2007 #10Proof if it were needed that the format of the rom-com has gone largely unchanged for at least 80 years! In that respect It makes for a fairly entertaining film, with some story elements that modern audiences might find surprisingly, well, modern.
Entertaining but not essential.
2007 #9The fact that it’s an old silent film will be enough to put most people off. Some of those are worth seeking out, of course, but I would hesitate to recommend this one.
The score may be a little unfair as the plot and execution of it aren’t too bad, but somehow I can’t bring myself to give it any more.
This is a tricky film to rate. The plot is pretty inconsequential and drags things out a bit toward the end, but that’s not what you come to a film like Ong-Bak for — it’s here for the action.
When it comes (the pointless plot machinations hold it off for a while), it delivers pretty well indeed, with some impressive work from star Tony Jaa.
I err on the side of generosity with my score.
2007 #7As you may have gathered from #6, I think that both of these films are fine examples of Bond filmmaking. FYEO is probably the better of the two, but not without its faults — no Moore film would be complete without some moments that threaten to utterly balls it up, and this one has a painful, outdated comedic ending, as well as an unnecessary pre-titles.
I dislike Roger Moore as Bond, mostly based on the number of piss-poor films he starred in. It seems I may just have been watching the wrong ones.
Whereas FYEO (see #7) is relatively widely praised, Octopussy is relatively widely panned. I’m not sure why. Yes, there’s a crap bit for about 10 minutes in the middle; yes, the clown outfit is a little silly; but, for the most part, it’s pretty darn entertaining.
Not the franchise’s all time high, but far from the worst entry.
I forget which British paper described this as “the best film ever, ever, ever”. It may’ve been The Guardian.* They’re not right, of course, but it has its moments — most of them courtesy of the excellent Rob Brydon, who far outshines Steve Coogan. It’s worth watching for the former alone.
* It was.
2007 #4I loved Magnolia. I thought Punch-Drunk Love was dire. And this is how I come to Boogie Nights.
I didn’t fall for it in the same way I did for Magnolia, but it is nonetheless a very good film that shows a step on the path to that more complex and more rewarding picture. One I may get a better feel for when I see it again some day.
2007 #3A seriously underrated Disney film, though it does appear to have a substantially large cult following based on it being seriously underrated.
If you like your Disneys musical this may be one to avoid, though the couple of songs present are quite decent, but if you’re a Sherlock Holmes fan you should definitely catch it.
I had no desire to see this film, for whatever reason, until I saw the trailer two or three (or more) times at my uni’s CinSoc, after which I thought it looked like it could be quite funny and cool. So I rented it, and it disappointed me.
It’s not a new Donnie Darko, as some would have you believe; it’s not that funny either, actually, or that quirky, really. It’s not the worst thing ever, but by and large it’s best avoided.
The first film I saw in 2007, and I saw it on New Years Day!
Eragon wants to be the next Lord of the Rings / Harry Potter / Narnia, especially with its utter lack of resolution at the end, but it just isn’t. It has its entertaining moments, but it’s also lumbered with huge lumps of bad dialogue, bad acting and fantasy clichés abound.
I have no idea how it compares to the book.
100Films.co.uk 