365 Days. 365 Films.

Based on a true story, Moneyball tells Billy Beane's (Pitt) story of putting together the Oakland A's baseball team on a very small budget. Beane is joined in his quest by Peter Brand (Hill), an accounting intern who helps Beane by using computer analysis to compare statistics of the most underrated players in baseball.

The story itself is uplifting and accessible - you don't necessarily have to be a baseball fan to know what's going on or even to enjoy it (but it probably helps). Although it is a little slow throughout, Pitt and Hill make a very entertaining duo and Pitt in particular delivers a sterling performance.

I thought it would be a little long for what it was, but by the end of the film you don't really notice. The direction is consistently brilliant and the cinematography in particular is sleek enough to distract from the long running time (for the story).

This is a film I bought on DVD upon its release because I was just so excited to see it! ... I've only just seen it...

I love gangster movies and so this seemed like my kind of film, especially when I heard Ridley Scott was involved, the reason it took me five years to watch was because it is so goddamn long! At 157 minutes (and that's the shorter cut of the film!) it took two sittings (I get restless!), but it really was worth it. It's not a stereotypical gangster movie, which I thought would lessen my enthusiasm for it but it didn't. Russell Crowe is brilliant and borderline likable and Denzel Washington is amazing and brings a whole new feel to gangster films.

As for Scott's direction, it's flawless as usual. I initially thought that for him to attempt a gangster film might be a little challenging for him, but it was seamless and slick from start to finish. This is another one I loved and one I didn't want to end - even if it was 157 minutes...

When Clyde's wife and daughter are brutally murdered he is shocked to discover his lawyer making a deal with one of the murderers to send one to death row while the other is set free. Ten years after the case however, he decides to take the law into his own hands by killing all those who were involved with the deal, starting with the murderer on death row he switches the fluids used for the lethal injection for a more painful death before moving on to the one who was set free and the lawyers involved.

This film is a lot more interesting than it sounds as it's not just a revenge film but a very clever thriller.With experience in the secret service, Clyde can commit murder without ever having to be in the same room and, even with him locked away in a top security prison, people are still being killed, making it difficult to prove him guilty.

It's full of gore, it's incredibly clever and interesting to watch and Gerard Butler is amazing in it. This is a very entertaining movie that I would recommend for anyone who enjoys thrillers, gore or who can appreciate brilliant direction. I didn't want it to end!

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.

To all Evil Dead fans this sounds like the perfect film and I'm not going to be the one who lets you down - it is!

Bruce Campbell directs and stars as himself in this shameless piss-take on his not so successful career and "terrible" movies throughout. The plot revolves around a small town in America where the locals mistake Campbell for Ash, his ass-kicking, monster-killing character in the Evil Dead trilogy. He is then forced to fight some real life monsters, all the while assuming he's in a movie.

This film is hilarious and thoroughly entertaining throughout, but for anyone who's not a fan of the modern day B movies and the brilliant Bruce Campbell, you'll probably be less entertained than I. Nonetheless it's got a great atmosphere, just the right sense of humour and Campbell is a great sport! I loved it!

From the director of Let The Right One In comes this thriller about George Smiley (Oldman), a semi-retired spy who is sent on a mission to uncover a Soviet mole within MI6.

Based on the novel of the same name, this spy thriller centres around a mission gone wrong which reveals the presence of a infiltration into the secret service. Gary Oldman stars alongside an award winning cast including John Hurt and Colin Firth.

This is not your typical spy thriller. Instead of car chases, gun fights and one-liners you get a deeply thought out plot and thorough characterisation built into the script and developed beautifully by Alfredson's slick direction. It is a little slow moving and tension is often built to nothing, but it's well worth a watch for the artistic direction, outstanding performances by the cast and plot complexity.

Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler star in this romantic comedy about Abby (Heigl) a TV producer who is reluctantly taught about love by Mike (Butler). Although Mike's idea of love is somewhat disappointing to Abby she lets him into her love life to set her up with her neighbour. Of course you can guess who really gets the girl...

This is what I would call a "fluffy film", as in, it's a load of fluff. Sure, it's enjoyable and there are a few laughs but at the end of the day you could take it or leave it. It's not memorable, it's not an award winner and it's never going to be a favourite.

In comparison to the great romantic comedies like His Girl Friday, When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall, both comedy and romance are kept to a minimum and it's often a little uncomfortable to watch the obvious struggle for laughs. As a stand alone film however, it's not bad. Better to watch on a Friday night in with the girls since you don't really have to concentrate on it. In fact, it's probably better you don't...

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.

Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis star in this feisty rom-com about two friends who decide to have no-strings-attached sex. As with all rom-coms the problems start when they begin to have feelings for each other and they must now figure out what to do about their accidental relationship.

I have to say that this is one of the funnier romantic comedies to come out in recent years and the comedy is definitely more prominent than the romance which may be a plus for some viewers. It's not a particularly girly film which makes for a more diverse audience, however the sense of humour may only appeal to some.

In terms of the acting, Timberlake surprises and Kunis' comedy timing is impeccable, but there are a few loose ends in the dialogue. It was never going to be a perfect film and it was never going to win any Oscars, but it is enjoyable and should make you laugh. Overall it's above average and so deserving of a little more than a three star rating.

Rowan Atkinson is back as Johnny English in this sequel to the 2003 spy comedy. Not a lot was promised for this film by the distribution company, and rightfully so. It’s just as disappointing and slightly below average as the first, but maybe with a better cast this time round.
 
I don’t know what it is about Johnny English that I don’t really like. Perhaps it’s the style of comedy that only young teens would find funny with today’s standards. The reason I wanted to watch this film was because I found the first film funny… When I was 13! Watching it at the age of 22 was sorely disappointing.
I laughed a few times, mostly at the shame I felt for watching such a terrible film, and on that basis I will say that it’s vaguely entertaining. But unless you’re 13 or on drugs, don’t bother.

Contagion follows a number of characters as a deadly disease spreads worldwide in a matter of days. As the CDC attempt to control the outbreak and find a cure, Mitch (Damon) is trying to keep his daughter safe as their world falls apart.

This was publicised as one of the scariest films of 2011 and I believe it was. It’s not a horror film, it isn’t jumpy and you won’t be hiding behind the sofa, but there is some gore and the fear of what could happen in the future. Since Swine Flu and Bird Flu, people have been dramatising a worldwide outbreak a la 28 Days Later, and this film shows exactly how it would pan out. Realism = scary!

Soderbergh’s direction is seamless, taking you right inside the story and, despite characterization being finely spread across a number of roles, you get a close and personal feel for the characters. Overall it is an enjoyable and thought provoking film. It’ll never be a classic but it will always be in the back of my mind.

Sean Penn directs this true story about a young man who, upon graduating, gives all his money and possessions to charity to live in the wild. With him he takes only the essentials for survival including several books on how to survive in the wilderness.

I did enjoy this film for what it was and I thought that the direction was stunning, however I was not in a great state of being when I watched it which made it easier to pick out faults along with my cohorts. After watching this in the state we were in, besides some continuity confusion, Into The Wild got away with minor surface scratches and so deserving of its rating.

I have to set aside a small paragraph for Emile Hirsch – our protagonist, Chris McCandless – whose performance in this was impeccable. For a film with not a great deal going on narratively, he did liven up the atmosphere in most of the ‘quieter’ scenes and so it’s definitely worth watching for his performance. I would say, however, that it is a bit of an effort to watch because of the length of the film and because not a lot happens – it’s easy to get bored if you’re in the wrong mood – but try to give it a chance because if you do, you will love it.

Just don’t watch it while you're hungover…

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.

As some of you might know by now, I don’t always do research on a film before I watch it. Another thing you might have gathered about me is that I am a massive Woody Allen fan. Now, I didn’t know that this was a film at all associated with Woody Allen (I didn’t even know who starred in it) until half way through the opening sequence – shots of paris, day and night, sunny and raining with old music playing in the background. The picture and music fades to black, and there is Allen’s typical white on black opening credits using the same font he has used for decades of wonderful filmmaking. With no prior knowledge of this film, I instantly knew it was the work of Woody Allen.

If you’re an Allen fan too, you ought to love this story of a man who loses touch with his fiancee and so, on a lonely night drinking in Paris he gets lost and decides to rest on some steps. Suddenly an old fashioned car pulls up and some people beckon him inside, taking him back to the era he loves the most – the 1920s. Each and every night from then on he waits in that spot where, when the clock strikes midnight, he gets whisked away meeting his idols such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso.

You may think that this sounds like a children’s film, or perhaps just a little too unrealistic for you, but if you know Woody Allen you know his sense of humour and, more importantly, his wild imagination. This has Allen written all over it and it’s much closer to his classics than anything else he’s done recently which is brilliant.

One thing I didn’t expect was Owen Wilson giving an amazing performance – not that he is a bad actor, but the kind of films he does never really shows off his talent. I can clearly see why Allen wanted him in this film – his comedy and acting style is very similar to Allen in his day. I never noticed it before but if you watch closely it almost seems like you’re watching Allen acting again.

It is not surprising that this film has been nominated for a million and one awards this award season, it’s directed by Spielberg (arguably the world’s greatest living director), it’s set during WWI (and a lot of Oscar winners/nominees are set during a war of some sort) and it goes one better than a human interest story by having a horse as the main character.

War Horse is like a bigger budget Black Beauty at war – it’s a very inspirational and beautiful story, but it can be a bit too soppy from time to time. There are the occasional moments where you just have to cringe and mostly at the lead’s performance (Jeremy Irvine – not the horse) and the aforementioned sop.

Besides all this it is a fantastically entertaining film with stunning special effects and a wonderfully written narrative – definitely a brilliant family film as Spielberg is prone to make. The cinematography in particular is outstanding and although it has been said that Spielberg is a typical fourth wall director, his genius subtlety definitely drops in this one and I think it makes for stunning viewing that way too.

I think it will win the Best Picture Oscar, but only for the reasons stated in the first paragraph of this review – it has all the usual elements for an Oscar winner, but because of the slightly off-putting soppiness, I don’t think it’s thoroughly deserving considering it’s competition.

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!

Based on the novel by Stephen King, Thinner is about an obese lawyer who accidentally runs over an old gypsy woman while receiving a blow job in his car. He is then cursed by the gypsy’s father to lose weight, which doesn’t sound like such a bad curse, until he realises that he cannot stop the weight loss no matter how much he eats and that it will eventually kill him. He is then forced to ask for assistance from a friend in the mafia to find the gypsy’s father and get him to lift the curse.

I did not know the premise of the film before I sat down and watched this, but about halfway through it dawned on me that Stephen King can actually create a story out of the simplest and sometimes weak ideas. I am not trying to criticise Stephen King – I think that he is a brilliant writer and the novel is probably a hell of a lot better than the film, but let’s face it – he doesn’t really need a great idea to write a great novel, which is something that perhaps makes him stand out from the crowd. This film, however, is unfortunately not as good as King’s writing. It is bordering on bad/average – I didn’t exactly hate it and on a very shallow level I guess I kind of enjoyed it.
It’s not a film I would recommend because it’s a roller coaster of okay and bad bits, but simply for the weak storyline – sorry, Stephen – I’m only giving it 2 stars.

The Artist is a new silent movie about the early days in cinema when ‘talkies’ started to take over the movie business. Jean Dujardin stars as George Valentin, a silent movie star whose career takes a turn for the worse when sound hits the big screen, which isn’t helped by his off screen love affair with the new face of talking cinema.
Everyone has been saying how original this film is, when in fact it isn’t – silent films were the norm before 1927, and even in the 1970s Mel Brooks made Silent Movie. These are the things that were going through my mind as I began to watch this film – How original could it really be? In actual fact, by utilising the primitive aspects of cinema to their advantage, they are able to create a piece of art, not just a movie.

This is a film about film, taking it’s audience back to a time when it was all new, when films were a novelty and when only a few films opened each week. The Artist is a novelty to modern day audiences and it is a very entertaining film containing everything you might hope for in a film these days, but more than the novelty of it, it is a genuinely beautiful piece of cinema that will make you laugh, cry and want to discover more about earlier cinema.

The first Cars movie was a hit with children all over the world, but probably the lowest rated Pixar film among adults. This second instalment focuses on Mater as he is mistaken for a secret agent by two British spies, and it is even more boring than the first.

I didn’t mind the first film, a lot of people told me that they really didn’t like it, but I thought it was okay – not half as funny as any other Pixar film, but I could see why the kids loved it. This one, on the other hand, is so dull that I couldn’t possibly concentrate on the details of the film and so I don’t think that children, who typically have a lower attention span than adults, will be able to focus on it either.
It isn’t a terrible film, the animation is still as stunning as ever and it’s generally better than some other animations that come out these days, but it’s definitely not up to scratch when you consider the best of Pixar.
I sincerely hope that this is the last Cars movie, the first was average, this was bland and so if they make a third, it will inevitably be terrible.