Dad's Army.

Who do you think you are kidding Mr. Hitler?? The well known theme in Britain returned to the screens earlier this year for a remake and a movie of high quality and slight adaptation from the original story and television series.

A host of stars- Toby Jones, Bill Nighy, Tom Courtenay and Michael Gambon lead the line in spectacular fashion. If Michael Gambon was leading on that he was gay in the film 'Quartet', he is definitely doing so now. Joined in the back wings by Catherine Zeta-Jones and Ian Lavender (the man who originally played Pike).

A die hard fan would be able to pull out any faults in this film, citing that it was neither particularly accurate nor funny enough. The humour was well written in so that it wasn't a stand up comedy or film purely based on one line gags or constant jokes. It was, for all intensive purposes, a film with some jokes and comedy in it. Often with comedy like this there is a tendancy to play for the laughs, to write things in that are blatantly obvious, that you can see coming from a mile away and because of that aren't very funny. Dad's Army managed to avoid falling in to all those wholes and made a very good film instead of a poor attempt at comedy.

Yes, you could spot the spy from a mile away but letting it play out and seeing how the spy would cover themselves was worth it's weight in gold- priceless. Relax into the film, let yourself enjoy it and appreciate it for what it is. The characters were cast as close to the original cast as possible and not because they were the best actors that they could find. It's something to be admired in every way.

Die Hard with a Vengeance.

He's back... again... for another film of the same idea running round on loop. Jeremy Irons takes over from Alan Rickman, as this is a direct follow on from the original Die Hard, as the brother. Gotta love the Brits putting on German accents, dying their hair and trying to be really angry.

This time Samuel L Jackson teams up with Bruce Willis instead of against him and is fantastic as a slightly racist character. When he is talking to Jeremy Irons on the phone at towards the start of the film he is hilarious. Once you have seen him in Pulp Fiction you would not expect anything less than what you get from his character. A union like this would have been the start of a fantastic friendship which could have helped the next two films blossom but I highly doubt that it was continued. By the time they made Die Hard 4.0 Samuel L Jackson was busy making at least two films a year and probably couldn't be tied down to continue his hilarious character of 'Zeus'.

So what can I say about this film that I haven't said before about the previous two films? Same kind of plot- McClean has to save the day but this time with some help instead of the police department rejecting his help and him having to do it all by himself. Even though it was the same as the previous two films in many ways (the bombing of schools, blowing up trains etc) I just felt like the approach to the plot was different and should be praised. So far I have watched three Mission Impossible films and they have all had the exact same plot- set up, people die, the use of the masks, he wins in the end. This Die Hard film didn't have the same plot as the previous two Die Hard films. Yes, it had a lot in common with the first one but it had its differences.

Tomorrow will be Dad's Army (the film released earlier this academic year).

Some Like It Hot.

Marilyn Monroe for a first appearance... ever... on the  blog. The woman with all the hype, married to Arthur Miller and a famous baseball player, death by overdose at the age of 36. The ultimate sex idol for men and women alike- Marilyn Monroe was, without a doubt, incredibly attractive. It's not that she made her name on playing the dumb blond, it's that she made her name by playing the dumb blond really well. Not taking 'dumb' too far but using it to good effect at the right times.

The music is fantastic. The addition of the Ukulele is a great touch and idea. Nice to see the mashup of music from different states of America being attempted at such an early stage in film years.

Sound effects and quality are dated but still good for their time. When you watch someone being shot in this film you get exactly what you would expect to get from any black and white movie. Some Like It Hot is also, at times, really quite funny. I roared with laughter all though the tennis during certain parts of this film. The concept of two men dressing as women and actually pulling it off for a two hour long film is ridiculous. It is very difficult to cross dress effectively and act believing as the opposite gender. More often than not it just looks like something out of pantomime with some really ugly women.

The ending to this film is simply superb! One of the best, most imaginative endings in history! I absolutely loved the ending to this film. I can just imagine the writers roaring with laughter after coming up with this idea for the ending of the film. Comical and at the same time perfect. There is something wonderful in this ending that no other film has managed to capture. The ending makes this film stand out above the others. It has to be considered on the list of all time greats just because of the end.

Mission Impossible Three.

Starting off more or less at the end is becoming a common and popular feature of action films. Once is a novelty, 5 times is okay but when it becomes the way to start off a film it's not cool anymore. It was cool in Fight Club and it kinda was cool in this but it made watching the end of the film harder because there was a certain 'yeah seen this before' attitude and feel to it.

Common feature of all Mission Impossible films? The face masks. You had to see it coming and when it did come it was a disappointment, just a little. I guess that without it you might forget that it was a Mission Impossible film. So we have the somewhat ridiculous stunts and the obvious plot that Ethan Hunt is being set up (familiar?, yet they managed to make five films from the same kind of plot! Changing the villain doesn't make it any better. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who is generally fantastic, is a good villain but one that angered me a little. I liked that he counted down and then actually did what he said he was going to do, no allowing Cruise to bullshit his way out of something and he wasn't prepared to show his malice by shooting the woman but even so- attacking people when they are injured because you know that they would beat you if they weren't injured is just pathetic and undeserving to the villainous character. Villains are often made out to be cowards but actually they can be just pure evil instead. If i was a famous actress I would read through a script and reject any film in which the villain was pathetic and had no sense of fair play.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers was the standout. I know him for the film 'August Rush' in which he was attractive and very cool. Hearing him speak Italian is fantastic! That much of an Irish accent makes speaking any language clearly very difficult but he really did pull it off. He's a guy that stands out so once he has been noticed he cannot take on a different role and appear again in a diversion or operation. As the addition to the team I was impressed with him. Likewise I was impressed with the introduction of Simon Pegg as the techy analyst that worried about his job. Every film needs one and Simon Pegg was peferct.

Just to throw it out- hands up who instantly made the double agent? It was so obvious. At first you might consider Lawrence Fishburne and everything about his character suggests that there could be that side to him but then you think about Lawrence Fishburne and it just doesn't make any sense. In these films there is always a double agent so by process of elimination within the first twenty minutes of the two hour film you have worked out who the real bad guy is. Not to mention that the way he dies is just pathetic- he just gets shot by the woman and that's the end of him- pathetic.

Alien Vs Predator

Something slightly different to create some breathing space on the blog. The good news for anyone bothering to keep up with the blog is that I have now decided to try and watch a film a day and therefore to update the list so that there are enough films to keep me going until the new year. You will be able to see the list of films for this years blog at the bottom of the blog so make sure that you check it out and comment on it/ make suggestions of films to watch.

Now back to the film. Reading the back I didn't recognise a single name but after watching it I realised that I knew Colin Salmon for Arrow and Tomorrow Never Dies. You can't miss his voice or his face- his voice is bold and very distinctive. Constantly unsure of what to make of his characters, there seems to reason to change anything- better to keep you guessing and therefore keep you engaged. Was he good, was he bad, was he just a character that thought he knew more than he did? By the end of the film the answers to those questions were still unclear to me.

What AVP has is a Tomb Raider feel. They have their main woman, Sanaa Lathan (who was superb) and although she is no Angelina Jolie she took on a similar role, with more of a team feel to her character and she carried it off superbly. The end was moving (maybe not as moving as when Lara Croft turns the knife around to save Alex West's life) but even so, it was a lovely end to the film that really summed up the film and the character.

There is nothing like this film. I can find films that I would put in the same category but I can't find anything that I can directly compare to. Tomb Raider is the closest I can find and even that can only be compared because of the journey that they set out on. The idea that in a temple full of aliens there are forces waiting to kill the aliens and are equipped to do so is a nice thought. It's not an invasion of the earth because they don't try to annihilate the human race. Humans working with predators to destroy a common enemy is different and certainly in 2004 there was nothing quite like AVP.

Ronin.

Should have been last night, I apologise for that but I wasn't feeling like watching a shooting film last night so I went for 'Eye in the sky' instead.

Sean Bean is in this film so what happens?? HE DIES! He made it further than he did in 'Goldeneye' when he dies for the first time and he also made it further than he did in 'Equilibrium' but not as far as he made it 'Patriot Games' which probably has to be his longest living film before death. There was nothing spectacular about him, he was a supporting actor who played his part and managed to die without it being a massive deal (afteral, he is a professional at dying).

The plot is easy- a package is wanted by the Irish and the Russians so an Irish agent hires some guys- Robert De Niro (US intelligence), Jean Reno (French) Sean Bean (English), Stellan Skarsgard (English but double agent and really sweedish) and Skipp Sudduth. Sean Bean dies on the job, Stellan Skarsgard gets shot trying to sell the package, Skipp Suduth has his throat cut by the Irish boss and both De Niro and Reno get shot at some point. In short- everyone gets shot or dies Bringing up the rear are Michael Lonsdale (Munich) and Jonathan Pryce (Pirates of the Caribbean, Evita, Tomorrow Never Dies, Game of Thrones).

Lots of action, lots of shooting and apparent spy work. Less shooting and killing than you would expect to find in a Liam Neeson film but marginally slightly more than you would expect from a Daniel Craig James Bond film. No real comedy but a real emotional scene where the Russian trades the life of his daughter, who is a famous figure skater, for the life of Stellan Skarsgard by killing him. His death means that there is no one to call off the sniper and so she dies. I was almost surprised by that call but deep down, even though you didn't want to believe it you knew that it was going to happen, that she was going to be sacrificed for the good of the package which in the end he doesn't even successfully take away with him.

I wasn't expecting this kind of film from De Niro. He is certainly capable of the kind of performance that he put in for this film but is not stereo-typically associated with this type of film- guns, yes- gangster/mafia/mob- yes but agents? Not really. Nice to see something different from him. There was never any reason as to why he couldn't play this type of character but if you ask anyone to name De Niro films the first ones they say will always be along the lines of 'Goodfellas, Casino, The Untouchables, Heat, Score etc and they all have things in common- guns and lots of shooting in a mob environment.

Like it, enjoyed it, keeping it.

Eye in the Sky

Alan Rickman's last film- I really wanted to see it when it was released in cinema and didn't manage to. Helen Mirren in action films is something to appreciate, admire and marvel all at the same time.

A military based film all about an operation called Eye in the Sky. Moving, emotional and very well written/ directed. Helen Mirren is fantastic in her role as colonel. What Mirren gives you is a solid performance as someone that rarely shows emotion. The normal face is one that is slightly cold and emotionless- perfect for military. At no point do you doubt her authority and at no point do you ever really want to go against her command, unless you are someone in a much higher position of authority.

Next to her, to counteract her but compliment her in a weird way is Alan Rickman as the chain of command in Britain. His role in this film was just to keep things moving along nicely. Not the standout but the solid supporting actor that keeps everything going, pulling the strings and not being noticed. A sublime performance, text book esq from him and another material that should be used by all teachers in acting schools to show how to manage the supporting role flawlessly.

So many famous people in this film that made brief appearances, were perfect in the role and just kept it moving along under the direction of Alan Rickman. Watching this film was not as entertaining as watching RED but it was still entertaining in a different way. Pleasant is probably a better way of describing this film.

The Revenant.

Another film released earlier this academic year. Leo DiCaprio finally won his Oscar for best actor and it beat the likes of 'The Big Short' , 'The Martian' and 'The Danish Girl'. Eddie Redmayne or Matt Damon would have been a better choice of winner for the award.

The hype around this film is unreal considering the quality of the film. The film is boring. There is no other way of saying it- the action hardly feels like action, no comedy, no real change in scenery or setting- nothing really to make it anything other than a documentary in colour. Of course this is just my opinion and others are more than welcome to have a different opinion- that's fine and if you want to contradict anything in these posts then please do so sensibly in the comment section. The amount of awards that this film won is unreal for a film that was lacking in most departments.

From a guy that won the award for best actor you would expect a moving performance showing class and quality but this did none of that. What makes him standout in this film about the likes of Matt Damon or a few others? The honest answer from me is nothing. Tom Hardy was superb as a supporting actor, his performance was worthy of an Oscar and it seems weird that he missed out when DiCaprio won, if anything it should be the other way around.

The Revenant is like 127 hours. Focus on one man for most of the more than two hour film with no real excitement. Watching this film is difficult, it is much easier to go off and do something else instead of actually paying attention to the film because it doesn't keep you on the edge of your seat- it struggles to keep you in your seat at all.

Next up will be Ronin.

Batman Vs Superman.

Too skeptical of the film to spend the money on it in cinema. Ben Affleck as Batman never filled me with hope or joy before the film was released. A fantastic Daredevil more than ten years ago, the world or Marvel and DC have now gone to be a massive franchise, people want to be a part of it, films are being made and released at a rate of one per year and TV producers and companies are going crazy. The TV series 'Daredevil' has become fantastic, alongside the likes of 'Arrow', 'Grimm', 'Flash' and a few others. Television always played with them, trying to find a combination that worked but until the last 5 years have not been successful. After Brandon Routh starred as Clarke Kent in 'Superman Returns' more attention turned towards the series 'Smallville' and from that they introduced the character of Oliver Queen and a few others but it was far from perfect or decent.
A few years ago they started up 'Daredevil', which made the performance of Ben Affleck (the only good one that I have seen from him) look like one of a A-level drama student. So, if this is the case, why was he cast opposite Henry Cavil if not to be the next Michael Keaton (one of the worst Batman's ever).

Dawn of Justice saw the return of all the normal characters from Superman: Man of Steel such as Lawrence Fishburne and Amy Adams but it also introduced Jesse Eisenberg (he has been away from decent films for too long) as Lex Luther in a very different portrayal of the character to any that I can remember. The first few scenes with him in left me a little confused and unsure of his character but from the guy known to be one of the most frequent villains in anything Superman related this take on the character was widely different yet refreshing.

So, Henry Cavil was fantastic. Like most superheroes he feels no need whatsoever to change his voice. The glasses are apparently all the human race needs to become completely dumbfounded and relatively stupid. Ignoring that, his performance was in perfect sync with the stunning performance we saw in 'Man of Steel'. Ben Affleck however, in a mechanical Batman role was shocking. Just looking at the trailers you could see that they had taken the man out of the hero and turned everything into machine, highlighting the fact far too much that Batman has no powers, he is just Bruce Wayne, billionaire with a world full of machinery at his disposal. Whether they took this approach because they acknowledged that Christian Bale was fantastic in the role I don't know but even if they didn't they should be claiming that angle because there are really no excuses for the poor character that was displayed in this film. In a fight Affleck looks like he would be doing really well to lay a punch on Cavil, who is younger, physically more fit and generally better. Ben Affleck looked like he needed a walking stick for the entire film and was trying to pretend that he was still 27.

So I have a question for all DC/Marvel lovers- why would you have two heroes battling against each other to really not achieve anything? (I know that X-men Vs Avengers graphic novel worked very well but that is because of the character of Scott Summers more than anything else, Batman and Superman don't have that dark side to their characters)

Ella Fitzgerald.

Something slightly different and new to the blog in the form a film made of live Ella Fitzgerald performances.

Documentaries or films of this nature don't really feature much on this blog (if any at all until now) but when someone passes me a film staring Ella Fitzgerald I don't hesitate. The quality of the film is fantastic for something so old. There is hardly any crackles and blank space or white noise in the recordings.

The chance to watch her in performance should never be turned down. Watching the expression in her face and being able to hear the tonality simultaneously is a treat! The filming of this is so good that close ups aren't too close and shots from further back are at the perfect distance to capture facial expression clearly from every member of the band playing on stage behind Fitzgerald.

There are hardly any films that are still successfully showing live performances but when you see this it seems unthinkable that now films have to star famous actors and be in colour to make a success. The style of her jazz is such that there is nothing nicer and more pleasant to do with your evening than to sit and not only watch her perform but listen to it as well.

This was watched just to take a break from the shoot 'em up films that are going to feature heavily over the next few days.

The Big Short.

It's not 'It's a Wonderful Life'- I haven't managed to get hold of a copy of that film and the only things left on my blog list for the year are films which have been within the last year.

The Big Short staring Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell and Brad Pitt. Released around the same time as 'The Revenant' and therefore did not win the Oscar for 'Best Actor' because that was claimed by Leonardo DiCaprio at his fifth time of asking. With a cast like this you hardly need to spend time talking about the quality of acting, Bale and Pitt have featured so many times on this blog that there is no reason to spend time repeating myself. Let us move on to the actual movie.

Favourite line from the film- 'Politely go and tell them to Fuck Off'. I love the idea that you can politely tell someone to do that when the point of swearing is that it isn't polite in any way.
Thing most liked about the film- The Soundtrack. A cover of Nirvana's 'Lithium', Metallica's 'Enter Sandman' and some other death metal makes for a fantastic soundtrack. This film didn't have death metal soundtrack written all over the cover so it was a pleasant surprise that I found some really great songs in the soundtrack. The feature of Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous 'The Phantom of the Opera' was something marvelous. Both the show and the music are incomparable to any other musical ever seen on the west end.

In a film like this, a film all about money I would almost expect to see Bradley Cooper featuring because this film has a 'Limitless' feel without the drugs. Then again because 'Limitless' was so fantastic it seemed fitting to not have him staring in a film all about making a lot of money and conning people in the money world. Ryan Gosling fills the shoes left by Cooper with excellence and superiority. A different role but one that could almost mirror the typical role taken on in almost every film about making money.

Stunning soundtrack makes for a fantastic film.

Unbreakable

Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson come face to face in a film made many years ago.

When Jackson is cast as the villain you think that no one can match him. Mostly I would put my money on him because he was super is Pulp Fiction, Kick Ass in Star Wars, Powerful in Coach Carter and generally fantastic in everything he has ever been in. When he points a gun at you the first thing that you do is do whatever he says and panic a lot but not Bruce Willis.

Willis has faced many enemies including Alan Rickman (Die Hard) and Karl Urban (RED) but Samuel L Jackson is probably the greatest enemy that he has faced. Knowing that he faced such great enemies it seemed wise to place a solid bet on Willis to hold his own in this battle. If you had done your money would have been well invested. No sudden fights to the death but the making for a very good second film and game of chess between the two. Seeing Samuel L Jackson in a wheelchair has a very James Bond villain feel to it and it makes the audience excited- a second film is desired.but was never made.

Some slightly dubious acting from the kid- hardly any real emotion shown, even when he was pointing a gun at his father. Children really do need to be made to sit down and watch every Abigail Breslin film because she is one of the only child actors that I have ever known to actually be good at acting. He can do better.

Next up- It's A Wonderful Life.

Apocalypse Now

Where to start? Apocalypse now is a weird film. Once you have familiarised yourself with the plot then there is no problem following it at all but even so there are times when you wonder what is going through their heads.

Martin Sheen is the main star of the film and let us take nothing away from him- I have said many times that he is a man that is underrated as an actor. I have liked everything that I have seen him in and even in this role he was superb. The film itself bored me but I guess that really any film that is three hours long and isn't 'The Lord Of The Rings' is going to bore me and unfortunately that is what happened in this film. Films about war don't interest me in the same way that other three hour long films can capture my attention for most of the film- I had lost all concentration by the first hour.

The music was fantastic Listening to The Rolling Stones was a nice touch and one that I approve of very much. The film didn't really have a typical military feel to it. With the addition of the decent music it had a similar kind of feel to the start of 'Iron Man'. Easy going and almost carefree- not something that you would ever expect from a team that are on an under cover mission that doesn't exist and will never exist. High profile targets and you are sitting on a boat, quite casually listening to 'Satisfaction' by 'The Rolling Stones'? I'm not sure that in that environment it is a gamble that you would take. Maybe I am wrong with this assumption but I will await the evidence before backing down on my opinion.

Next up- not sure yet- probably Unbreakable.

Seven Samurai

The last typically martial arts film on the list for the year. Like City of God it is a film in entirely in a language that I do not speak or understand.

Black and white film all about a Samurai that agrees to help a village out. He teaches six men to become Samurai's and then there is an epic battle where they take on 40 villains. It's hard to really comment on black and white films that aren't subtitled or in a language that you can't understand.

Some of the training scenes were cool but some were also really silly and rubbish. Two minutes of waiting whilst they pose and stare at each other before a thirty second fight scene. For a film about martial arts we want to see long ish but realistic scenes. When you start out training then fighting your instructor would look a bit like that but if it did then you probably wouldn't chose to fight them with a real sword. The addition of the real sword that just showed a black hole in difference of quality between the fighters was needless and pointless. Even if you are that good try to drag it out a little for entertainment.

I got fed up with it when the camera spent a long time focusing on a woman's ass. I have no wish to go into a feminist rant (I am not a feminist) but watching films that were clearly filmed by a man who thinks like a boy is just frustrating.

Next up Apocalypse Now (and hopefully more enjoyable).

City of God.

A difficult film to watch if you speak neither Portuguese nor Spanish. First and foremost, the film is set in Brazil and everything about it is Brazilian so if that is not your cup of tea then no need to read any further.

I appreciate that not everything on this blog will be to your tastes, I try to get a bit of everything on the blog and am constantly looking for new or different things. I would suggest that anyone travelling to Brazil for the Olympics or just because they want to should watch this film as it is very accurate in its portrayal of organised crime and the may other slightly scandalous things that take place on the streets of Brazil.

Normally at this time I would talk about the dialogue and the characters but with a film that I was forced to watch as a silent movie, that gave a gangster feel but at times was still looking for the wow factor that was going to make it the film that everyone remembered, the film that was going to take it to the top of the films about organised crime and it did the best that it could do.

Playing very much on the theme of Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't; City of God depicts very clearly the troubles when growing up around organised crime. Throughout film history we have seen it many times, we have seen the characters that grow up and accept it as part of their lives, aspire to join the gang and get by, make a lot of money and then got shot and we have also seen the people that try to escape from it and never really manage it. This film falls in to the latter category but is more than just an attempt. What makes it different is the innocence of the main character Rocket. A young man that doesn't really understand what he is doing, isn't actually trying to join a gang is something that is rarely seen in the gangster/mob section of the film world. City of God is different and for that it should be respected.

City of Angels.

Those of you that are musical lovers like me will know that there is a musical by the same name that features 'The Tennis Song'. The film with the same name stars Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan. Meg Ryan was fantastic in the film 'You've Got Mail', alongside Tom Hanks'. Nicolas Cage is one that constantly divides opinion with his films. Prior to this I had only seen 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' and 'Kick-ass'- both of which were good films but also had other things or people in them to help support Cage.

Sticking strictly to the film his performance was for most of the film unemotional and lacking. With the plot being about an angel that comes to guide the dead to heaven, ends up in a hospital guiding a man and falling in love with a doctor- you could then say that it is fair for his performance to lack emotion. Angels can't bleed and don't feel anything so his performance was very passive- almost Tears for Fears like in Mad World but when he became human the performance hardly changed and that was disappointing. The most emotion that we got out of him was after she had died- he cried. Normally when people lose a loved one they drink, scream, cry their hearts out and generally make a lot of noise or throw things- he did none of that really.

The film didn't have any emotions running through it. Meg Ryan was the standout performer. When she got angry you could see it, she responded like a human and she was really the only outlet of emotion in what otherwise was a completely emotionless film. If you had taken a lot of drugs, were on a come down and were about to die then that is probably what this film would feel like. He set the bar very low- he can do a lot better- he was a lot better in Corelli's mandolin.

Days of Thunder.

No prior knowledge of this film led to it's constant procrastination and holiday from the blog. In previous years films have been watched in actor order but at times a change is needed. Matt Damon, Leo DiCaprio, Bruce Willis and Tom Cruise are regular features on the blog and separating them can, at times, be very hard as they normally all equal a lot of action, gun, shooting films. Days of Thunder is not that type of film and had I actually bothered to read the synopsis months ago I would have watched it a lot sooner.

One of two films I have seen about racing, with the other being 'Rush'. 'Days of Thunder' came about twenty years before 'Rush', which was released a few years ago and is quite clearly the platform for 'Rush'. The script wasn't as emotional or as strong as 'Rush' but then 'Rush' was based on a true story and 'Days of Thunder' was created entirely as fiction.

There was nothing to the character or Cole. It was like they just put Tom Cruise in a fast car and told him to drive- everything else was natural but not in a good way. No real character development and no strong emotional moments, not even when he was in hospital and couldn't see anything. Watching this film was clearly watching a film and nothing else. I couldn't connect with it in anyway. For me watching Days of Thunder was like going to the theatre with a friend, letting them chose the play and then actually finding the play really quite boring- you clap to be polite and smile but actually there was nothing that made it particularly enjoyable.

Nicole Kidman played the character well but she wasn't a standout part. Her character was weak. At times I feel that it is the actor that makes the role. Just look at Johnny Depp in 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. The character of 'Captain Jack Sparrow' was nothing like how it came out originally. Depp changed the character completely and the producers weren't a particular fan of how he played but the rest of the world loved it. Strong actors take the inniative and make the character their own. We spend so much time telling new artists to go out there and make a song their own and that is what an actor has to do with a character, become the character, connect with the character and make the character stronger than what is written on the pieces of paper handed to you.

Disappointment generally from the film but the film itself is okay- it's not standout but it is memorable and that for film makers is what really matters.

12 Angry Men.

Read the synopsis and this film comes across as one which is very boring. Watch it, watch the cleverness of the film team to create something special that only has one scene in the entire film.

I can't name a single person in this film, this film is not about individual actors or even the actors as a collective. What helps this film to stand out are the opinions of the characters, the opinions of people at the time which are completely, historically true and therefore powerful and meaningful . The fact that it takes an hour to convince a man that there is doubt in this case after everyone else has realised it is just ridiculous. There was no logical reasoning as to why this member of the jury was so prejudice but then that was really what it was all about- a few people that were trying to convict a kid based on a prejudice- they couldn't have seen or heard what they were claiming to hear and the kid had a rubbish lawyer because he was a minority. This film in many ways was like a shorter version of Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Maockingbird'.

The change in outside weather was the only thing that helped the audience to understand the passing of time. I admire the one man who was strong enough to keep his vote when it was clear that he was the only one with a difference in opinion. As the film developed reason came to play a stronger part, prejudice was overthrown and the position of the jury was made clear to the jurors- you are there to only condemn someone if you feel that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt- you cannot convict someone just because you don't like them.

Is this a good film? For it's time, definitely yes but only because of the context behind it. Analysing the filmography of it then you would have to say - No. The plot itself would not hold up in cinemas today and critics would be calling it a sensational flop. This film is more one of a political nature and therefore should be treated as one, one that in its time would have made a big stand on society in America and one that would have been very powerful.