365 Days. 365 Films.

Simon Pegg stars as Jack, a children's book author who attempts to write his first adult targeted TV play about serial killers. Although after thorough research into history's most gruesome murders he starts to get overly paranoid about being murdered himself, developing a fantastic fear of everything!

I have to be honest, this is not one of Pegg's best films. He plays the part well delivering an appropriate amount of comedy through his performance however the film falls down in the distinct lack of plot. It really is just a film about someone who is paranoid! The story picks up slightly towards the end but the first hour is slow and the last 40 minutes or so feel forced. They stretched a mediocre idea for what should have been a short film across a 100 minute movie and it's glaringly obvious throughout.

Having said that the direction is sound, the use of cinematography is particularly good in emphasizing the sense of paranoia, but looking at the film as a whole, it is erratic, and not in the sense it should be. I think this is one for the indie audiences and one that will probably grow on you. Not perfect, but it has a lot of potential.

Three friends realise that their bosses are ruining their lives and standing in the way of their happiness and so conspire to murder each others' employers a la Strangers On A Train. Nick (Bateman) is having trouble with his psychotic boss who is clearly out to destory him, Dale (Day) is being sexually harrassed by his nymphomaniac employer and Kurt's (Sudeikis) perfect boss dies, only to be replaced by his son - a complete tool as the movie poster would describe him.

The plot of murder was a little more than what I was hoping for in a comedy film because I feel it distracted from the realism that could have made it funnier. It was a little too much, a little unbelievable and therefore not what I was hoping for. Nonetheless I did enjoy it and it did make me laugh occassionally, but I doubt it's going to stick in anyone's minds as one of the funnier films of recent years.

I would recommend it if you have the time, but don't go out of your way to watch it. In particular look out for Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey and Jason Bateman - easily the best things about this film.

One year after Bananas was released, Allen released this ‘informative’ guide on the more taboo and unanswered questions about sex based on the book of the same name. This is, again, a little absurd but rather than the slapstick comedy that Allen was overdriving only a year earlier, Allen combines his classic neurotic wit with ludicrous scenarios in uncomfortable or bizarre sexual circumstances.
I think that this has to be my favourite early Allen movie because in earlier films to this Allen’s trademark wit is clearly evident, however it is in this film where he really finds his feet. This isn’t a great film that you can watch and get involved with – it’s more of a Monty Python style sketch movie – it’s funny, rude but you can’t exactly call it an amazing movie in comparison to, say, Gone With The Wind…

I would have to say, however, that this is a must-see film for any Woody Allen fans if only to see the development of his comedic styles and influences through the decades. It may not have you laughing out loud but it will make you cringe, snigger and smirk.

This is probably the most absurd Allen film I’ve seen to date and yet it’s still loaded with social and political criticism bound by Allen’s classic wit. Allen’s character Fielding Mellish is dumped by his political activist girlfriend and in an attempt to win her back he travels to a small Latin American country, throwing himself half-heartedly into the countries revolution against it’s fascist leader.

This is a fairly early example of Allen’s written work, especially for the screen, since most of his work before this was written for the stage or for TV. This is evident in his use of physical comedy – something the later Allen fans may have only caught glimpses of in his more recent work. For me, Allen has an intelligent sense of humour and so the slapstick was a slightly frustrating replacement for what I’m used to with him, but it was funny nonetheless.

Bananas is not one of Allen’s best films although it isn’t as dated as it should be and the sense of humour is exactly as expected.

The first Sex and the City film follows on from the hit TV show 3 years on. The movie features all the shows favourite characters and is ultimately about Carrie and Big’s on-off relationship.

I have not been a fan of the show for a long time, in fact, it has only been in the past year that I’ve managed to get through the series from 1-6 and I had to watch this as soon as I finished it. Although I was around eight years late in watching and falling in love with this series, it is a brilliant and very amusing show for any woman to enjoy. This film, however, did fall a little short of the mark.

The actors in the film are as good as they were in the show; Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte and Samantha are the perfect protagonists each played with enthusiasm by the SATC gang. The story is great and advances the characters’ lives by as much as a whole series (not surprising when you see the running time), but despite all that there is definitely something missing. Maybe it’s too much in one hit, maybe the comedy was lacking but it’s difficult to tell in what is essentially five episodes mashed into one. I would say that this is only really worth a watch if you’re a huge fan of the show – if you’re not it might not make sense and the storylines will probably not affect you at all either.

It’s average, yes, but it still won’t stop me from watching the second movie – it’s so moreish!

Billy Bob Thornton is Willie, a drunk and a criminal who earns money over the holidays playing Santa in malls for the children while hatching plans with his friend to rob the stores they work alongside. One day at work he meets a young boy who, despite Willie’s drunken and slightly abusive behaviour towards him, idolizes him and believes him to be the real Santa. When Willie realises that the police are after him, he moves in to the young boy’s house where he is living with only a senile grandmother.

The concept for this film is great but I thought they could have done a lot more with it, or sometimes less with the comedy. I thought the jokes may have gone too far sometimes and it distracted from what it should have been. I realise that Billy Bob Thornton probably enjoyed playing this role and that he was the only man for it, but I did expect the character to be a little more like Bill Murray’s Scrooged character, especially in how he acts towards children. Instead it was sad and sometimes distasteful and it rarely got a laugh out of me, however it is a nice and refreshing take on the standard Christmas movie narrative.

Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli star in this romantic comedy about an eccentric millionaire who falls for a working class woman living in Queens and working as a waitress. When Arthur’s grandmother assures him that she will cut off all of his assets if he chooses to marry anyone but his wealthy betrothed, he is forced to decide between love and the high life.

I can’t say that this is a great film but it’s certainly amusing; Dudley Moore is hugely entertaining playing drunk and Liza Minnelli is as charming as ever. The comedy itself, besides the mild amusement of Arthur’s drunken slurs, is unsatisfying enough to uncategorize it from the comedy genre, but having said that, although you may not be falling off your seat laughing, it does ‘feel’ like a comedy film in that it’s incredibly easy to watch.

Apparently they made a sequel to this film which I’m intrigued about but not entirely sure I want to go through with watching it. I don’t know where they could have taken the story to it since the depth of the characters was minimal and the narrative stale and cold. It’s enjoyable for the casual film viewer who wants nothing but to vegetate in front of the television, but if you prefer a little more from a film, this probably isn’t for you.

I would say that, overall, it’s average, at best, but simply because of the acting talents, I’m giving it three stars.

Starter For 10 is director Tom Vaughan’s first feature length movie with a cinematic release about a university student whose dream is to appear on TV quiz show, University Challenge. James McAvoy stars as Brian Jackson who is desperately trying to keep his sanity with all the usual stresses and emotional worries of university alongside the not-so-usual task of fulfilling his father’s wishes of being part of the winning team for the quiz show.

As a comedy I think I’m safe in saying that it’s not a great film, but in itself it isn’t bad at all. It’s certainly enjoyable to watch and if you don’t expect to laugh out loud then you should enjoy it, but I don’t think it’s for everyone. It’s a British film and I’m not sure whether or not American’s would be familiar with University Challenge but if you’re not familiar with it then it’s certainly worth a bit of research before watching this film because it still seems like an unusual and unique idea for a quiz show to me.

I wouldn’t say it’s definitely worth a watch, but if it’s an easy enough option, I wouldn’t pass it up.

Tank (Dane Cook) is hired by his best friend to date his ex to show how great her former boyfriend is in this rather average romantic comedy. It’s not a bad idea for a movie and I certainly don’t think I’ve seen this sort of plot before, however it feels very over-done. This is one of those rom-coms that was made purely to please audiences – there was not a great deal of planning or thinking when writing or even filming this movie, and so I cannot call it anything more than average.

It is entertaining on a very low and shallow level, and most of the comedy and general entertainment comes from the cast members who are all equally charming. Kate Hudson is, in particular, very good in this film however she is not quite as entertaining as she has been in others.

When a seemingly original idea seems old and over-used on screen, something has gone wrong somewhere – whether it be the script, the direction, or the general lack of emotion throughout – it’s not quite what you would hope for, and no where near as funny as they could have made it.

When I saw the trailer for this film, I automatically assumed it would be awful! I’m not a Green Lantern fan so I didn’t especially want to watch it. The trailer for the film was weak, let’s be honest, but when you watch the film you realise that not all films can be judged on their trailers.

I thought it was an okay film overall, it’s quite a modern and quirky spin on an old and favourite narrative, although there were moments in it that reminded me of cheesy 1980s superhero films – not a good thing, but not a bad thing either. As I mentioned, I am not at all familiar with The Green Lantern; I never read the comics or had even heard of The Green Lantern until I read about the film being written – and this is all quit a shock because I love comics, and am a bit of a geek!

It might be because I don’t know The Green Lantern and are not familiar with his powers, but I thought that some of his powers were a little hazy and odd. I know that reality is not something usually involved in these kinds of films, but this certainly had a more “magical” element to it than Spiderman, for example.

It’s not great, it’s not bad, it’s just something you can watch with ease and get a certain amount of pleasure from it.

This is another film that I was looking forward to for a long time before it even came out. Cowboys & Aliens is more of a synopsis than a title, and unfortunately, it’s not really as cool as you may hope it will be. I argue that Cowboy’s & Aliens is not an idea for a movie, but two young boys naming the coolest things on Earth, and then someone decided to make a film incorporating these two things.


What I expected from this film is a tongue in cheek, not taking itself too seriously, action packed blockbuster with a lot of unnecessary explosions. Basically I wanted Independence Day circa 1800s. What I actually got was an overcomplicated storyline that dragged on for far too long, and an under-thought objective.

The film is enjoyable to watch and the direction is certainly to be admired, but it is a little boring. It’s not something I would jump at the chance to watch – at least not for a long time. With a name like Cowboys & Aliens, you would expect it to not take itself seriously, but again, I’m afraid it did perhaps just a little. A well made film, made by people trying a little to hard considering the title…

Okay, this is the last Woody Allen film for a while, and yet again it stars Mia Farrow and no Woody Allen. Mia Farrow plays Alice, a rich Manhattan housewife who seemingly has it all, yet when she visits an alternative healer in Chinatown, she begins to feel like this is not the life she wanted to have at all. She indulges herself in writing and begins to have an affair, leading her to finally see what was wrong with her ‘perfect’ life after all.
Mia Farrow is a brilliant actress and she completely loses herself in this part. Yet again the writing and direction is flawless, yet there seems to be something missing from it all. Despite the strong character angle and centralised plot, it doesn’t turn out to be terribly emotive, although strangely it is thought provoking. The way in which Alice re-evaluates her life becomes infectious, and Allen seems to imply that what seems perfect never is. I’m not sure whether or not this was the idea behind it, but either way it was distracting from what could have been a very emotional story with a brilliant feel-good ending, but I didn’t really get any of that from it.

There is a slight comedy aspect to it, and a weird and wonderful fantasy element that Allen likes to use in a few of his films, and although it’s not perfect, nor particularly as enjoyable as his other films, it’s still worth a watch for Allen’s fans.

Loosely based on the Shakespearian classic, Woody Allen writes, directs and stars in this kooky romance about love, marriage and deceit. The film also stars Mary Steenburgen and Mia Farrow as the two women that Allen’s character is torn between, and when three couples meet at a country house they begin to fall for each other’s other halves.

The writing in the film is, as always with Allen, very witty and intelligent. The same style of comedy as what you may be used to with Allen is still evident, although it’s an unusual platform for him as a period drama. I think this aspect of it may have thrown him off slightly since, although he is a brilliant filmmaker with a very dispersed talent across many different genres, he fails to bring anything more than comedy to the screen with this.

Allen’s films are often centred around interesting and complex characters, but the comedy took this aspect away from them with funny, but sometimes silly jokes that lightened any drama that could have come from it. It’s a great film to watch and it is very funny, Allen is as charming as always in every aspect of his contribution, but it’s not quite the masterpiece you would expect from him.

If I remember correctly, the first Kung Fu Panda film is the one I started off with in this blog, and 142 films later, I return with the second instalment. I remember enjoying the first film a lot more than I thought I would since Dreamworks haven’t really created such a name for themselves as Pixar, and their films are often disappointing in comparison, but the first Panda film was great. This one, however, is pretty much the same as the other in terms of plot, the characters are all the same, it’s just the jokes they have changed, and they clearly struggled.

The film isn’t as good as the first and instead of it being better than I thought it would be, it was just as expected – average. It wasn’t quite as funny and not really as imaginative as the first, and they really drained some of the jokes used in the first film, repeating them over and over.

The animation is still as good as the first and it’s still an enjoyable film to watch and kids will love it, but don’t get your hopes set too high for it.

This is a dark comedy based on the novel and apparently true story of two brothers who attempt to become the biggest rock band on the planet, only to find that their school friends have achieved that and more as part of the band U2. According to the film the two brothers are still good friends with Bono, and Bono himself said that the book and film were both funny and heartbreaking.

I think you would enjoy this film a lot more than I did if you were huge U2 fans, although it isn’t really about them at all. As far as the acting goes, it’s often too much or too little and always in the wrong places, which is sorely disappointing considering it stars Robert Sheehan (star of Channel 4’s Misfits – of which I am a massive fan). Sheehan was pretty much just playing the same role he does in Misfits too which didn’t seem to suit the character or the story.

The film was mildly amusing on the odd occasion, but nothing to write home about. The concept is good and I’m sure it made a great memoir, but it fails to achieve what it apparently did in writing – not exactly painful to watch, but not necessary to watch either.

When a mid-air heist goes wrong, two suitcases filled with millions of dollars end up lost in some rocky mountains, and the race is on to see who can get to it first, former rescue climber, Gabe Walker (Stallone) or John Lithgow’s villain, Eric Qualen?

This is a classic tongue-in-cheek action film from a director who knows exactly what “tongue-in-cheek” means (judging from some of his other movies). This is an enjoyable movie in the same way that a lot of Michael Bay’s movies are – cool special effects, unnecessary explosions and occasional good choreography and stunts, but not unlike Michael Bay’s films, the plot is weak.

Cliffhanger is another film that you can look at in two ways, as a mindless Hollywood Blockbuster purely made for your enjoyment, where it makes a good film, however not as exciting as it could be, and as an article of critique based on technical ability and analysis… To be perfectly honest, having studied film for six years and being conditioned to constantly analyse movies, I have to say that this is definitely not the kind of film that you want to analyse at all. There’s always something behind the obvious in film studies, but I really don’t think there is supposed to be with this. It’s purely for enjoyment and it isn’t even that enjoyable.

The Killing is an early example of Stanley Kubrick’s work following the story of a gang of men planning a $2 million racetrack robbery.
I am a fan of Kubrick – I wouldn’t say I’m a huge fan, but I think he’s a brilliant director and The Shining happens to be one of my favourite films, but this is not the best example of his work at all. The story is wafer-thin and so there’s not a lot to go on, but even so some of the editing is messy and I got the impression that Kubrick was not entirely comfortable with the cameras yet. It’s not a bad film, just slightly disappointing and boring.

Hints of his genius are definitely evident within the cinematography and generally how he directs his actors, however this is not even half his full potential that he achieved not too many years after. On the subject of actors, they were probably the best part of it. The last fifteen minutes or so, for example, was very melodramatic and brilliantly played – exactly what you want from a 1950s black and white movie.
I don’t think this is worth a watch unless you are a die hard Kubrick fan, but having said that, it’s probably not any more enjoyable even if you are.

Mollie (Alley) gets pregnant through an affair with a wealthy but married man and when he tells her he is no longer interested, Mollie goes into labour. Driven in taxi by James (Travolta) to the hospital, James is mistaken for the father by the doctors as he helps Mollie inside. James quickly gets attached to Mollie’s new son, Mikey (voiced by Willis) who begins to narrate the romance forming between his mother and her new friend.

As a comedy, this is a great film, but as an article for criticism, it’s not so great. The humour is mixed and sometimes risqué, and so this is not a film for young children. There is nothing essentially wrong with the direction, and I don’t want to criticise the idea or the storyline because they’re the most enjoyable aspects, but there definitely is something missing – perhaps a funnier script, but having said that, there has never been (to my mind) a really great film involving a baby as a primary character, much less a narrator. Nonetheless, Kirstie Alley is wonderful, John Travolta is perfect and Bruce Willis is hilarious. I did thoroughly enjoy this film; it’s definitely a feel good film and one in particular I have wanted to see for years.

It’s not a perfect film and it’s not breaking any boundaries, but it hits the spot.

When Mr. Popper Sr. dies, he sends his son a penguin as a souvenir of his travels through his life, and by some incomprehensible mistake, Mr Popper (Carrey) ends up ordering five more penguins. Initially the penguins are a burden upon his hectic work-life, until they bring him closer to his son and daughter, both of whom are living with Popper’s ex-wife. Popper turns from a career driven, seemingly soulless man, to a loving and doting father, all thanks to six penguins.

I would dearly love to say I was disappointed by this film, but I was expecting the very worst from watching the trailer several months ago, so it wasn’t quite as bad as I had imagined it would be. It’s never going to be a memorable film and I would be surprised if parents were still showing it to their children in a couple of years time, but it is important to remember that it’s a film for kids through and through. If you’re thinking of watching this film for Carrey’s shtick, you’re not going to be at all impressed. Carrey’s cartoon-like goof is still there, but the comedy is mild to accommodate an expectedly young audience.

As a family film, it’s bearable and there’s nothing specifically wrong with it apart from a weak plot and lack of human emotion, but some parts are genuinely funny – then again, I don’t know whether that’s just my moronic sense of humour. At the end of the day, I love family films and kids’ films so this is something that I was bound to squeeze at least a little bit of enjoyment out of. If you have kids or too much spare time (like me), go for it, but otherwise, I wouldn’t really bother.