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.

Magnum Force (1973)

The second Dirty Harry film is far better than the first film. I think that the story is far better and the whole feel of the film was better than in DH. The film is about a group of rookies who seem to be taking the law into their own hands. At first I thought that it was just one guy and that was David Soul but when it turned out that there was more of them then it made the idea of rogue rookies even better. The introduction of Hal Holbrook was brilliant.

The final scene on the abandoned ship was funny and exciting in equal measure. I couldnt believe that Harry could walk/run/stagger onto the boat with no one noticing or saying anything but as the story moved along and the film got even better. Generally the whole film worked a lot better than DH. I thought that Clint Eastwood got a better handle of the character than in the first one and he was surrounded by very good actors that helped make some of the weaker moments go by very quickly.

Dirty Harry (1971)

Dirty Harry is one of those films that I have heard good things about and I was interested because it had Clint Eastwood in it. It's the first of I think four films and hopefully the rest will be better because this film whilst had its moments wasnt quite the classic that I thought it would be. I honestly dont know why this was but there were things such as Eastwood and some cool 1970's music but the rest didnt really work and at the end of the film I felt slightly disappointed with it because it didnt have the killer punch at the end that I thought it should have had. The film is regarded as setting the template for future police films which is clear but it still remains that it doesn’t quite work despite having someone who is apparently going on a one man killing spree. Some scenes were quite good but ultimately it didnt gel very well.

There is something that is quite fun about watching someone who doesnt act like a normal cop but it has to be due to the person playing the role and Clint Eastwood is one of those people who can get away with it because he has such as strong body of work where he is someone who you dont mess with. Eastwood is clearly the main selling point of this movie but there are certain films where you can get a superb performance in a poor film and I think that Dirty Harry is certainly one of those films.

Rating – 7/10

True Grit (2010)

I wasn’t wild about the original version and I was hoping that this remake would satisfy the disappointment that I felt when I watched the John Wayne version. I have to say that I think that this remake is 110% BETTER than the 1969 version. Firstly Hailee Steinfeld is brilliant and considering its her first role is astonishing. I also thought that the story was better told than the 1969 version as the Coen Brothers have done wonders with this story and there are classic Coen things in it such as characters that make brief appearances yet are instantly funny and every scene is truly wonderful. Like No Country for Old Men, there are some visually stunning scenes and everyone in the film deserves to be there.

Jeff Bridges is better than John Wayne but I just couldn’t understand him half the time and had to stick the subtitles on. It was only then that I could make sense of what he was saying. He was very good though. Matt Damon and Josh Brolin are also very good and they are also better than their originals. However it is Hailee who steals the film and is far more beleiveable in the role than Kim Darby.

This is possibly in my top three of films of most recent films and it just falls short of No Country which isn’t a bad thing. The Coen Brothers are great film makers and now what it takes to make a great film.

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.