Cloverfield (2008)

This film was one of those that went viral on the internet and there was a lot of buzz. I have to admit that I didn’t see it until it came out on DVD because I didn’t know what to expect and someone said it was quite good. This is one of those found footage films which see a bunch of annoying New Yorkers have a party when something hits the city. What we get over the 80 minutes or so is a fast paced film where you never get a good look at it and we never get to find out what it is and where it has come from. Being from the man behind Lost and the reboot of the Star Trek franchise, it was clear that this film wasn’t going to be boring.

The main problem with this film though is that I really don’t care about the characters that we see. They are all irritating people who thing the most stupidest of things are important and don’t really see to be based in the real world. The first twenty minutes are the worst because we have to spend time with these annoying people who I would detest in the real world. Thankfully though when the thing hits that’s when the film picks up because the mayhem gets you past the 1 dimensional characters.

When they are trying to get away from the centre of the action it seems like its quite a good movie however the stupid lead character decides that he wants to go back to the ex-girlfriend who he wasn’t very nice to before she left his party and then the movie goes back to being these stupid 1 dimensional characters. Thankfully there is enough of the action to keep things ticking over nicely and I actually thought it was a pretty good film. It just could have done with less annoying people.

The Woman in Black (2012)

I have to admit that I’m not a massive fan of Daniel Radcliffe. I have never seen a Harry Potter film so my opinion isn’t the most soundly based one. I just see him and don’t believe him to be a very good actor. However I was prepared to watch this film because it’s a Hammer film and it’s nice to see that British film brand alive and well. It’s clear why they have chosen Radcliffe because with him come all those teenage girls that like him for some strange reason. I was hoping that I would be proven wrong when watching this film which see’s Radcliffe character arrive at this house which has some mysterious person lurking around. There are plenty of frights over the course of this film and there were several moments where I was impressed. It’s very well directed, the house and the grounds are as creepy as anything and the cast is impressive however I just cant get past Daniel Radcliffe. I don’t believe him as an actor and whenever he was talking I just didn’t really care but when he was trying to look like he was holding himself together I was more interested.

Ciaran Hinds is very good in this and at times out performs Radcliffe. It’s a shame that he disappears for a portion of the movie however when he does return its when the film really starts to get going. I thought that all the villagers were a tiny bit odd and fitted into the film perfectly. I couldn’t quite buy the fact that Radcliffe’s character had a child and it did make me laugh as I thought at the beginning that the boy was out performing Radciffe. There were two moments when I thought that someone had been watching Doctor Who because the moment when Radcliffe rips the wallpaper off the wall is from the 2007 episode ‘Blink’ and the bit where the corridors go dark is from the 2008 adventure ‘Silence in the Library’. I thought that the ending was very bizarre. It was a happy ending of sorts and did come out of the blue. I honestly thought that Radcliffe’s character was going to live in the house and was mildly disappointed when he was going to head back home but when the boy went onto the tracks you knew it was going to have a bleak ending but then as they walked off with the dead mother it seemed a more fitting ending.

The Woman in Black isn’t a scary film by any means but it’s a fun enough and there were moments when Daniel Radcliffe is perfectly good to watch but I think that there are more scary films out there and for someone who is a bit of a wuss as far as scary films are concerned I was a tiny bit disappointed.

Dr No (1962)

Dr No isn’t the best Bond film or even the best Sean Connery Bond film but what it does is it sets up the Bond Franchise and establishes some of the elements that would make this franchise what it is. It has the first of the iconic James Bond moments where Ursula Andress comes out of the sea. The main problem with this film is that the main villain the titled Dr No isn’t the most effective or menacing baddie in the history of film. I just think that it was a bit too laid back for my liking. I think that at just over and hour and 40 minutes the film does manage to move the story along without doing very much. There are certainly some good moments in the first half of the film until we meet Dr No.

The introduction of SPECTRE is something that would occur in future Bond films and it gets a few mentions in this film but its more about Dr No’s involvement. I think that the idea of Dr No being in SPECTRE isn’t a credible one because of how ineffective the character is. What also seemed silly but this couldn’t be helped in 1962 were the protective clothing that Dr No’s staff were wearing. If this film were made now then they would dress differently. Sean Connery is the best Bond and despite the flaws in this film there were enough opportunities to spot the good things about Connery’s Bond. He manages to make everything he does seem so effortless and the fact of him being a ladies man seems as much a part of Connery than Bond. Ursula Andress is ok as a ‘Bond Girl’ but as her lines were dubbed over she loses a bit of credibility and does just come across as window dressing.

Dr No does manage to do enough to be a good film but in comparison to other Bond film it lacks some of the elements to what makes a Bond film so good. I think that Connery shows himself well and I think that some of the directing is fantastic and the supporting cast do well. Dr No should be watched as it’s a Bond film, the one that started it all 50 years ago.

The Aviator (2004)

The Aviator tells the story of Howard Hughes who was a film maker that had ambitions of flying. However the film covers his attempts to take on Juan Trippe of Pan Am Airlines and also the senate. It gentley drops in the fact he suffered from OCD. The story does take an awful long time to find its feet. I thought that some of the colours that were used were very beautiful and the film moved along at a decent pace but it was possibly a good half hour before it started to pick up.

As the lead actor, Leonardo Di Caprio gives a relativley good performance. I wasnt so keen on him at the very beginning but once the OCD started to take effect I found him to be more interesting. Cate Blanchet is absolutley fantastic as Katherine Hepburn. I thought that her performance was simply superb and it didnt feel like she was acting but just giving a normal performance. It's easy to see why she was given an oscar for this performance. I also thought Alan Aida was very good as Owen Brewster. He was easily in Trippe's pocket and was at his best in the senate hearings. I loved Aida's face when you could see it was getting away from him and Di Caprio's character was getting the upper hand. John C Reiley's performance was nice and showed what a good actor he is and how good he could be if he stopped appearing in stupid films with Will Ferrel.

The Aviator is a good film but its not as good as it should have been. I didnt know much about Howard Hughes and whilst I was given a good biography lesson but that was about as much as I took from the film. The performances were all very good and its half a good film and the second half was a brilliant film.

Taken (2008)

I first saw this film as a replacement for something else and its one of those films that would have been a straight to DVD affair had it not been for Liam Neeson. It's a film that would be naff and also you wouldnt expect Liam Neeson to go for this type of role however somehow he manages to pull it off. The story sees' Neeson's character is a retired spy who has to rescue his daughter who has been taken (hence the title) whilst on a holiday trip to Paris.

It's the sort of film that would be a straight to DVD affair had it not got an A-List actor in it. Neeson's character has 96 hours to rescue his daughter which is a very specific number. Anyway the story progresses nicely and there are a number of set pieces where I found myself enjoying it a lot. I think once you get past some of the silliness then it can actually be a nice bit of fun. It's easy to blieve that Neeson could do this and even dare I say it be James Bond.

The only thing that I didnt like was Holly Valance who was playing a pop star and I just found the scenes with her in to slightly ruin the film but thankfully they were kept to a minimum. I also wasnt entirely sold on Maggie Grace's character who was an annoying brat at the beginning and it was only once she got to Paris that she stopped becoming annoying. Taken is a suprisingly good film and one that continues to be enjoyable every time I watch it.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

I had no real idea about this film when I put it on but I want to state right now how brilliant I think this film is. Being a Cohen film it's got characters that are truly bonkers. Not one single character was worthless and didnt deserve to be there. Javier Bardem won the oscar for best supporting actor but to be honest he should have won best actor because he stole this film. Tommy Lee Jones would have stolen it in any other film but in NCFOM he has very stiff competition but when he's on he's very good. Josh Brolin is perhaps the third best but he's still relevant in the story and it was quite surprising that his death isnt seen on screen.

Every time that Bardem is on screen I just found him creepy. There was one particular in the film where Brolin's character has just discovered the tracker and Bardem is by the door, I found that very tense and it's been a long time since I have felt like that in any film. There were some scenes that I felt like this but it was the tracker one that stood out for me. I also thought that Kelly Macdonald is not in it very much but she is very charming when she is on screen and whilst I didnt quite buy that Brolin and Macdonald's characters would have got together, aside from that I thought that all performances were very good.

The Cohen's track record with directing films is very strong and I would go so far to say that this is on par with Fargo. Their directing style is very distinctive and like Fargo everything in NCFOM is there for a reason and there are some striking scenes which are lit beautifully by the sky and by artificial lighting.

No Country For Old Men is the best film that I have seen since this film blog was set up and whilst watching the trailer's I saw 'There Will Be Blood' and I have to say the trilaer sold me on that and I will be adding that to my list.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

This film is a Zombie homage as it has loads of references to Horror films over the past forty years. For those who watch or have watched loads of horror films then I'm sure they stick out like a sore thumb for but someone like me who's a bit squemish about gore I dont get the references however I have watched this story many times and alway find to be extremley funny. This is partly due to Nick Frost and Simon Pegg who are brilliant throughout the film.

It has loads of British stars which helps make this film stand out and shows why with a budget of £3.1 million ($5 million) it went on to make £19 million worldwide. Everyone in it was very funny and the story moved along at a fast pace and the ending was the best way for it to end. It was neither too soppy or too grim.

Shaun of the Dead is a great film and the only debate is whether its better or not than Hot Fuzz