Jack Reacher (2012)

The first film that I saw in 2012 was Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and its quite fitting that the last film of 2012 is a Tom Cruise film. Jack Reacher is based on a character created by Lee Child. I wasn’t aware of the character or author before seeing this film. The only thing I knew about it was that the character is suppose to be 280lbs and very tall and with the best will in the world, Tom Cruise is neither of those things. But I wondered whether that would make any difference to the film and to be honest it didn’t have an impact. Another thing that I wasn’t aware of was this was based on a book called One Shot which according to Wikipedia is the ninth book in the range. Quite why they didn’t go with Killing Fields instead of going for this one.

The plot of the film sees a guy named Charlie shoot dead five people (seemingly at random) and a lawyer is trying to prove doubt on him to avoid the death penalty. Jack Reacher is called in to try and help. The film seems to be plodding along when Werner Herzog turns up and instantly makes the movie better, the problem with that is he’s not on screen for very long but when he is then I’m interested. Another piece of good casting was for Robert Duvall who again is in it for very little but again I was interested when he was on screen.

The screening that I was in (which was early on a Saturday afternoon) there was a good 20-25 people there and there were a couple of instances of people laughing which when its suppose to be an action sequence is a bit unusual.  There were comedy moments which I found funny but there were times when people were laughing and I genuinally didn’t know why they were laughing. Was it that they were trying to find humour in something that wasn’t there or was it my sense of humour? Not sure about that but the thing I am sure of is that whilst watching this I felt that it was a bit like Taken where there is a guy and all he has is his quick moves.

Jack Reacher isn’t a terrible film but neither is it great. It’s middle of the road with some quite good action sequences the film suffers from being an unremarkable film. If there are to be more then they will need something

The Running Man (1987)

The Running Man is a film that being made in the 1980's hasnt aged very well. It takes the viewer to a world in 2017 where the economy has fallen on its arse (out by five years) and there is a grizzly gameshow where the contestants (mainly criminals) are put in to effectivley get killed. Arnie gets put in the show after being framed and labeled a butcher. What the film then dones is put Arnie in a position where he and his fellow contenstants have to basically survive but they are on a mission to try and tell the truth to the public.

The story is pretty good but the visuals havent really aged very well but the film is one of the better non-Terminator films thats not really saying much. It has a nice pace to it and there are some good performance in it.

Richard Dawson is brilliant as Damon Killian. Whenever the action moves to him I find myself more interested in the story. There is something about the way that he presents himself that makes the character so utterly unlikeable. Arnie is pretty standard in this though its always funny watching him because he is so utterly incapable of delivering lines in anything that is believeable. Thats why his most famous role is Terminator where he doesnt have to say a lot.

The Running Man is a film that could probably benefit from a remake but at the rate that their doing remakes, there is a good chance that twelve months from now there will no doubt be news on Den of Geek or somewhere saying the Jason Statham will be starring in it.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Now I havent read the Hobbit but from what I understand its a short single book. Quite why Peter Jackson has decided to turn it into three films is a mystery. I understand why he did it with the Lord of the Rings because each book has a lot in it but The Hobbit? Anyway the film is one that I have been slowly waiting for a while. The story sees Bilbo Baggins go on a journey with Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain.

Martin Freeman plays Bilbo Baggins and if I’m honest then I must say that I am not a fan of Freeman’s as I just don’t think he is a strong actor. However saying that I don’t think he did that bad in this. However Ian McKellen does steal the limelight a lot but that’s just because he is Ian McKellen. For me the most interesting piece of casting is that of Sylvester McCoy as I am a Doctor Who fan and was just waiting for him to be on screen and I cant tell you how happy I was that it wasn’t just a cameo role but quite a significant one. Other interesting pieces of casting was James Nesbitt as Bofur and Richard Armitage as Thorin. But it was Andy Serkis as Gollum that I think everyone was looking forward to seeing. He was quite comical in this film but there weren’t glimpses of the LOTR version which is when I think the film was at its best. Serkis is fantastic because he manages to produce an incredible performance everytime and even 10 years after The Two Towers was released it is impressive how the character can still make people marvel at him.
 
I liked how the film tries to set things up for the Lord of the Rings films there was a scene where a sword from Mordor appears in front of Saruman and he has a look of someone who was being turned. There are also nice appearances of Hugo Weaving as Elrond and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. Also I liked the scene where there are the rock creatures and they are throwing rocks at each other. It was the first time since I saw the wall blow up in The Two Towers that I went ‘wow’. It was an impressive scene and shows that Peter Jackson can direct impressive set pieces.

I rather enjoyed The Hobbit, I don’t think you can compare this to the Lord of the Rings trilogy because this is aimed at a slightly younger audience. I thought that they managed to pad the story out well enough but I wonder just what they are going to do in the next two films. The plot for this film was good and the whole thing felt like a slightly less grown up version of the LOTR films.

 

Capricorn One (1977)

Capricorn One is story of a bunch of astronauts that think they are going to Mars but behind the scenes they are told that it cant happen and they have to fake the landing in a studio. When they return from Mars there is a problem with landing and the world is told that they have died but the astronauts decide to stage a breakout and the chase is on. The story doesnt really get going until the astronauts stage the breakout. Then there are plot stories with Elliot Gould’s character trying to uncover the truth and astronauts trying to show they never left earth.

For me it was Hal Holbrook that really shone in this film because he starts off as a quite likeable person and as things start to spiral out of control his mask slips and he becomes a rather unpleasant person. Even as he is at the funeral you can see just what a nasty person he is. Its quite an impressive transformation. Elliot Gould was also quite good as Robert Caulfield. Gould is always a guarantee of a good performance and he doesn’t disappoint here.

Capricorn One is a very enjoyable film that has a slow first half but picks up massively in the second. I  strongly urge anyone who hasn’t seen this film to buy or rent in now because it really is worth watching.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

It’s hard to believe that its been 11 years since Fellowship of the Ring was released. When I went to see this at the cinemas, I was like a good chunk of the audience that had never read the books. So I wasn’t one of those that would be able to see what they had missed out. This is the extended edition with plenty of stuff added in. The original film was always good but what’s great about an extended edition is that it can pad things out a bit and despite not really adding anything new to the overall story its always good to have these bits instead of being in the deleted scenes part of the DVD.

The story itself is one that doesn’t really have much of a key scene such as Two Towers, but what it does have is the time to show us each character and what purpose they play. Elijah Wood is ok as Frodo but every other face he pulls is like he’s just pooped in his pants. Sean Astin is quite good as Sam but the bromance is what gets in the way. Billy Boyd & Dominic Monaghan are a good double act and have some funny scenes together, especially at Bilbo’s birthday party. Orlando Bloom is just plain annoying, Viggo Mortensen puts in his best performance of the trilogy in this one. But it is Ian McKellen who steals the film. Everytime he was on the screen I was loving the film and just wished that he would be in it more. When I first saw his ‘death’ I was gutted thinking that it was the last we would see of him.

The Fellowship is a really solid film that sets the trilogy up nicely. Its quite easy to make fun of the bromance that happens between Frodo and Sam but it doesn’t detract from what is otherwise a fine film. At 178 minutes it doesn’t rush itself at any point and that’s good. The actors range from ok to fantastic but it is such an ensemble film that you could get away with a mediocre performance because there wouldn’t be time to notice.

Rocky (1976)

Rocky is the film that launched Sylvester Stallone’s career. It sees Rocky Balboa picked to take on Apollo Creed in a title match in what looks like a David vs Goliath encounter. The film builds up to this match with the clear sights of Balboa being a lowly fighter who spends large chunks of the movie trying to woo Talia Shire’s Adrian. The climax of the movie sees the fight last far longer than anyone had expected and its only due to a split decision that Apollo Creed wins but despite not winning the title its something far more than that that, he wins the respect of the public and with that his love. Now that might have been a bit sarcastic towards the end there but despite my cynicscm I must say that I actually found this film to be quite enjoyable. However I did have to stick the subtitles on because Stallone at his best is mainly understandable but Burgess Meredith was even worse.

Stallone is quite good as Rocky Balboa. His does come across as someone who is a good boxer but doesn’t look like he’s ever going to get beyond that and its only due to a lucky opportunity that he becomes something bigger. Talia Shire goes on quite the development throughout the film, at the beginning she looks quite shy with massive glasses and a woolly hat and by the end of the film she is quite the glam figure despite this I thought that Shire was very good and becomes at times the most coherent person in the film. As the antagonist, Carl Weathers is quite good as Apollo Creed. He is the cock-sure boxer who feels like he is doing Balboa a favour by sharing the same ring with him and is soundly embarrassed when Rocky doesn’t give in quickly.

Rocky is an enjoyable adventure that doesn’t try and do the stupid by having Balboa win the title but manages to beat people’s expectations. I haven’t seen all the Rocky films but I suspect that this is probably the strongest one because it didnt have anything to compete against and expectations were low but it has good performances and a perfectly good script.

Blood Diamond (2006)

Blood Diamond is a film that has a moral message behind it which is something that would normally put me off. Leonardo Di Caprio plays a guy who is involved in the business of Conflict diamonds meanwhile a guy called Soloman Vandy whose life is ripped apart when a family is torn apart by a rebel army who end up taking Soloman’s son and train him to be a child soldier. The film then moves towards getting Soloman reunited with his family and get his son. The film has a rather harrowing start where a village is attacked and there is a shot of someone having their hand cut off. The harrowness of the start does get toned down but its always in the air of the scene.

Leonardo Di Caprio is someone that has become a very good actor. I remember seeing him in Romeo and Juliet and Titanic and being amazed and how the person who appears in those films becomes the same Leonardo Di Caprio that we see in this and The Aviator. His accent is quite good but does become ropey when he’s shouting. Djimon Hounsou is truly stunning as its effectively his story who goes through all the emotions and it’s a show stealing performance. David Harewood (currently in Homeland) is fantastic as the fantasticly named Captain Poison. He’s a totally loathsome person who is sadly what I suspect a captain in this part of the world is like. His death his done partly out of shot but its due to Hounsou’s face that make it a great exit.
The film’s not perfect. Jennifer Connelly is pretty poor as Maddy Bowen. The character is a journalist that comes across as neither interesting or annoying. Just someone that has been put in there to provide a love interest but doesn’t even do that. I thought that whenever she was on it ruined the story. Another thing I don’t like are the moral lectures that the film goes on about how conflict diamonds have entered the shops and whilst I understand that this is wrong and think that anyone who knowingly uses them is a dreadful person, the fact I know this means that I don’t need the story explained to me like I’m stupid.
Blood Diamond is a film that should be watched but not if your squeamish. There are some genuinely impressive moments and its directed with a certain amount of style but I felt that the lecture could have been removed and it wouldn’t have made the film any less important.

 

Citizen Kane (1941)

Citizen Kane is regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time. The 1941 film sees Orson Wells playing Charles Foster Kane who is a Rupert Murdoch like figure who in the very first shot utters the word Rosebud and dies. The film then tells his story from the early years when his mother and father sell him and that puts him on the road to being a business magnet. The film strives to find out what or who Rosebud is. The film goes through many stages of Kane’s life and the thing that regularly turns up is just how empty Kane’s life is despite having pretty much all the money and posessions that a man could want.

Despite the story having a particulary linear pace there were some nice directing moments which were even more impressive when you stop to think that it was done in the early 1940’s and its hard not to be impressed with a lot of the shots. Unfortunatley apart from Wells, the performances make this film very hard to sit through in one sitting. It was like the mention and start of the Rosebud plot was meant to be put in the background to be forgotten and something to takes the audience’s attention whilst the movie goes along but they forgot to put something so there is an awful lot of people sitting in chairs in big rooms not really doing a lot.

The thing that is something that didn’t quite make sense was when the butler claimed to know that Kane’s last word was Rosebud. There is a possibility that he could have been out of shot but to be honest it was a bit odd. The answer as to what Rosebud was did catch me by surprise. I wasn’t expecting a person but it seemed quite obvious when it was revealed but the movie had been going for so long that I had forgotten that early scene when Kane was a boy.

Citizen Kane isn’t the greatest movie of all time but its not terrible. I do think that this is an example of hype getting out of control and a film not living up to the hype. It was actually a flop at the box office taking just over $200,000 of its $686,033 budget but it seems that over the years it has gained its reputation and there must be something that other people  see but to be honest its all style and no substance.

Skyfall (2012)

The 23^rd James Bond film has some stuff that it needs to do to eradicate the last one. The problems with Quantum of Solace was firstly it was a rubbish title that never got referred to during the entire film. Secondly the theme tune was rubbish, Jack Black and Alicia Keys might be talented musicians on their own but together managed to make something that was marginally better than Madonna’s Die Another Day. Thirdly the plot was baffling and despite a recent watch of the 2008 offering, I still didn’t understand it and no one has been able to tell me what its all about. So I hoped that Skyfall would be able to put the franchise back on track.

The theme tune is very good. I heard it when it was first released I was impressed with it and thought that it was infinitly more impressive when you see it with the titles. It seems to be quite harking back to the Shirley Bassey themes or other 1960’s Bond themes. I would say out of the last three themes its probably the best. The plot is much better than QOS because in Skyfall they are trying to find a list of underground NATO agents that has been stolen and the list is being uploaded onto the internet. The first half has some impressive scenes and it’s the second half which I really enjoyed. It’s when the film starts to step back to the classic era where the old Aston Martin appears and the action moves to Bond’s home in Scotland. It’s where the final action part happens and I’m reminded of Transformers 3 where the main action sequence lasted for a whole hour and dragged for what felt like a lifetime. In this it was actioned packed and moved along at breakneck speed. There was a brief moment which seemed to have come out of a Home Alone movie but the under siege theme that ran through the latter stages of this part helped make it feel like a Bond film.

Daniel Craig puts in another great Bond performance though he does seem to be looking like he is getting on a bit (currently 44). Brosnan was 49 when he did Die Another Day in 2002 so Craig doesn’t have many years left before he will get replaced. Craig does get to do a bit more humorous dialogue than he normally would get to do but he is a very good Bond and whether he is better than Connery is up for debate but on this performance its easy to argue. Javier Bardem is a very good Bond baddie. I don’t think he’s the best one ever but I certainly think that his performance switches between standard and psychotic. The moment where he pulls his top set of teeth out and you see the grimness that is there was a particular highlight. Berenice Marlohe is the brief Bond girl that appears for about 10 minutes before she meets a rather surprising ending. I thought that she didn’t really offer much in the way of a Bond Girl but that would be my only gripe with the film. Judi Dench puts in her best performance. Her involvement has increased since she debuted in Goldeneye and since Craig took over her involvement has got quite more noticeable. It’s great that they managed to include Q into the films after John Cleese’s R was apparently surpluss to requirements in the Casino Royale reboot. Ben Whilshire isn’t Desmond Llewelyn but he is still good as the new Q and I did like the mention of the exploding pen from Goldeney and he says “We don’t do that anymore” and then “If you could bring it back…” was a nice nod to Llewelyn’s Q. It was quite a surprise that they actually killed of Judi Dench’s M. I had heard rumours that this would happen and that Naomie Harris may be Miss Moneypenny and that Ralph Fiennes’ character would be the new M but I thought that she would get to have a walking off into the sunset type ending.

The product placement has been something that has gotten a lot of press. Heineken is the biggest name that seemed to have been attached but actually I hardly noticed it. Both Bond and Tanner cover up the big label and it’s the very fine writing at the top is all that you notice. For me the biggest product placement came from the digger in the pre-title sequence and the rolex watch shot in the next shot. Apart from that the product placement was pretty light or at least as noticeable as it is in other films.

Skyfall is a brilliant Bond film that wasn’t quite what most people would expect but I think that it was trying to lay the groundwork for future Bond films. Sam Mendes has done a very good job with making a 143 minute film seem like it was half that time.

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

The fourth paranormal film is the worst of the four so far and I didn't think it would get any worst than the third. It takes place some five years after the events of the second film. We follow the family and we are meant to believe that a blonde kid is the weird one who becomes friends with Wyatt. It's soon revealed that Katie lives across this frankly but what makes it just plain baffling is that Wyatt turns out to be Hunter. So let's get this straight that Katie puts Hunter up for adoption. Adopts a kid and grooms the kid she put up for adoption. How did this get through a script meeting? Why did no one put out this stupid plot hole at any point during pre-production?
 
There were some good moments. The first time when the blonde kid appears in the treehouse was good as was when Katie stood up from the coach. In the screening that I was in when Katie snaps the guys neck some woman behind me said "they did that in the second film" and that's the thing about this film is that they seem to be going through the things they did in the previous films. There was a bit where Wyatt is on a tricycle riding through the kitchen when you think 'ok you've seen the shining, well done'. Also there is the bit where the fridge door opens and you expect something to appear and nothing does which is disappointing. Also a reference is made that the mom and dad aren't getting on and its forgotten and they keep referring to people meeting at katie's house but nothing is made of it until the end where the light shows a group of people in the garden which is from the third film and there is a moment where Katie is running towards the camera and her face goes funny which indicates that they have also seen grave encounters.
 
So in a nutshell, paranormal activity four is rubbish and the worst film of the year so far. It's a lazy film making that doesnt hide the fact that it only exists because the money says it has to. This will no doubt tale hundreds of millions of dollars and it seems like they made this just to see how take people's money. There were people in the screening trying to make everyone else jump and those attempts were more creative and effective than this film.
 
On a final note. It cost me eight pounds to see this rubbish and I jumped twice. That's four quid a jump which simply isn't good enough. Also there is a thing at the end after the credits roll which takes place somewhere and it happens in some shop where the guy holding the camera is walking round, gets found by a weird woman and then leaves the shop.This is meant to leave the door open for a fifth installement but to be honest its going to have to pick up its game to wash away the disappointment of this film.

Rating - 4/10

Octopussy (1983)

Octopussy is the thirteenth bond film and is the sixth one to feature Roger Moor e as James Bond. It was a relief that For Your Eyes Only was a return to form because Moonraker had been such a comical film and For Your Eyes Only was more like older Bond. Sadly it seems like the franchise has taken a step back in Octopussy. First of all let’s address the title, if it weren’t a Bond film you would say it was an Austin Powers movie. The theme song is also something that is important in a bond film and here it’s not as impressive as the last one. The plot itself isn’t as interesting because For Your Eyes Only had a plot and also an underlying tone about revenge whereas in Octopussy the film centres on Bond following a Russian general who is stealing jewels and relics from his own government and is trying to effectively start a new war.

Roger Moore seems to be liking going back to being the ladies man bond as opposed to the 100% series one that we had in the last film. It wasn’t his best performance. It was good to have a lot more Desmond Llewelyn in this movie than we have for quite some time. Q is a very enjoyable character that doesn’t get enough screen time and this seemed to be put right. Robert Brown does well as the new M. It was always going to be hard to replace to replace Bernard Lee as he was so believable in the role but Brown does a good job. Steven Berkoff is the main baddie as General Orlov and I must be honest but I didn’t find him 100% believable. He was good but it just didn’t work for me. As the titled Octopussy, I thought that Maud Adams was a good ‘Bond Girl’ she was someone who seemed to be shrouded in mystery and it was only when it was clear that she was being cheated that she really stood up to the action.

The decision to move the story to India was quite a good one as the story as it meant we got some really nice location footage. It seemed to be quite a contract to move the story from India to East Germany but it did seem to flow quite well.  When the story moved to Germany it seemed to step up a gear and I found the story more enjoyable which is surprising when we have Roger Moore dressed up as a clown trying to convince some American about the impending bomb exploding.

Octopussy isn’t the terrible film that I remember. It’s not as good as For Your Eyes Only but there is a lot to like about this film and I think that it does a perfectly decent job in the franchise.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

For Your Eyes Only is a return to form of some sorts after the space romp that was Moonraker. It was seen as an attempt to avoid going to far down the slapstick route that it would have inevitably done and become an Austin Powers movie 20 years early. This is the twelth bond movie and the fifth featuring Roger Moore as James Bond and it starts off with a rather curious pre-title sequence because there is a lovely nod to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service where Bond attends the grave of his wife who got killed at the end of that film. It then moves into a weird but very impressive helicopter action piece which sees Blofeld return to the franchise after his last appearance in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service back in 1969. It’s a weird scene because we don’t actually get to see Blofeld’s face and instead get a rather camp voice for the bald guy in a wheelchair. It ends with a rather effective way of killing off the character but its curious why they didn’t try and make a movie around it and not finish him off in such a quick and careless way. As Bond theme’s go, this was a very good one by Sheena Easton which considering its an 80’s track still holds up better than even the Alicia Keys and Jack White’s collaboration from just four years ago.

he plot sees 007 try and retrieve ATAC which has been stolen after the ship it was on was sunk. The film has a theme of revenge as the Bond girl for this movie (Melina Havelock) is out for revenge after her mother and father where murdered. As Bond Girls go she is the least annoying for quite sometime. I wouldn’t say she the perfect Bond girl but she serves a purpose. The story has some impressive sequences which take place in snow (in particular in a slalom) and also on the side of a cliff which I thought was especially well done. Julian Glover is superb in this film and has a real knack for playing totally unlikeable characters such as Walter Donovan in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and here he plays Aristotle Kristatos who starts off as the protagonist but then becomes the actual villain. I must say he was more convincing as the baddie than the goodie. Roger Moore gives I think his best performance since The Man With The Golden Gun as this is a far more tamed version of 007 than we have seen for some time. Certainly without any of the humour from Moonraker, Moore is able to show a more serious side to the character than we have seen for a while.
The end of the film is rather odd. After the day has been saved and Bond has got the girl there is a scene where someone playing Margaret Thatcher is talking to Bond. I know this was made in 1981 when she was still relatively popular but I just thought that it was one of those instances where reality and fiction mix when they really shouldn’t. It doesn’t add anything and just comes across as a bit indulgent and silly. However For Your Eyes Only is a perfectly decent Bond film with some good chase scenes, a Bond girl that has a purpose for being there and a plot that worked rather well. It was odd that it was the first Bond film that Bernard Lee was in this film but obviously since he died before it was made it was clear he wasn’t going to be in it but I liked how they didn’t rush to replace him and instead wrote him out cleanly and effectively.

Grave Encounters 2 (2012)

Grave Encounters was a film that I now use as a marker of which to compare these found footage films and so it was no real surprise that there would be a sequel. The problem is that with anything that goes down well with an audience is just how is the sequel going to go down. The film starts with people reviewing Grave Encounters as a film and this reminds me of the Blair Witch Project 2 when they basically admit that first one was a film and it went downhill because of it so I was worried that we would be going down the same road. The first fifteen minutes are totally pointless as we are forced to sit through party where the lead guy Alex is throwing up and the rest of the characters come across as totally annoying.  The film tries to show that the first Grave Encounters is a film by referring to other found footage films such as Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity and most recently Apollo 18.

There was a nice moment where Alex is talking on the web cam and his mouth starts to open up like it did in the first film. After spending what seems like an age with a stupid fake horror film they find evidence that the film was in fact real and they decide to go to Canada to where it was flmed. It takes 36 mind numbing minutes to get to this moment but when the action does move to the hospital then it really picks up. I found the Ouija board bit to be a bit cliché and thought that it was a bit of a dud moment and thought that Alex was an idiot from start to finish.

The deaths in this film are impressive. It’s clear that this film has a bigger budget compared to the first one and its been used to good effect.  Something that got carried over from the first one but done better was the exit not being what we think it is. When they exit the hotel and enter the lift it seems like something is up when the maid we see the cast walk past is acting strangley but when they exit the lift they find themselves back in the hospital which is slightly similar to the first film but I didn’t see it coming to be fair. It seemed odd that they got out in the first place so I suppose a smarter person would have seen it coming but I didn’t and thought that it was well achived.

The big surprise was the return of Sean Rogerson who was last seen lobotomised at the end of the first film. He thinks that he has been living in that hospital for nine months but has infact been there for nine years and is trying to get out. There is a strange door that appears in the basement and the drama centres around this and I found as I found the new characters to be annoying that I really wanted Sean to get out and he does but its like something out of the twilight zone where a massive portal opens up in the wall and he gets sucked through. No idea what was going on or whether he survives but I guess that its some sort of closure for the character. Alex’s murdering of the blonde girl was possibly the most gruesome of all the deaths in the film as it was very graphic and it doesn’t hide from that.

The final scene where Alex is sitting with the bloke who was ‘responsible’ for the first film and I thought that it was a bit of subdued ending and not quite the one that I would have gone for but to be honest it’s not the worst ending that a found footage film has come up with and I enjoyed the film enough to forgive them for it. Had it not been for the first 36 minutes that we got I would easily say that this was better than the first one but sadly because of what we got I have to say its just short of Grave Encounters 1. That said there was plenty in this film that I liked and found it to be bonkers, brilliant and scary.

Rating - 7/10

The Tall Man (2012)

The Tall Man is a film that is half of a baffling story and half of a quite interesting one. The film is set in a town called Cold Rock where children have been going missing and it’s due to someone called the Tall Man who is a black clad individual. Jessica Biel plays a nurse called Julia Denning who’s husband died many years earlier but for the first half of the story it seems a bit weird. After a while of nothing happening the drama happens when her son is taken and she runs after the black clad person drives off there is a nice little sequence where Biel has to tackle the mystery person whilst having her leg bitten by a dog before it turns over.

It was quite obvious that a classic plot device was going to be used and that is the town folk would be involved in the disappearance and it soon proved to be a correct guess when Denning finds a photo of her son who has just been taken.  There was an awful lot of not knowing exactly was going on and there were various theroies going on but then its becomes obvious that Biel isn’t the good as gold nurse that we are led to believe but actually someone who we are led to believe is the person who has killed all these children but then there is yet again another twist when we find out that these children aren’t dead but have infact been given to a family that will treat them far better that they were being treated back in Cold Rock. I must admit this was a rather clever thing which I didn’t see coming but my main issue is that it took way too long for the interesting stuff to come to the screen. At 100 minutes you would think that there wouldn’t be much time to waste with the minor stuff but unfortunately I spent far too long confused which is shame because the last 15-20 minutes is quite interesting and there is an interesting story in there but its too rushed for my liking.

Jessica Biel was quite good in this. Having just seen her in Total Recall I thought this was a much better performance as she played two sides of the character with the true Julia being the more interesting part. William B Davis was great because I remember him from the X-Files and thought that as the local policeman he didn’t really convince me but I still thought that he was great.

I was expecting The Tall Man who be a horror which would have some scares but it was a totally different film to that. It has its faults but I think that I have seen far worse films with substantially worse acting. Jessica Biel is the big name in this film but at times its so underplayed that you feel it could have been played by anyone and its curious to know what the reported £11.2 million budget was spent on because it could have been spent on a script writer who could have worked on tightening it up.

Rating - 6/10

Absolute Power (1997)

Absolute Power is a film that sees a burglar witness the US President involved in a murder and the attempts by the presidents people to retrieve the evidence that would place the president at the scene of the crime. Eastwood plays Luther Whitney the burglar in question who has an estranged daughter (Laura Linney). The story spends a long time getting to the moment where the president gets involved in the murder but once it does the scene itself is quite tense and impressive.

First of all we are meant to believe that Clint Eastwood is still a burglar at the age he was then (He would have been 67) and there was a bit where he was being chased through the woods which must have been for quite some distance and didn’t seem to be out of breath seemed a little implausible to me. After the murder has been committed the story introduces Whitney’s daughter who the police are trying to use to get Whitney. I wasn’t as bothered by this as it felt like they had the desire just to add something to make the story have a bit more emotional edge which it quite frankly didn’t need.

Clint Eastwood is typically Clint Eastwood and plays the role of Whitney brilliantly. When he not on screen my mind tended to wander a little but when Clint was on screen I found myself enjoying the film. Gene Hackman was brilliant as the President and as someone who is trying to control the secret of what happened that day. He comes across as someone who tries to come across as quite dominate but actually crumbles at the first sign of pressure. Very good performance. Ed Harris tends to play bad guys and its easy to see why. In this he is totally weak and doesn’t come across convincingly as a good person. The previous years movie The Rock shows how good he can be when he is a baddie in this he seems to be uncomfortable as a good guy as he seems to bumble his way through his scenes with Laura Linney.

The thing about Absolute Power is that it’s a perfectly decent movie but lacks the punch that you would expect from a movie starring two of Hollywood’s greatest actors. The film seems quite happy to bumble along and at no point did I feel that it was building up to anything particular. The film moves along and then Gene Hackman is killed and that seems to be the end of it. That said I enjoyed it and it showed why Clint Eastwood is one of my favourite actors and is a great director. When you consider his work one thing that can sadly be said about his films it that there is always something to like.

Rating - 7/10

 

Total Recall (2012)

Total Recall is based on a short story by Philip K Dick and it is a remake of the 1990 version which starred Arnold Schwarzenegger. Whereas that version is takes place between Earth and Mars, this version takes place between the United Federation of Britain and the Colony (Australia). The action moves from one place to another by means of a giant lift where in the centre the gravity flips around.  The story sees a guy called Douglas Quaid (Farrell) who finds out that his memories are not real and that he is in fact a highly skilled agent working for UFB Chancellor Vilos Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) and it’s a race to stop Cohaagen from invading the Colony. As plots go it’s pretty straight forward so what director Len Wiseman has done is fill it with several action sequences that are all superbly achieved and it would be good to watch the DVD extras to see how it was achieved.

Kate Beckinsale is very good as Lori who starts off as the wife of Colin Farrell but soon becomes an undercover UF agent.  Whilst her casting was due to the fact that she is married to the director it must be said that she wasn’t there just to make up the numbers. Colin Farrell isn’t someone that I have seen in a great number of films. I thought he was quite good in ‘In Bruges’ but apart from that I can’t say that I am a fan of his. Unlike Schwarzenegger, Farrell is much more believable as Quaid who was a regular blue collar worker and does well with the action sequences that the film requires. Jessica Biel was another person that I haven’t seen in too many films before but I was quite impressed with her performance as Melina who becomes Quaid’s love interest. Her introduction into the film was quite good as it was in the middle of quite an impressive action sequence.
I thought that this film was better than I thought it would be. Bill Nighy could have been in it more for my liking as it seemed fairly rushed. I also thought that there was a lot of glaring light that actually gave me a headache after a while. I know it was an attempt to try and create an atmosphere but all it achieved was to get me reaching for the paracetamol. The story was good, the action was also very good but the visuals were what made it an impressive film. It’s fair to say that the 1990 version may have dated even more now.

On a side note, the studio that made this was called Original Film. This is anything but original.

A Night in the Woods (2011)

A Night in the Woods is a British Found Footage film that stars Scoot McNairy (Monsters) and see a couple and an ex go to the Moors because the guy had an experience 10 years ago and wants the girlfriend to through with it. What makes it even more obvious that its not going to end well is that there is jealousy involved with the ex turning up. Now what starts off as a gentle paced film which explores a myth before venturing up to the area itself. The moment that its just Kerry (Anna Skellern) and she is roaming the moors it becomes a bit silly and loses itself. She is running yet the camera is following her, now if she is being followed by someone then why doesn’t she seem them when she looks at the camera several times and if nobody is holding the camera then it not technically a found footage film. The last 10-15 minutes when they are all running around where Brody and Leo have gone a bit mad is where it gets back on track.

It’s not a terrible movie but there are things about it that don’t really work. It’s nice to see a film that is British made and isn’t set in a mental hospital. That said it does go off the rails and it’s a shame because it could have been easily resolved and sorted out. Scoot McNairy is the best thing in the film as Leo (played by Andrew Hawley) comes across as a bit of an arsehole. There was a moment where I did jump because something was thrown at the camera so that does make it from being a 4 star film to a five because it’s the first time that I have jumped at a film for quite a while.

Pirates of the Carribean (2003)

The first Pirates film is the best one out of the four (so far) that have been made. That is because it is the one with the best plot and possibly the shortest. The film is based on a theme park ride so there is the potential (which we got in the next three films) for the lack of plot to be shown to everyone. The plot of this one is that Jack is trying to get his ship back and Barbosa (who stole the ship from Jack) is trying to free him and his men from the curse. This is a good plot and its done with well over the course of the 143 minutes.

Johnny Depp is very good as Captain Jack Sparrow, its easy to see why people like this character as he is a bumbling character that you couldn’t believe as a pirate who has his own ship (which he doesn’t). Geoffrey Rush is also very good as Barbosa. He is great as a baddie and seems to thrive as a pirate and that is why when he and Johnny Depp are in the same scenes that they become highly enjoyable scenes. Sadly the film is let down by Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly. Both are very limp as actors and its quite appropriate that they are attracted to each other because they deserve each other. Bloom was very good in Lord of the Rings but having to come across as likeable blacksmith who some how falls for Keira Knightly’s character is totally stupid and I could have done without both of them.

The only bad thing that I can say about this film is that it was so good that it lead to three terrible sequels (the third being the worst). This film is a nice film that has a good plot with some good performances and its always enjoyable to watch everytime I put it in my DVD player.

Source Code (2011)

Source Code is film that features Jake Gyllenhaal who plays someone who has to relive the same eight minutes over and over again in order to find out who the bomber is on a Chicago train. It takes a long time for it to settle down but being directed by Duncan Jones (Moon) this wasn’t going to be your typical movie and despite it being closer to Inception than any film I can think of. Now the idea that the same eight minutes were going to be played over and over again was something that I wasn’t looking forward to however whilst the same eight minutes are played over and over again its never the same. As the film progresses, Gylenhaal’s character wises up to what is going on and the shocking truth behind the character of Colter Stevens is played out very well.

I’m not a massive fan of Gyllenhaal having only seen him in Donny Darko which I hated and The Day After Tomorrow where he wasn’t bad but its not a particularly great movie. He was very good in this film and was impressive throughtout. Michelle Monaghan (Christina Warren) and Vera Farmiga (Colleen Goodwin) were both very good and helped the story move along in different ways. I thought that Farmiga had the slightly stronger character as she was the one that knew the truth and was the one that seemed to be most willing to give Stevens his wish. Jeffrey Wright (Felix in Casino Royale) was brilliant as Dr Rutledge, he was like some sort of evil genius.

I enjoyed this film. I thought that the ending was the perfect way to end it and the sight of Gyllenhaal in the tank with the lower half of his body missing was quite impressive. There was a clever end to the film and Source Film is a film that everyone should watch. It’s another film that shows you can do smart films with what was presumably a big budget ($32million). It shows the Michael Bay’s of this world that you can spend a lot of money and make a smart movie.

Carry On Sergeant (1958)

The very first Carry On film which centres around Bob Monkhouse as Charlie Sage who is called up into the army on his wedding day. He is called into the same base as William Hartnell (Sgt Grimshawe) who is about to retire and has the unenviable task of trying to train a winning platoon. Over the course of their 10 week training, there are various ways that the writers have managed to install humour. At just under an hour and a half, this movie manages to pack a lot of jokes and funny scenes in such a short time.

Kenneth Connor's character is quite funny as the hypochondriac Horace Strong. His constant worrying that something is wrong is a nice running joke which is played well by Connor. Kenneth Williams is instantly on form in this as the snobbish and highly intelligent James Bailey. Hattie Jacques’ character is marginal at the beginning but does comes into her own towards the end when she gets revenge on Strong. Despite being the focal point of the movie, I must say that I wasn’t so bothered by the character of Sage and instead found myself being more entertained by the other characters.

It does have a slightly implausable ending when on the final day all the recruits decide to pull together so that Grimshawe can win with his final platoon. To be honest it is something that can be forgiven as by this point there was a lot of good stuff that had gone by. I did like the bit at the end where Hartnell is looking at the present given to him from the boys and has a subtle sense of pride at what has happened. As the first of the Carry On films, its quite an impressive if understated debut. I think that the Carry On films are better in the Black and White ones as there seemed to be a more desire to make jokes as opposed to just smutty jokes which is what the later films became. Carry On Sergeant has some of the finest names in British comedy and tv and its those names and faces that help keep you entertained until the next joke comes along which being a Carry On film doesn’t take long.

Rating - 7/10

 

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

It’s fair to say that you wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of Clint Eastwood when he is angry and that’s exactly what happens in this film. The film is one that apparently has political themes running through it but to be honest I never really saw them myself because I was just so mesmerised by Eastwood and every time he was the screen I just enjoyed the film and when he wasn’t I just found myself wishing he were. Eastwood as an actor is impressive and most actors would love to have the canon of work that he has but what makes Eastwood stand out above everyone else is that he is a superb director and this film is no different. The story sees Josey Wales who’s wife and child are killed decides to seek revenge and joins the confederate cause.
 
As angry Eastwood films goes it’s up there. Having recently tried to the A Fistfull of Dollars and giving up it was a nice feeling to return to an Eastwood film where they didn’t have to dub (badly) over everyone except Eastwood. The plot was good, it was beautifully directed with some stunning location work and the whole film felt good. But whilst the story may seem to be about one man seeking revenge it must be said that the film has much more going for it. Things don’t seem to be happening because of Wales’ involvement, that there is always a sense that Wales would be happiest with his wife and child at home, not trapesing around the American countryside. 
 
The plot is relatively simple and straight forward yet it works tremendously well with the film being livened up by several humouros characters. The first being Chief Dan George who has been obviously had some turmoil in his life yet is still willing to be helpful. He has this underlying comedy tone that works wonders in this film. Another funny character was Grandma Sarah who comes across as very odd but again I found her comedic tone very good.
 
Eastwood has a great eye for style and gives us some lovely scenes and as always with an Eastwood film what we get is a sense that he has a firm handle on the whole film but my only real issue is that at 135 minutes it could have done with a few minor trims and it could lose about 20 minutes but apart from that what we get is a very good film that has a nice plot, nice direction and some strong characters that I liked and enjoyed when they were on camera. As Eastwood films go its one that I would say is in the middle of his collection, not rubbish but certainly not one of his classics.
 
Rating: 7/10

100 Ghost Street: The Return of Richard Speck (2012)

Another of the found footage films, this reminds me of Grave Encounters which had a similar set up. However the difference is quite clear as this isnt as good as G.E which has become the standard that these sort of films should be aiming for which is surprising because when I first saw Grave Encounters I didn’t think that I would using the film to rate others in this way. The main difference is that the whole film is littered with really dumb people. Not dumb as in they think that 2+2=5 but dumb in that they are without any interest or any reason for caring about them. Also in Grave Encounters, there was something about the hospital that made the film seem creepy whereas in this film it manages to make even the most scary seem quite boring and every single person that gets killed one by one doesn’t really bother me.

The film has as I have come to expect there are a range of people that I either don’t care about or find annoying. There was the obligatory sexual moment. It wasn’t a particularly pleasant moment as we learnt the ghost would hide under his bed whilst someone was raped on his bed. The scene where you can see the bed springs go up was a tad bit unncersary because it seemed like a desperate attempt to try and stoke some interest but by this point I was just wishing the end would come and sadly it took too long to come around.

When the end did come it was actually quite good. The one remaining person seems like she has escaped she meets a nasty end and the usual ending to these films where no one at the start of the film sees the ending. To be honest its not the worst film I’ve seen of this genre but after seeing so many they start to look a bit the same and this is at least the third film I have seen set in a hospital and it’s the least entertaining.

 

Ted (2012)

Ted is created by Seth MacFarlane who is the genius behind Family Guy, American Dad and The Cleveland Show. This is the story of a guy called Johnny who has a bear that can talk any 27 years later has turned into a foul mouth, pot taking bear.

This film was either going to be terrible or fantastic and thankfully it’s the latter. I think that a film should have at least 10 laughs and Ted achieved this within the first 10 minutes. If you like the humour in Family Guy and those shows then you will like this film because it is very Family Guy in terms of how its laid out. I thought that Mark Wahlberg was very funny and Mila Kunis was very good but wasn’t really there for the comedic stuff but she wasn’t just there for eye candy. She served a purpose. However it was Seth MacFarlane who was the best as the voice of Ted.

There are too many funny moments that I could mention but I liked in particular the mocking of JACK AND JILL and the last SUPERMAN movie. Ted is a funny film that will probably need several viewings to catch all the jokes. It’s a great film and one of the funniest films that I have seen for a long time. There are jokes, there is a plot and as the trailers were playing before and I saw a Keith Lemon trailer my heart sank. Dear Mr Lemon, watch Ted and if you want to do a comedy then this is how you do it.

The Expendables (2010)

What happens when you put together several genuine tough men and stick them in a movie? Well what you get is a very amusing and tongue in check action movie. With a combined age of 339 years old (Average of 48), this group of genuine hard men spend the entire movie killing the baddies in various ways. The movie is about a bunch of mercernaries who basically…. Oh what does it matter, all that does matter is that it’s a lot of fun that is stupid but knows its stupid and revels in this fact. There are various moments when you think “this is stupid”. Such a moment is when Stallone cuts some blokes hand and head off with a knife. Know my brain knows this isn’t plausible but it simply doesn’t mind. The age thing was quite amusing to me. When this film was made Statham and Crews were the youngest at 42 and Stallone is the oldest at 64. The sight of Stallone trying to catch a plane and just about getting to it is another of those silly moments.

For me the funniest moment was when Schwarzenegger leaves his cameo appearance and Stallone quips that he wants to be president. It’s something that I found amusing for no clear reason. This is clearly a movie that doesn’t rely on too much plot dialogue. However what it lacks for in a credible plot it more than makes up for in action and that’s all that matters. Number 2 should be just as much fun.

The Godfather: Part III (1990)

The first two Godfather films were masterpieces in film making. Both had things that made them great, in the first in was Marlon Brando and in the second it was Robert De Niro. The two films were stylish and were engaging. I think part two is better than part one but its not the wildest line of thinking ever. I have never heard a good word said about part three, never. I was hoping that it was going to be mediocre and thought that I would find something in it that would make me say that it wasn’t that bad. Sadly I cant because this film is terrible. I don’t really know why it was made aside from the fact that Coppola needed to make some money for Paramount but this is an awful piece of movie making and tarnishes the good name of the previous two films. The problems are many.

Firstly and is Sofia Coppola. Now she was a late replacement for Winona Ryder but quite frankly you could have got a bucket with a smiley face on it and you would have got a similar if not better performance. She is just terrible and delivers her lines like badly. Secondly the lack of anything happening. Stuff happens but nothing really happens, you never get the sense of Michael’s empire, you just get a sense that we are seeing someone who is reaching the end of his life and even that isn’t done particularly well. There is no real sense of scale and for me that’s a problem. Another problem is that Andy Garcia is meant to be replacing Michael but I just didn’t find him to be as good. He just seemed to be a mirror image of Al Pacino in the first Godfather film.

The film drags its heals badly and at 162 minutes it’s the shortest of the films but feels like it’s the longest because of the tedious nature of the film. I must say that the final 10-15 minutes were enjoyable and easily the best part of the film but I just think that it’s a long way to go for something that if it were in the other films wouldn’t have stood out but because everything in this film is way below par it then becomes the best thing. The Godfather Part 3 is a film that doesn’t leave you feeling the same way that you would about a dumb Adam Sandler film or Will Ferrell film but it just leaves you feeling disappointed, disappointed that after to fantastic films were end the trilogy with this dull, unimaginative and ultimately badly judged film.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The Dark Knight Rises brings the Nolan series of Batman films full circle. This film is one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year and one where I had genuine fears that it wasn’t going to meet my high expectations. Having enjoyed the previous two Batman films I was hoping that this was going to finish off the trilogy in the way that I was hoping it would. The story takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight were Bruce Wayne is living pretty much as a hermit. Don’t know many hermits that are billionaires and live in massive mansion but there isn’t time to ponder on that fact because we are quickly introduced to Selena Kyle. Now I have seen the Tim Burton version of Catwoman and I have to say that prefer Nolan’s version. This is done largely because of Anne Hathaway, I’m not a Hathaway fan and haven’t really seen any of her films but I was really impressed with how she glided throughout the film.

The main thing that I was aware of before entering the cinema was that there was an issue with Bane’s voice and to be honest I didn’t really have a problem with it. The first time I heard his voice I was a little confused and there were occasional words which I didn’t understand but on the whole I understood what he was saying. I thought that Bane was a very good baddie and much better than what we got in the god awful BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997) movie where he doesn’t really do much though I am reliably informed that its more truthful to the comic in the 1997 version. Tom Hardy does a good job in a tough role because we don’t see his mouth he has to do a lot with his eyes and with the way he positions his body and he does a really good job. Christian Bale is a fantastic Batman/Bruce Wayne. I thought that this was his best outing because he didn’t spend as much time in the Batsuit as he did in previous films it made it more of a character piece and Bale did that well.

Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are as usual brilliant in this film. I thought that Caine was just that little bit better but because he was very emotional in this film. I thought that when Alfred was at the gravestone of the Wayne and he was apologising to Bruce’s parents for not protecting him was a really sad moment and reminds us why Caine is a really good actor.

The film takes its take and with a running time of just over two and a half hours it has the time to take. It’s close to an hour before Bruce Wayne is in the Batsuit and I like how the entire film seemed to flow perfectly. I never looked at my watch and never got bored and unlike Marvel Avengers Assemble/The Avengers, I don’t think that this film needed to lose any of its running time because it ran for as long as it needed to and that a rare thing in movies at this time. It was nice how they seem to tie up the film to BATMAN BEGINS (2005) as Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy both make surprise appearances. They are both good actors so it was a bonus when they appeared though Neeson’s was too brief.

This trilogy for my money is the best trilogy in movie history. This film was everything I wanted to be and met my very high expectations. I don’t know how long it will be before they reboot it (hopefully longer than they left it for Spiderman) but one thing is for sure and that is whoever directs it wont be able to match what Christopher Nolan has achieved in these films.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

I must start off by saying that I think the second Godfather film is far better than the previous. I think this because I find that it just worked better than the first. I really did like that film so it shows how good G2 is. This film splits its time between Al Pacino and a very youthful Robert De Niro. De Niro is playing the Marlon Brando character when the Don first comes to America. I thought that the film took about half an hour to really find its feet but once it did then it just got better and better. The film has a running time of 200 minutes which is 25 longer than the first film. I must be honest and say that it didn’t really feel like that for me. I wasn’t expecting the intermission that came but I used it to get supplies for the second half of the film which was truly enjoyable.

Al Pacino was very good as Michael just like he was in the first film but for me I found Robert De Niro to be mesmerising. Every scene he was in was a superb exercise in fine acting. It’s just a shame that he would be reduced to the Meet the Fockers film. Everytime I think of De Niro in this film I remember why I loved this film. Pacino at times has to surrender the film to De Niro and even though they never share a scene (for obvious reasons) its like a fight to become the best in the film.

Like the previous film, I thought that this was a very good ensemble film with several very strong performances. I loved the moving backwards and forwards of the two big plot strands and even after 3 hours and 20 minutes I found the film enthralling but at the end of this film I realised that we would be heading towards the third film which I have never heard good things about.  The Godfather Part 2 is the finest sequel in movie history. Fact

The Godfather (1972)

It’s an embarrassing admission but I had never seen the Godfather before tonight. I don’t know why but that’s been put right now. It’s regarded as one of the greatest films ever. The film famously has Marlon Brando in and it’s the second film in recent times that I have had to watch with subtitles because I couldn’t understand what Brando was saying. The story is 175 minutes long and it uses every one of those minutes to help construct a massive mafia family led by Marlon Brando and its nice to see the evolution of Michael from being the nice member of the family having been in action in World War 2 to become the head man. The thing that the film shows is there is very little in the way of happiness. There are members of the family that are killed and no one comes out of this film unscathed.

Marlon Brando is very good in this film but its Al Pacino who steals the film. As his gradual rise to power becomes more evident, Pacino continues to come across as the most normal member of the family. James Caan is also very good and is always a reliable and safe pair of hands. The performances of even the supporting cast were all very good and it was very much an ensemble piece and it’s needed because a just under 3 hours it would be a stretch to keep a small band of people in a story which keeps the audience’s attention. Francis Ford Coppola has done a great job in keeping the pace going and not losing his nerve by having a massive action sequence but just keeping it calm and letting the acting shine.

I wouldn’t say that I think this is the greatest movie ever made but I did very much like it. I have high expectations about what to expect from the next two movies but the Godfather is certainly in my top 10.

The Amazing Spider Man (2012)

It’s weird to think that just five years after the last spiderman film, that we should get or need a reboot. But that’s what we have in this film with Andrew Garfield taking over from Toby Maguire in the lead role. I must admit that I prefer Garfield to Maguire because I think that Garfield did the vulnerable and wimpy person thing much better than Maguire ever did. I also thought that the main problem with Spiderman 3 was that there were too many baddies which just got in the way. In this film all we have is the lizard guy played by Rhys Ifans.

It was good how somethings that were in the first Spiderman in 2002 were used in this film but in a slightly different way. I thought that the way that Parker’s uncle (played brilliantly by Martin Sheen) was far more believeable. It was a shame when Sheen was written out as I am a huge fan of his and thought that he brought something to the story. Sally Field surprised me as the only other thing I saw her in was in Mrs Doubtfire (1993). She was very good as Aunt May and was even better in the scenes after Sheen left. I thought Emma Stone was quite good as Gwen Stacey. I thought that Stone was a far better love interest for Parker than Kirsten Dunst.

The film could have done with being about 15-20 minutes shorter but on the whole I found The Amazing Spiderman to be quite good. Much better than I thought it was going to be. I think Garfield is a very good Peter Parker and have high hopes for the future. On a side note I saw this film in 2D as opposed to 3D and I don’t for a second think I missed anything.

Rating – 7/10

Skew (2011)

Skew is another of the found footage films that has a good idea at its core but unfortunately gets bogged down with its own self importance and ultimately loses its focus. The film starts with three friends (well two are in a relationship) and they are embarking on a road trip. Now I’ve seen enough of these films to know that at some point someone will ask the person filming to turn the camera off and that these ‘friends’ will ultimately turn on each other after the events. There are a series of events which occur however due to the fact that the three main characters are about as interesting as ditch water and nothing about what happens to them is interesting in the slightest. I even don’t care about why its happening.

There are some interesting special effects which are very well realised and its impressive with what can be done with a small budget. I also thought the moments where the ‘dead’ people appear and then disappear was also quite effective however that is as much good will as I have aimed at the film. The film is less than 90 minutes long but boy does it drag. The only mildly interesting scene comes at the end where the characters are at the abandoned gas station. The woman buggers off somewhere and Simon kills Richard. No explanation is given as to why she’s gone and there’s no real explanation as to why Simon has gone mad. All in all its one of those films that sets things up but cant be bothered to think of a logical explanation and it’s the one thing that would have improved this movie but I suppose a budget that small cant cover everything.

It’s not the worst film of this genre that I have ever scene however its not scary and doesn’t make me think about much except why didn’t it make sense?

Rating 4/10

There Will Be Blood (2007)

There Will Be Blood is a film that I had heard good things about and I must get it out of the way by saying that I don’t share that sentiment. It’s a film that has some good things going for it however those things don’t save the film for me.  I thought the idea was quite well done and also thought ath Daniel Day Lewis was superb as was Paul Dano who played Eli Sunday who at times was a mesmerising character. I found myself enjoying the film when these two were on screen but found the general flow of the film to lack something which it needed to compliment the performances.

It was only because of Dano and Day-Lewis that kept me from turning the DVD off so I must admit that I was somewhat disappointed with this film.

Haunted Changi (2010)

Another found footage film which looks at the mysterious goings on in a hospital. There was some interesting stuff at the beginning about the history of the hospital and why there are supposidly strange things happening. It's an ameateur film and there are several scenes which try and do some interesting special effects which at times do work but at other times dont really work. I think that the problem is that there are several things that do the film good but the main thing that lets it down is that its just not scary. There's one moment of blood at the end which even I saw coming and that was about as scary as it got.

The setting was well chosen and there were a few moments where I thought it worked quite well but I bring it back to the fact that it wasnt scary. It wasnt as bad as some found footage films that I have seen but the best thing I can say about it is that its mediocre.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Captain America was a film that I felt I needed to watch but wasn’t really looking forward to it as it looked like a weaker action hero film. I had seen Chris Evans in Avengers Assemble and I kind of knew what the character’s story was but I have to admit that I really really enjoyed Captain America. The story takes place during World War 2 and Steve Rogers is trying to enlist in the Army but due to ailemnts he is rejected and before we know it this thin asthmatic turns into a muscley individual. I was quite impressed with how they did the CGI thin Rogers. The story follows the basic action/super hero film where there is some evil person trying to cause a war or capitalise on their power. In this story its Johann Schmidt (played by Hugo Weaving). Schmidt enters the story like he’s just rolled out of a Indiana Jones film but quite quickly Weaving shows he is better. I liked the Red Skull character and thought that it was another well achieved piece of CGI. Weaving did at times seem similar to his character in The Matrix films. Chris Evans is a believeable actor and makes the character seem likeable. He might not have the gizmo’s that Iron Man has but he manages to carry his own. I also liked Tommy Lee Jones and thought that he was also another good piece of casting. The only casting I wasn’t sure about was Hayley Atwell who served a fringe purpose as the love interest.

The tie-in to the Assemble movie was evident here as Domonic Cooper plays Howard Stark (Tony Stark’s father) and he is frozen at the beginning (and end of the film) which brings us to the modern day. I am still impressed with just how they manage to make these stories tie in together when there was no guarantee that they films would be the critical or commercial success it would turn out to be. The casting was good, the story was also good and I am impressed with how impressed I was with it considering how much I wasn’t looking forward to this film. There is word of a second movie and I cant wait for it.

Men in Black 3 (2012)

I saw MIB1, didnt see MIB2 and so skipped straight to MIB3 where it has been 14 years since the first film and it sees J jump to 1969 to prevent Boris 'the destroyer' from killing K. Now this is a pretty simple premise but it’s more entertaining than I am making it sound. It’s quite hard to try and find the feel of a film 10 years after the previous one but somehow they manage it. This was the first 3D film which I wasn’t annoyed by wearing the stupid glasses. There were some ok moments in 3D but I am still yet to be won over by 3D. I always find the 3D works best with the adverts that they stick on before the film starts and whilst that was the case here there were a few moments which I thought were good.

Will Smith was quite good in this and one of the main problems I have with Smith is that he can be annoying and he reigns its back in this film. I thought that he was outshone by Josh Brolin who was outstanding in this. I thought at times that his voice had been dubbed to make him seem more like Tommy Lee Jones but this wasn’t the case. As the 1969 K, he was great in every scene he was in. Tommy Lee Jones on the other hand was more of a cameo star than anything else. He appears at the beginning and at the end and whilst his scenes were enjoyable, I felt that I could have done with more TLJ but I suppose the constraints of the plot made this impossible.

The film move alongs at a good pace and never slows down or gets bored with whats going on. I felt that it was a believeable plot and had a baddie that quite impressive and the threat was credible. Only thing that let it down was at the beginning when Nicole Scherzinger made a cameo as some PVC clad lover of Boris. Pointless. Could have cast anyone but that’s a minor quibble. A lot of people seem to be down on MIB3 but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with it and though it isn’t a patch on the first film I still thought it was a good effort and far better than I thought it would be. I left the cinema and was hoping that there might be a fourth one but also hoping that it isn’t 2022 before we get that.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

The second Iron Man film is much better than the first one but that's because the first film was just laying down the rules of the franchise. It sees Mickey Rourke, gets annoyed that Robert Downey Jr's dad stole his dads idea or something like that. Basically it gives the film a chance to do what it wanted to but couldnt in the first one because it had to lay down the rules of the franchise and that is just have several spectacular action sequences. The first being a good one to start with and that is the one at Monaco.

Whilst I enjoyed the action sequences which one would expect from an action film, it was the casting choices that made me enjoy this film. RDJ was on good form again and is proving to be a strong screen prescene. Gwyneth Paltrow was marginally better but I still see her more as Chris Martin's wife than an actress which is a shame. Don Cheadle's casting in this film was purely because Rhodes was more involved in this film and they must have thought that Terence Howard wouldnt have been able to pull it off. That said I thought that he did well. Sam Rockwell was brilliant in this, I am a fan of his and thought that his baddie was a bit more restrained than that of Jeff Bridges. Scarlett Johannson serves a eye candy role in this film. It was time to play 'lets see how long it takes us to get her into a skintight catsuit'. Not convinced. However the most bizarre piece of casting was for that of Mickey Rourke. It's ok when he not talking but when he has to utter any words then that horrible russian accent comes out and the threat is ruined.

Iron Man 2 is a much better film that Iron Man 1. I liked the bit at the end where Thor's hammer appears in the ground. Must get round to watching Thor.

Iron Man (2008)

The first Iron Man movie is the most blatant attempt to lay down the ground rules for a franchise. Having watched the Avengers movie, I had some high hopes for this first outing for Robert Downey Jr. The film starts off as Starkey being in an unnamed middle east country and is attacked and asked to build a version of his weapon but ends up building a suit to escape and works on building a new one when he gets home but the bad guys (including Jeff Bridges) get hold of the old suit and use it.

The film was highly enjoyable. Every time RDJ appears on screen I was having fun because he is a good screen prescene. When Gwenth was on screen I was less intersted because she is not a particuarly good actress. Jeff Bridges is obviously a baddie from the moment that she appeared on screen as he bald and had a beard and was quite an effective baddie.

The first half of the film does a good job of setting the reason why Starkey is the way he is and its nice how he changes his views and when people try to get him to go back to his old ways he refuses. The action sequences were very well realised and I didnt find it boring at all.

This film is highly enjoyable and I am now looking forward to the second one which I have got on DVD.

Blair Witch Project (1999)

It's surprising that after 13 years, this film manages to hold its own. I remember when this came out and I didnt want to see it at the cinema cause I was a wuss (still am). The film sees three filmakers as they do a documentary about a so called Blair Witch. This was in the era when it wasnt possible to think it was anything other than a film.

It was the first film of its kind that I ever saw and you can see where films like Paranormal Activity get their inspiration from however whilst I might not find this film as scary as I had done in previous years but I still think that there are several creepy moments. I thought that the final 10 minutes was particuarly creepy and well done by the actors.

There is one flaw with the film. All they need to do is to find the river and just follow it. It cant go around in a circle and they would eventually find something resembling civilisation. That flaw aside its still a damn good movie and compared to said Paranormal Activity, its still the benchmark for good found footage horror films.

Marvel Avengers Assemble (2012)

There was a fair amount of hype around this film. Recently it had taken $1 billion and I thought that despite not having seen any of the other films beforehand, that I would not only see this film but see it in 3D. I had pretty much given up on 3D after wasting my time on Transformers 3. I was also worried about whether I would have missed anything from not having seen Captain America, Thor or Iron Man.

I found the film thoroughly entertaining and the first time in a long time that I enjoyed a big blockbuster since.... I cant remember. I was impressed with how it managed to keep itself together and it also felt like everyone got the same amount of screentime. I didnt feel like I was missing out by not watching the other films. I thought that Robert Downy Jr was good but for me the standout actor/character was Mark Ruffalo as Eric Bana/Hulk. I do question whether Scarlett Johanson was relevant to the story. It seemed like the only purpose she served was to be squeezed into a lycra catsuit but that's not necersarily a bad thing.

If there is a Marvel Avengers 2 film then hopefully they will call it something better because Avengers Assemble is a rubbish title. We got this as opposed to just The Avengers because when you say Avengers to anyone in Britain they think John Steed and Cathy Gale and would think that this is a big film with those two but get Scarlett Johanson, easy mistake to make I suppose. I did like this film and thought that it shows that John Carter (of Mars) is the exception rather than the rule that you can spend $220 million and still make a stonking good movie. 

Dalek Invasion of Earth 2150AD (1966)

It's hard to take these Dr Who films seriously. I know there are people who do and bless them but out of the two that were made this one is the best. For one it has Bernard Cribbins in it. Secondly it doesnt have the Thals in it and thirdly it has Philip Madoc in it. The idea is that the Daleks want to mine the earth to turn it into a giant spaceship, exactly the same as the 1964 TV version. The TV version is a black and white one which is filmed on a restricted budget in a BBC TV studio. This film is filmed with a vastly improved budget along with a big star and in colour. Of course it wins out in the visual sense but as we learnt with Doctor Who and the Daleks, colour isnt everything.

Peter Cushing might be great in everything else but he's not a convincing Doctor. He doesnt carry the dramatic weight that William Hartnell does and Susan is only slightly less annoying than the TV version. Bernard Cribbins is the one that commands my attention when he is on screen which is a problem when he's on screen with Cushing.

If you want to see the better version of this story then by the TV version, its about twice as long and three times better. Dont get me wrong, this is a better film than the first one but lets not forget that the TV series always has been and always will be the superior and regardless of what anyone says, neither Peter Cushing's Doctor or this movie will be considered to part of official Doctor Who chronology.

Brighton Rock (1947)

This is the original which for me is noticeable for having William Hartnell. It always seems strange seeing him in any other way apart from the Doctor. Anyway this film sees Richard Attenborough as Pinkie Brown who is some of leader but to be honest doesnt make me believe that he could be a thug leader or that anyone in his team could take him seriously. In fact there are many times that he is mocked by the others and I thought that this undermined Attenborough's performance when it needed strengthening. I thought that there were some scenes that were very enjoyable and William Hartnell is a nice pice of casting. I thought that Attenborough was at his peak when Pinkie was with Rose. I thought that this doomed romance was very effective and it had a thrilling conclusion.

I thought the best piece of casting was Hermoine Baddeley  as Ida Arnold who is the one poking away at Pinkie and is the Jessica Fletcher of this film who puts things together and solves it but at the beginning when she comes across as a boozing mad woman and its credit to Baddeley who lures us into thinking one thing before turning the charm on and winning me over.
It's not a great movie if I am being honest. I thought that large chunks were very boring and it was the times when Attenborough, Hartnell and Baddeley that I found it entertaining. I dont know whether the 2010 version is better but I may watch it to compare.

The Damned United (2009)

Now I'm not normally a Football film fan but this film about Brian Clough's doomed tenure as Leeds United Manager is a truly fantastic film. It's told in the form of flashbacks, we start off with him being appointed as Leeds boss but we go back to his days as Derby County boss. Now this film is based on a book and I have to say that I have never read the book though I might after seeing this film. Michael Sheen is brilliant as Brian Clough. Like David Frost in Frost/Nixon, Sheen captures the manerisms of the person he is playing. He might not look to much like Clough but that doenst really matter to much because his performance is so good that you look past it quite quickly. I liked how Clough comes across as someone who has lots of confidence but puts himself over to the Leeds team badly and its soon clear how important Peter Taylor was to Clough. Timothy Spall is great as Peter Taylor. Actually Spall in great in pretty much everything he is in.

The Damned United is a film that should be seen because like Frost/Nixon, the central character's flaws and positives are in clear view.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

I have to admit that I found this film to be totally boring. Only Humphrey Bogart stopped me from falling asleep. It started off promisingly and I was thought that this was going to be quite an interesting little film but after about 15 I found the film quite boring and totally dull, lacking any tension or anything in the way of charisma. None of the characters were believeable and the whole idea was totally stupid which is a shame because Bogart is regarded as one of the most popular actors of his generation.

This is the only Bogart film I have ever seen but whilst I liked Bogart's performance, the film was utter tripe and I was relieved when it was over. I wouldnt say its the worst film that I have ever seen but its only because of Bogart. Remove him from the film and its on par with the 1969 True Grit.