despite the efforts to tone down the anti-religious moments and even Philip Pullman (the author) tried to deny they were anti-Christian at release.

This is the same Pullman who was attacking the Narnia films (he’s been outspoken about it before).  He has always said the films were never about trying to convert kids to atheism though.  IT does reek a little of a PR person having a word with him to try not to damage the box office.

Having said that, the Harry Potter films were attacked too, and it didn’t seem to harm their box office.  As were the likes of The Da Vinci Code and Twilight.

According to Box Office Mojo, The Golden Compass cost $180m to make, and only grossed $70m in the US, with a total of $372m worldwide.  Compare that to the first Chronicles of Narnia film, which also cost $180m, but grossed $292m in the US and $745m worldwide (the second movie faired worse).  The first Harry Potter cost $125m and grossed $317m in the US and $974m worldwide (even the worst performing stuffed The Golden Compass).

Part of that reason is because the books are simply less filmic, they have subjects which are much more difficult to convey on screen in an easy 90-120 minute form.

As one of the Guardian articles puts it:

So maybe, just maybe, The Golden Compass wasn’t given any sequels because it didn’t deserve any. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a score of 42% – ranking it alongside such masterpieces as Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle – with reviewers calling it "bland", "patchy" and "a crushing disappointment". It looks as if people were too busy despairing at the film’s long, impenetrable voiceovers about dust to notice that it was apparently waging a war on Christmas.